# Talk:HNLMS De Ruyter (1935)

The link to the list of ships of this name seems to send me back to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulinSaudi (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 December 2004

This passage:
"However, due to the cost-cutting policy that went into her design, De Ruyter was not quite up to her task. Her main battery (7 × 150 mm guns) was underpowered in comparison to other light cruisers of the time (for example the British Leander class), and the class had inadequate armour as well and lacked long range anti-aircraft guns. However, her fire control system was excellent."
This seems unnecessarily belittling. She has one main gun less than a Leander which is a thousand tons heavier and one main gun more than an Arethusa which is a thousand tons lighter. Both classes receive glowing articles on this wiki. She can't be called undergunned.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4404:143a:1900:1497:f3a3:e31b:952 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HNLMS De Ruyter (1935)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 17:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jordano53 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Will start review later this week! Jordano53 16:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, this one got away from me. Reviewing now. Jordano53 19:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
@GGOTCC: Review is complete! Jordano53 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jordano53 Thank you very much for the copyedits, I really appreaciate it! I'll incorperate your feedback now. GGOTCC 21:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jordano53 I (think) I addressed all other concerns, but may you elaborate on the diffrences between the infobox on prose? Is the issue that they contradict eachother, or are written diffrently? GGOTCC 21:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see the issue. I would be compeltly blind if you did not mention it! GGOTCC 21:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
They contradict each other. The measurements in the infobox have different decimals than the ones in the prose. Jordano53 23:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jordano53 Thanks! Have I fixed all of the issues? GGOTCC 00:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
@GGOTCC: I still see 170.9 in the infobox and 170.8 in the prose. Jordano53 05:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jordano53I swear I changed that twice. Thanks! GGOTCC 05:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Cool beans- should be good to pass now. Jordano53 05:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Appologies for the back and forth. I've been sleep deprived all week, hence my blindness. Cheers! GGOTCC 05:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh great this page is nominated, despite how oversimplified it is
First up, this article has been vastly oversimplified and has deleted much information on De Ruyter's career which was up previously. Discussing the battle's events as a whole is important since De Ruyter was the allied flagship and in command of these events, and even then it just makes for better writing. No one likes an oversimplified article which glosses over a ship's career and forces you to do a bunch of outside research to actually grasp a good understanding of a ship's career.
User GGOTCC also deleted all sources pertaining to the ship's career and replaced it with Jeffery Cox, whom has been heavily criticized by accomplished histrions like Anthony Tully, Robert Lundgren, Dan Kaplan, etc etc, whom I have had many conversations with. I particularly read a Negative review of the inaccuracy of his book "Blazing star, setting sun". Even if Cox was more accurate, basing your entire article on a single source is a bad idea and such a mistake has had articles flagged for review.
Said user also stated I made up a widely used way to cite ages, IE state the author's last name, the date published and/or simplified name of book, and the page cited. This has been used many times (articles on Naval battle of Guadalcanal, battle of Tassafaronga, battle of Cape Esperance, battle of the Eastern Solomons, are examples I can think of off the top of my head). I find it hard to believe he's genuinely this inept when it comes to Wikipedia editing, and find it more reasonable he's looking for reasons to keep this article the way he likes it.
Finally, the supposed picture of Haguro GGOTCC decided to use is very obviously her sistership Myoko. Haguro never received two rangefinders on top her bridge, and in fact still carried the bridge of the 1930s era (similar to the famous pictures of Ashigara in Europe). Haguro, Nachi, and Ashigara were only refitted in 1943 with bridges distant from Myoko. There are many photos which clearly prove this
I have no idea why this article is nominated, or even why nominations should exist as it prevents misinformation from being destroyed; Everything on Teruzuki's article pertaining to the first naval battle of Guadalcanal is complete bogus even though that is nominated.  Micheal Harrens (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

From my reply on your talkpage:
For context, the article has recently passed both GA and DYK review. While edits to these pages were welcome, several users have verified that the status quo was satisfactory at a fundamental level regarding reliability, scope, and the use of sources
You removed the entire ‘wreck’ section without given reason, even though the section was supported by verifiable sources from official government reports and news coverage
Per WP:CITEVAR, you should not change the citation style of an article, and are especially recommended to not use two simultaneous methods of citations. Your edits use both rp page numbers and short citations
You changed most of the article’s page numbers, even for prose you did not touch. As such, those sections are now supported by the wrong sections of text
You introduce unencyclopedic language from an old version of the article, including “pesky” and “unfortunately”
You remove verifiable sources and replace them with websites such as microworks.net and combinedlfeets with lacks citations
You do not use inline citations, and lump every cite at the end of each paragraph, which is an issue as some sections are now supported with 5 references
None of your shortrefs link to a respective book
You lumped sources into a Further Reading section, even though only a few are cited
Several citations are duplicates
You complain that the ‘Service History’ section is all based off Rising Sun, Falling Skies: The Disastrous Java Sea Campaign of World War II which is blatantly untrue. The GA version cites
Cruisers of World War Two : An International Encyclopedia
Warship Profile 40: Her Netherlands Majesty's Ship De Ruyter
The Royal Netherlands Navy of World War II
Rising Sun, Falling Skies: The Disastrous Java Sea Campaign of World War II
the National Museum of the U.S. Navy
Java Sea 1942: Japan's conquest of the Netherlands East Indies. 
Each of these are published,  high-quality sources. You praise the old version of the article prior to my edits. That version cites uboat.net (a source with dubious reliability), combinedfleets.org which lacks references, and has unsupported paragraphs

You also state that the GA version of the article makes no mention of the cruiser as ABDA flagship, which is untrue as it was mentioned in an image caption and in the first paragraph under 'Dutch East Indies Campaign'
You state that File:Haguro (1941) (cropped).jpg does not depict Haguro. Please provide a source for this claim, as the current image states otherwise
Your edits expand the scope of Battle of the Java Sea to the entire battle, which is not needed as the article is about the role De Ruyter had
This was all done in the same edit, hence my revert

GGOTCC 23:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
+ your personal conversations with people is not a valid reason to remove refrences to a published book, especially if that book in question had not been criticized. A brief search shows that Cox's reliability has not been questioned on Wikipedia. GGOTCC 23:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@User:KevinVD Hello! I have seen you  have done some substancial rework to the article's wreck section. While edits to the article are always welcome, your large edit is heavily flawed, hence my reverts. Since you then reverted my change without explination, I will write out exactly why I reverted the article innitially.

According to WP:CITEVAR, citations should follow the existing standard in the article. The current article uses long refs, while you add barl URLs. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources to understand the difference. These URLs are also poor citations as they are bad for several reasons, including link rot and not being informative.
The image you added is still copyrighted due to the massive copyright waternark on the lower corner. Even if it is your image, you must release it into the public domain with no copyrights for it to be used on Wikipedia.
This is a good article, which means reliable sources should be used. What appears to be a blog and several amature website do not count as being reliable. Please see more here:Wikipedia:Reliable sources
You can not cite 'personal correspondence' on the site, per Wikipedia:No original research as no one else can verify the information.
It is generally advisable to not cite yourself in a Wikipedia article in all other cases. While it is *allowed*, the document in scribd and Pacific Wrecks seems to be self-published, which is not allowed.
The previous section was well strctured and had passed both Good Article and Did You Know review. Since so much of the changes cite yourself in some way, then this may be grounds of self-promotion. GGOTCC 14:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Who are you the Wiki police? Or did I step into your personal fiefdom or something, as you were obviously 'watching' the page given you instant reaction? You don’t even seem to realise that the section was incorrect in parts, and there wasn't anything there do with the wreck discovery itself (in a section entitled ‘Wreck’!). And the wreck did not sit upright, nor was it discovered by 'amateur' divers as it stated. Do you want the facts there on the page about the wreck and its discovery, or something someone dreamt up? You give me flak about my references and you use a single newspaper article and think that is factual? You don’t have a clue! And 'self promotion" really? I have nothing to self promote, just the FACTS. Seems you though would rather have an 'encyclopedia' with falsehoods than actual facts. Anyway so I do not offend further your sensibilities I have gone back and taken out some of the references that so offended you. But no doubt you will still try to cause trouble, so were do we go from here? The Wiki court of appeal or some such? ;-) KevinVD (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
@KevinVD Sure, the entry I just made at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#HNLMS De Ruyter (1935). Although, it seems you have taken my comments personally and may not be in the correct headspace to properly discuss the matters. Would you like to revisit this when you feel better?
The old 'Wreck' section had 7 citations to either official reports or news articles form seperate sources. While each article is not individually impervious to falsehoods, the process of having each article professionally reviewed and published by their respective organizaitions ensures that mistakes would be caught. These checks to not exist for your citations, as they either appear to be self-published, inherantly impossible to verify, or sources that otherwise lack reliability, such as random websites.
Please, go through each of my points to see what I am talking about. If you object, explain why. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, information needs to verifiable and reliable. A deeper explination is on that page. Even if something is *true*, a source should not be added if the justification is *trust me*. This is example of self-promotion as almost all of the sources you add seem to have originated with you. GGOTCC 15:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Just for the sake of clerity, these are the issues I have with the new sources that have not already been removed (which was a self-bio on a blog and an off-line conversation):
Ref 8 - article written by the editor. Since the citation has no information on where the article is from, and the article makes no mention of citations or if it was published, then it may violate Wikipedia:No original research
Ref 9 - appears to be a blog written by someone who interviewed KevinVD but is not the interview itself (see WP:BLOGS)
Ref 10 - Links the homepage of an Australian club and makes no mention of the topic
Ref 12 - Article in an outdoors magazine about the topic which cites an interview with KevinVD, although the information was already supported by republe sources
Ref 14 - Semi-interview with KevinVD about his opinion finding the wreck
Many of these are primary sources from the same person, and the edits seem to be self-promotional as they were added by said person. Since this is a Good Article, primary sources need to be avoided. I also do not see the point of these citations, as the old version of the article largley contains the same information. According to KevinVD, the issues with the old version were because the article mentioned the shipwreck sits upright (which is still supported in the current version) and that the article mentions that the wreck was found by 'amature divers'. The new citation, a self published blog, does not directly refute the old description, which was cited to The Guardian.
If I misunderstand the sources, then please add information to the refrences beyond the URL so people know where the information is from. GGOTCC 23:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Before I take the time to answer your points / questions one by one I must ask who are you and what gives you the right to remove edits at will? I am asking a serious	question here, I am not being sarcastic, I just would like to know	why you believe it is, or it is, OK for you to remove something	others put up that is incorrect, but I cannot correct those inaccuracies? As while you seem very conversant with Wiki procedures, etc, it seems you know next to nothing about the section on the page	you so quickly jumped into to change? (BTW, when I look up GGOTCC on the web I find to no surprise, nobody, but have you bothered to do the same re me just so you know where I am coming from re information surrounding that wreck?) KevinVD (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
A fundamental aspect is that Wikipedia is free to use and edit by everyone. I have the same right to edit the page as you. As Wikipedia is open to everyone, a major aspect of that is Wikipedia:Consensus and open discussion between editors to come to a shared conclusion regarding disputes. Your personal identity, which you have shared with me, reveals that every citation you added is connected with you personally. This is a blatant conflict of interest and is even more reason why the contents of each reference should be questioned, even though your personal experiences do not automatically make your edits correct. While your personal contributions to the topic are appreciated, finding shipwrecks and writing about them on a cooperative encyclopedia are different skills. There are now three different users who have taken issue with your edits. If you continue to dig in and refuse to accept feedback, then Wikipedia editing may not be for you. Again, I reverted your edits per WP:CITEVAR and how unreliable each source was.
And frankly, it is creepy that an old man is demanding personal information about a different user. Please do not be creepy. GGOTCC 19:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
What is it with you GGOTCC, do you not want to improve / correct the article or do you want it left spreading falsehoods / inaccuracies (which is what it seems you do). I don't know what shower you came down in, but long before your participation in this wreck section on the De Ruyter page, but much of the discovery info I just put (back) there was already there and had been for many years. However, when it was removed I don’t know, possibly a long time ago, as somewhere along the way my ‘notify me of edits’ request obviously expired, so I was not aware of the inaccuracies that were there until recently.
And you say “I act on the 'authority' that Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone interested in improving the article.” Bingo, there you go, so do I!
And just to be clear NONE of the websites I linked are mine, or my blog, as I don’t have one! What gives you that idea? Boy oh boy, you certainly make a LOT of assumptions.
Anyway to addressing your points, one by one.
1) Wreck is on the bottom with a list of 45 degrees. That is not 'upright’ in my and most peoples book, so the word ‘upright’ needs and deserves a qualifier to express the wrecks exact orientation. As for adding more text, yes I said I did that. That is, I edited / rewrote the first three sentences (because of their inaccuracies) and then added additional descriptive text re the wreck / it’s discovery to make the section more informative. Seems though you don’t want it to be more informative. Why are you so intent on leaving it as it was, mistakes and all? Do you have something personally invested in it? Or do think you get to say / put a limit of size of edits /  paragraphs too?
2) So now you get to say what professional is too? I don’t think so. A professional is a member of a profession or any person who works in a specified professional activity. Who said you pave to be paid to be a professional at something you are doing. I could have used the word ‘expert’ instead of ‘professional’ but I abhor that word when it comes to scuba divers. And why do you keep saying ‘a diver’ when you obviously know (by now at least I’d hope) it was diverS?
3) What do I have to do with 2016 expedition? Nothing! Other than know the people on it, I had nothing whatsoever to do with it. As I said above, you make a LOT of assumptions! And if as you say the Dutch government wrote 2017, then that is simply wrong or a typo. Why don’t you do someone ‘research’ yourself so you know what is fact and what is not and not rely on a single incorrect date? The expedition was conducted between 1st and 12th November 2016. REPEAT 2016. Please look at the date at bottom of this newspaper article https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/three-dutch-second-world-war-shipwrecks-vanish-java-sea-indonesia as there is no longer a direct link to the expedition report it seems. And that reference you allude to is what I (thought) linked the report to the Australian Explorers Club page (as the expedition was conducted under an Explorers Club Flag https://www.explorers.org/about/in-the-field/ ) but it I see after that fact that it only goes to their home page (but by the time I noticed that you had already jumped in and rudely removed my initial edit. You are just ‘way too quick off the draw' old chap.)
Folks like you (and yours) really erk me, and is one of the reason many historians and many professionals stay clear of Wiki. Instead of you rudely jumping in and changing my edit poste haste within minutes of me posting it, why didn't you politely contact me via this ‘talk’ page first? As I said above though, you are just to quick off the draw and it seems full of yourself, and while you seem to know a lot about Wiki, you obviously no next to nothing about the page / wreck we are now discussing
Anyway, I have wasted enough time explaining you misconceptions. I was trying to educate you on the facts re the wreck / discovery but you seem determined to believe what yuo want. So be it, that's your perogative, but please don’t try to force your erroneous beliefs on the ‘public’ / Wiki readers.
PS. All my ‘questions/ in the above are rhetorical, they do not require answers.
PSS. To ease some of your pain, I will go back in later today and add some info to me references, which I would have done the other day if you had not been so quick off the draw to rudely jump in and try to dump my edits altogether. KevinVD (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I endorse GGOTCC's concerns. You should address his points and not question his motive Lyndaship (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
I too endorse the concerns GGOTCC brings forward. The encyclopedia should not be used for self-promotion. I would also caution you, KevinVD to consider tempering your tone a bit. Wikipedia is based on community consensus, in other words, we discuss matters civilly among editors, and yes, all editors are equal here, their thoughts and opinions are to be considered with respect. We solve content disagreements through thoughtful discussion. Please be considerate of your fellow editors, and kindly refrain from calling them rude, pedantic, or accuse them of deliberately spreading falsehoods. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I did not ask you Lyndaship. ;-) And I am not going to waste further time addressing anything until GGOTCCI informs me what 'authority' he / she  operates under as it were. KevinVD (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
But I did not ask you Lyndaship. And until GGOTCC informs me of whose / what authority he is acting under I will not waste further time answering his points.
But for the record, I changed / edited only the first three sentences (see below) in that Wreck section because of the inaccuracies they contained, and then added additional factual material. 'I did not touch the rest of the the text in that section. (And then, after being informed of the "no copyright stamp 'rule'" I went back in and replaced the photo of mine (with a copyright stamp) to the same one but without the copyright stamp.) Mine below in CAPITALS.
"The cruiser sank upright WRONG IT LAID OVER AT ABOUT 40 / DEGREES. in 69 m (226 ft) of water. Her wreck was discovered by an amateur diver in 2002. WRONG. DIVERS. AND THEY WEREN'T AMATEUR. When an expedition in 2017 WRONG IT WAS 2016 was only able to find an imprint left in the seabed, the wreck was believed to have been intentionally dismantled." KevinVD (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Per your first question, I act on the 'authority' that Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone interested in improving the article.
With your edits, you could have used/added refrences to reliable and verifiable sources that also discuss the shipwreck which are detached from yourself. I do not see how citing the homepage of an Austrlian exploration club would improve the article in any page.
You also added significantly more prose than your claim that you corrected three facts. I will break each one down:
The cruiser sank upright Your blog does not refute this claim. The article stated that the ship sank  upright, not that it was perfectly upright on the seafloor. 'Upright' still indicates that the wreck was right-side up, which is a claim supported by your image and other sources
Her wreck was discovered by an amateur diver in 2002. What source refutes the term 'amature'? Since you have claimed to be the person who found the wreck, and claim to not be an amature, then you insinuate that you are a professional and were paid. In this case, that is yet another conflict of interest if you were paid to interact with the subject matter and another reason why your edits should be questioned and reviewed. Please see the flair on your talk page regarding this.
When an expedition in 2017 This claim is supported by the Dutch government, thank you. However, you should not cite yourself for this claim.
Since you now regurally reject the concerns of other users and refuse to hear what they have to say, then you clerly should read WP:UNCIVIL and know that this could warrent a block. GGOTCC 19:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
You certainly ar pedantic. what is it wiyh you, do you wnat to improve, corrct the artcle or do you wnat it left spreadi ng falshood.
1) It laying on the bootm with a list of 45 degrees. That is not 'upright, it needs and deserves a quliferto epxprees it sexact orination. KevinVD (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Opps, seems my reply did not take in full, nor before I spell checked it, etc. The below is what was meant to be my reply.
What is it with you GGOTCC, do you not want to improve / correct the article or do you want it left spreading falsehoods / inaccuracies (which is what it seems you do). I don't know what shower you came down in, but long before your participation in this wreck section on the De Ruyter page, but much of the discovery info I just put (back) there was already there and had been for many years. However, when it was removed I don’t know, possibly a long time ago, as somewhere along the way my ‘notify me of edits’ request obviously expired, so I was not aware of the inaccuracies that were there until recently.
And you say “I act on the 'authority' that Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone interested in improving the article.” Bingo, there you go, so do I!
And just to be clear NONE of the websites I linked are mine, or my blog, as I don’t have one! What gives you that idea? Boy oh boy, you certainly make a LOT of assumptions.
Anyway to addressing your points, one by one.
1) Wreck is on the bottom with a list of 45 degrees. That is not 'upright’ in my and most peoples book, so the word ‘upright’ needs and deserves a qualifier to express the wrecks exact orientation. As for adding more text, yes I said I did that. That is, I edited / rewrote the first three sentences (because of their inaccuracies) and then added additional descriptive text re the wreck / it’s discovery to make the section more informative. Seems though you don’t want it to be more informative. Why are you so intent on leaving it as it was, mistakes and all? Do you have something personally invested in it? Or do think you get to say / put a limit of size of edits /  paragraphs too?
2) So now you get to say what professional is too? I don’t think so. A professional is a member of a profession or any person who works in a specified professional activity. Who said you pave to be paid to be a professional at something you are doing. I could have used the word ‘expert’ instead of ‘professional’ but I abhor that word when it comes to scuba divers. And why do you keep saying ‘a diver’ when you obviously know (by now at least I’d hope) it was diverS?
3) What do I have to do with 2016 expedition? Nothing! Other than know the people on it, I had nothing whatsoever to do with it. As I said above, you make a LOT of assumptions! And if as you say the Dutch government wrote 2017, then that is simply wrong or a typo. Why don’t you do someone ‘research’ yourself so you know what is fact and what is not and not rely on a single incorrect date? The expedition was conducted between 1st and 12th November 2016. REPEAT 2016. Please look at the date at bottom of this newspaper article https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/three-dutch-second-world-war-shipwrecks-vanish-java-sea-indonesia as there is no longer a direct link to the expedition report it seems. And that reference you allude to is what I (thought) linked the report to the Australian Explorers Club page (as the expedition was conducted under an Explorers Club Flag https://www.explorers.org/about/in-the-field/ ) but it I see after that fact that it only goes to their home page (but by the time I noticed that you had already jumped in and rudely removed my initial edit. You are just ‘way too quick off the draw' old chap.)
Folks like you (and yours) really erk me, and is one of the reason many historians and many professionals stay clear of Wiki. Instead of you rudely jumping in and changing my edit poste haste within minutes of me posting it, why didn't you politely contact me via this ‘talk’ page first? As I said above though, you are just to quick off the draw and it seems full of yourself, and while you seem to know a lot about Wiki, you obviously no next to nothing about the page / wreck we are now discussing
Anyway, I have wasted enough time explaining you misconceptions. I was trying to educate you on the facts re the wreck / discovery but you seem determined to believe what yuo want. So be it, that's your perogative, but please don’t try to force your erroneous beliefs on the ‘public’ / Wiki readers.
PS. All my ‘questions/ in the above are rhetorical, they do not require answers.
PSS. To ease some of your pain, I will go back in later today and add some info to me references, which I would have done the other day if you had not been so quick off the draw to rudely jump in and try to dump my edits altogether. KevinVD (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
UPDATE. I see now GGOTCC that you seem to be confusing two separate expeditions. It was 2016 when the divers, under the auspices of The Explorers Club and the Karel Doorman Foundation FIRST discovered the wrecks were missing. It was another one in 2017 - completely separate / not same participants as the 2016 expedition - where the Dutch Government simply confirmed 'officially' that that, i.e. missing, was the case. KevinVD (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
@KevinVD Again, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, WP:CITEVAR, and WP:BLOGS. This article uses long citations, and please ensure the image caption actually reflects the image. The image's description, which you added, says it was taken in 2025. GGOTCC 09:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I'll also like to express bafflement at reference 14 you added which you described as, "The 2016 expedition". Are you citing the event itself as a reference? GGOTCC 20:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
@KevinVD If you do not want your edits to be reverted, then you should ensure that the edit is complete and as intended. Since you admit that you are not finished, and that you did not know what link you had added, then you should review more before publishing an edit (also, ensure that your edits are grammatically correct and are internally consistant with the article). There is no timelimit on Wikipedia, so you can finish any planned edit anytime I want. If one of my edits would break a template, I don't publish a change and say "I'll fix it tomorrow", but instead make sure my edit does as it is intended. Any true professional understands the importance of having their work reviewed, questioned, and improved, along with the importance of reliable, trustworthy sources. If you do not like that, then editing Wikipedia may not be for you.
An "amature" is someone who is not a professional and not compensated for their activity. As you mentioned that you were sponsored by an organization for work relating to the topic, that is still a conflict of interst as you acted in a professional manner and had recieved some from of compensation (ie. transport).
Below is a new version of the section that incorperates your feedback while avoiding WP:BLOGS, origonal research, and conflicts of intrest. A third paty, such as @Lyndaship, or @Netherzone can give their feedback, although you have ignored their concerns and have stated that you are uninterested in change.

## Wreck
The cruiser sank upright in 69 m (226 ft) of water, and settled on her starboard side. Her wreck was discovered by a dive team in 2002, who regularly visited her and found the wrecks of similar ships. When a memorial expedition in 2016 was only able to find an imprint left in the seabed, the wreck was believed to have been intentionally dismantled. The Dutch government investigated, offended at the mass disturbance of war graves. An investigation determined the wreck's disappearance was part of a trend where shallow World War II-era shipwrecks were blown apart and salvaged by groups posing as fishermen. The vessel believed to be responsible, the Chinese dredger Chuan Hong 68, was detained by Malaysian authorities in 2024 and accused of dismantling the wrecks for either low-background steel or scrap metal. They alleged the scrapping was done regardless of the wrecks' nationality, with American, Dutch, Japanese, British, and Australian ships affected. In 2018, The Guardian reported the bones from De Ruyter and other warships were removed from their respective wrecks during scrapping in Indonesia and were dumped in several mass graves nearby. The Dutch and Indonesian governments collaborated in the investigation, exhumed suspected graves, and laid out plans to prevent further damage to the shipwrecks. GGOTCC 19:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)