This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kramatorsk railway station attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A merge should be done quickly, before each copy gets editited differently.
Chesapeake77 ( talk) 13:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
All place-related Wikipedia articles have maps. I move that this one be kept, or improved but definitely not removed.
Please discuss / vote below.
Chesapeake77 ( talk) 14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Cite reliable sources for your various claims. Nicodene ( talk) 22:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Can't cite it, can't include it in the article. Sorry. Spread your message to the world and convince them first. Then report back here if that works. Nicodene ( talk) 23:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is bombing the most felicitous word to use in this article's title? When I read "bombing", I tend to think of bombs dropping from airplanes or being planted by terrorists or criminals. Deor ( talk) 16:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
That seems rather condescending, I agree an airstike sounds better. Bombing inspires the idea of a static object being dropped or detonated in place while an airstike is more missle/guided ammunition. Putting a picture of a cartoon bomb might be what YOU think but seems like a rude way to address this concern. The Introvert Next To You ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
It looks as if the missile was not meant to penetrate structures, but rather to deliver a bomb (or, more likely, several bombs). Thus, it was likely both a missile attack and a bombing. Let's see what reliable sources call it. Cs32en Talk to me 19:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at multiple reliable sources, the word "attack" seems to be preferred. Some call it a "strike", which is quite similar. While it can legitimately be called a bombing, that seems to be less prevalent in reliable sources, and it may lead readers to assume that someone planted a bomb, the kind of execution that is most readily associated with the term "bombing". I'll open a Request to Move, but I hope this will not take too much time to reach a conclusion. Cs32en Talk to me 19:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This was not a bombing, because a bomb has no propulsion and no navigation. It also was not an air strike, because the explosive device was not launched from an (manned or unmanned) aerospace vehicle. This article should to be renamed to "missile attack."
Xenagoras (
talk) 22:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I second the missle attack and/or strike as I was miss informed about being an airstrike (my apologies) The Introvert Next To You ( talk) 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to "Kramatorsk railway station attack" - per WP:SNOW RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Kramatorsk railway bombing → Kramatorsk train station attack – Reliable sources appear to prefer the term "attack" to "bombing", and the station is very often included when referring to the event. Some sources call it a "strike", which has very similar meaning. Cs32en Talk to me 19:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Given that this is a recent event, and that a larger number of people currently participate in editing the article, I suggest that we close this Request to Move earlier than after seven days, if consensus emerges. Cs32en Talk to me 19:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Залізни́чна ста́нція Крамато́рськ, which seems to be closer to Kramatorsk railway station (after switching to a more natural English word order) than Kramatorsk train station. Boud ( talk) 21:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This edit, in the section "Response", was reverted, simply stating "find better sources". I have reinstated the edit. Let me say that I would not have done so if a decent attempt to justify the revert would have been made.
The Russian Ministry of Defence asserted that the attack was carried out by Ukrainian forces and originated from Dobropillia, southwest of Kramatorsk. [1]
Cs32en Talk to me 20:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Source changed to authoritative, including beginning paragraph: "At 10:10 a.m. local time, the Russian Defense Ministry said: "High-precision air-based missiles in the Donetsk region at the Pokrovsk, Slavyansk, Barvenkovo railway stations destroyed weapons and military equipment of Ukrainian troops arriving in Donbass..." Add to the article 91.210.248.228 ( talk) 20:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Except for the first source, the sources given for the content do not link the information to the subject of the article. Thus, the content, as of now, constitutes original research. Also, more general reliable sources are needed to establish notability. I'm copying the content here, as there may well be such sources, and a modified version of the edit may be included in the article.
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
Cs32en Talk to me 00:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The lede states, initial reports on Russia state media said the missile fired at Kramatorsk hit a military transport target
, using a Guardian article
[1] as source. Are there any additional sources for this claim?
Xenagoras (
talk) 00:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Russian Telegram channel Siloviki prematurely published information that Russians are “working on a cluster of armed forces of Ukraine at Kramatorsk railway station” and celebrated casualties among Ukrainian combatants. A few minutes after the initial post, they edited it, presumably after reports of civilian casualties proliferated.RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sourcesare exceptional claims. "Russia state media said that Russia fired this missile" is certainly surprising and certainly important. The policy adds,
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defendedare exceptional claims. The Russian state denies having fired this missiles which means Russia claiming the opposite is out of character. Additionally, Russia has many times been claiming to not target civilians, which also means that "Russia state media said Russia fired this missile" is out of character and against Russia's declared interest. Xenagoras ( talk) 02:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The posts were swiftly deleted when the horrific civilian toll became apparent. “10 minutes ago — strikes on the Kramatorsk train station. Working against a consolidation of Ukrainian Armed Forces fighters,” reported pro-Kremlin channel Siloviki, meaning men of power. It was reposted on other pro-Kremlin channels. One of the channels that reposted it is run by Dmitriy Steshin, a Komsomolskaya Pravda journalist.; [5] ... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.Furthermore, context matters which means,
sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.The claim about Russia state media having said it fired the missile is presented as a statement of fact in our article, but there is zero direct support in reliable sources or even primary sources. I searched the internet with English and Russian keywords for this claim and found nothing which directly supports this claim, not even a screenshot or archived version of a deleted web page. The source for this claim is an anonymous senior U.S. defense official quoted by WaPo and regurgitated on other news outlets. [6] [7] Since policy states that,
the reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, this claim should not be in the article. Xenagoras ( talk) 19:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
initially, Russian state media [...] claimed successful Russian airstrikes on [...] Kramatorskrefers to the following Telegram posting from ANNA News, which does not make the disputed claim:
In English (translated with DeepL.com):"Наши источники в Краматорске сообщают о том, что около двадцати минут назад удару подвергся район ЖД вокзала.
Также поступают сведения, что накануне ВСУ пригнали туда состав техники. Эта информация проверяется." [10]
Our statement that"Our sources in Kramatorsk report that about twenty minutes ago the railway station area was hit.
There are also reports that the day before, the Ukrainian armed forces brought a train of equipment there. This information is being verified."
initially, Russian state media [...] claimed successful Russian airstrikes on [...] Kramatorskshould therefore be removed, as ANNA News is not Russian state media and the relevant Telegram post does not make the disputed claim. Xenagoras ( talk) 11:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Rafaelosornio, you reverted
[12] my edit
[13] about Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba at a NATO summit saying one day before the missile attack, "You don't understand how it feels that Russian soldier rape children."
[14] You used the edit summary I don't see how this is related to the article.
There are several dozen articles in reliable sources which report on the text "for our children" / "on behalf of the children" painted on the missile, and various articles pondering what this text is supposed to exactly mean.
Xenagoras (
talk) 02:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Trying to portray Russian disinformation as of equal weight or validity to what reliable sources actually say - that Russia was responsible - is simply a repeat of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. No serious source actually thinks that it was anyone other than Russia that shot down MH17, just like no serious source believes that Ukraine attacked its own train station in a false flag attack. Why do we have to go through this every time? Volunteer Marek 05:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian claims the missile is Russian purely out of speculation. The launch point of the missile is not yet verified nor the serial number on the engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.97.60 ( talk) 09:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
This page is currently under edit protection from non-autoconfirmed users, so you can't make edit requests here. Nevertheless you can make your edit requests at this following page, until the protection is lifted:
AdrianHObradors ( talk) 14:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The blog "Moon of Alabama" is cited extensively in the section "Challenges to official Western and Ukrainian claims". This site appears to be a highly partisan source with no established credentials in this subject. I do not believe it meets the criteria under WP:RS. Perathian ( talk) 14:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, it seems like the only other source present, a link to a CNA article from June of 2021, is being applied in a way that looks like original research. Unless more reliable sources can be found to support the section, it should either be removed or rewritten. Perathian ( talk) 14:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Please, note that English translation of the phrase on the rocket is ambiguous unlike in Russian. English "for children" can be understood like "in memory of children" ( Russian: ЗА ДЕТЕЙ) as well as "towards to children" ( Russian: ДЛЯ ДЕТЕЙ). It can distort the meaning of the phrase and confuse users of Wikipedia. I was made such editing but it was reverted because it was "my own original research" despite the fact that this is a linguistic fact and can be proved by any Russian-speaking person (including me). Cannor147 ( talk) 18:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Intercepted Missile attack on Kharkiv near railway station one hour before Kramatorsk attack was reported by Alex Thomson (Channel 4 News) on Twitter. https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1512700563468820486 . There is no news article for this yet so i will just notify in talk page. -- Zache ( talk) 20:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Some Telegram channels have been used to support content of the article. I'm a bit unfamiliar with media organisations using Telegram channels. If reliable sources use Telegram channels, and these channels are operated under the same editorial oversight as their other published content, then these channels would be reliable sources as well.
I think it is necessary to clearly state the publisher of the Telegram channel, in order to make that assessment. I expect reliable sources to operate at least a website, and the respective Telegram channel to be a verified channel.
Is there already some establish Wikipedia policy on this? If not, how should we handle such information? Cs32en Talk to me 21:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
It's just a question, I completely do not know who they are.-- Rafaelosornio ( talk) 21:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
At the moment, there is a single sentence about allegations made by Russian and pro-Russian activists in the article, based on reliable sources.
While this is clearly a minor aspect of the event, as evidenced by reliable sources, a single sentence is not much space in the article as well. Also, there is currently content related to an NGO worker and the chairman of the Ukrainian Railways in the article, supported by a small number of reliable sources. Cs32en Talk to me 22:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Apparently, some editors want to keep certain information that is sourced to few reliable sources in the article, while keeping other information also sourced to few reliable sources out of the article. They argue based on WP:RS in the first case, based on WP:UNDUE in the second case. That needs to be sorted out by a discussion on the talk page. See the latest such edit here: [15] Cs32en Talk to me 02:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Can we clarify how these pieces of information are being related to the subject of the article by the sources that have been given? Right now, it's not "Russia's response", because these statements or messages were issued either prior to the event or are not evidently related to the Kramatorsk attack. They are not "Assessments of the response" either. Cs32en Talk to me 03:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Italian journalists of
TG La7 showed the identification numbers of the missile (
video). The ID number 9M79-1 confirms definitely that it was a
Tochka-U missile (see:
OTR-21 Tochka#Configuration).
Italian newspaper
la Repubblica reported
in this article that the missile serial number Ш91579 (shown in TG La7 video) has been considered by some pro-Russians as the proof that the missile has been fired by the Ukrainian forces (since in the past the Ukrainian army launched missiles to the DPR with similar and very close
serial numbers Ш91565 and Ш91566); others instead do not consider the s/n as decisive since we still don't have the official inventory of all missiles. --
Holapaco77 (
talk) 12:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at reliable sources, the following picture emerges:
Therefore, following the way this event is presented in the majority of reliable source, we need to say that the strike is attributed to Russian forces. Cs32en Talk to me 15:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The current revision bluntly states that Russia performed the attack, followed by two citations - one to BBC and the other one to LeMonde. Reading the articles they do not conclude anything on who did it. BBC still hasn't been able to verify who did it [2]. I think that either the citations should be changed, or the statement needs to be changed, because the current citations does not support the claim. (as far as I've understood it, both sides claims that all evidences points to that the other side did it, so I hope we can settle this once and for all soon). 2001:4651:63EA:0:0:0:0:ED4 ( talk) 23:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
References
While missiles generally do explode, missile strike and air strikes are generally not classified as explosions.
In general, attacks that involve explosions are only categorized as explosions if the explosion was a consequence of the attack, not part of the attack - for example, if an attack on a munitions depot causes an explosion.
Examples of airstrikes not classified as explosions can be found here: Category:Airstrikes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Cs32en Talk to me 21:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
an article should be categorised under the most specific branch in the category tree possibleRandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article falsely claim that it was a russian rocket.
1. There is NO evidence that it was a russian rocket. 2. The rocket/missile was a Tochka rocket. Russia does not use tochka rockets. And the serialnumbers have been reported, and it matches same numbersequences as other Tochka rockets the ukraine military has used against Donbass, Melitipol, and numerous other places in the last 8 years.
So article need to get updated. At absolutly minimum change wording to words like allegedly. And add chapter about counterarguments/counterevidences.
Wikipedia should not be a propagandatool. 91.74.84.74 ( talk) 13:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is the photo I suggest-- the reason is that it shows an empty baby carriage, with blood on pavement, rather than showing a childs body (which might be too much for many readers).
Nevertheless, photos are supposed to be representative of the story and so having a child-related post-attack photo would be appropriate for the article.
Given that 7 children were killed and more were injured, there should be at least one photo suggestive of child casualties. This would be a representative use of a photo.
See proposed added photo here--
Chesapeake77 ( talk) 11:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
hello , article needs serious edit. For example - the first sentence "A missle strike by Russian armed forces" - has two references 1,2 has anything to do with the statement. Which Russian Army forces detachment and from which spot? Where are the details like intelligence data, satellite images and so on. that Russian Army did this?
"Initially Russian state media and pro Russian Telegram channels claimed...", again the provided references 21,22 do not seems to contain proofs ? Where are these publications in Russian state media?
Many details like that rocket were TockaU and the exact serial number were removed from original publucation. Why? FillCastel ( talk) 13:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
No, Sorry if this has been already discussed- previous topics are too long and messy for me to understand. If this is clear to you please place here the final answers of the questions I asked above (one sentence please). 1. How was proved that Russian Army did it (by these references)? 2. Were in the Russian State media or Telegram I can read such announcment saying that TockaU was fired against Kramatorsk on 8th April by the Russian army (provide link)? 3. Why the fact that rocket is Tochka-U and the serial number were removed?
About the last - there are naybe 20 sources I found with Google not only Russian but also UNIAN, etc..
Wikipedia should be about facts, don't you agree? But all facts were removed from this article and replaced by what someone thinks that could have happened. FillCastel ( talk) 14:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
References
It has not yet been possible to verify the source of the missile.
At the time of writing, the available open source evidence remains insufficient to reveal all details about the strike, including the direction of origin of the missile.
Alaexis ¿question? 05:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Please allow me to create a separate topic about TochkaU rockets used by Ukraine with references about the serial numbers and the modernization program of Ukraine from 2019 of these rockets. After 2014 Ukraine has used more than 120 Tochka U - there are plenty references, also non-Russian. Please let first collect the facts anc then draw conclusions FillCastel ( talk) 12:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Please consider to remove reference [51] by ISW from the main article as not supporting its claim. In ISW "Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, April 8" it refers in turn to reference [13]: " https://www.facebook.com/mod.mil.rus/posts/3200588880183846; https://www.facebook.com/mod.mil.rus/posts/3200528216856579; https://www.facebook.com/mod.mil.rus/posts/3200588880183846; https://t.me/nm_dnr/7479; https://altyn73 dot livejournal.com/1458271.html; https://hromadske doua/posts/rosiya-namagayetsya-pereklasti-svij-zlochin-u-kramatorsku-na-zsu-rozsliduvachi-vkazuyut-pro-inshe." These references do not support "Russia’s 8th Combined Arms Army (operating in Donbas) is equipped with the missile" claim anywhere. Reference " https://altyn73 dot livejournal.com/1458271.html" states that Russia’s 8th Combined Arms Army had such system around February 20'th 2021, see https://kuban24.tv/item/v-korenovskom-garnizone-v-preddverii-23-fevralya-proshel-den-otkrytyh-dverej. However, in August 2021 all Tochka-U systems were replaced with Iskander, see https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4371125.html and https://regnum.ru/news/it/3341512.html. There is completely no evidence Russia’s 8th Combined Arms Army is using Tochka-U in Donbas. Following up, I would highly recommend to verify credible sources to the original references. Otherwise we are just using unreliable sources parroted by so called credible media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirielz ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Western fact checkers say the following:
We now have two claims of undue weight for the same content:
Given that this is supported by five (!) different citations, all of which link it to the missile strike on Kramatorsk, and given that those citations include the BBC and the Atlantic Council, can someone explain to me in what way mentioning this information is 'undue'? Nicodene ( talk) 10:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Useful new report that can be used to improve the article: https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/interactive/2023/02/21/death-at-the-station/russian-cluster-munition-attack-in-kramatorsk#_ftnref41 Nicodene ( talk) 17:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Italian journalists documented and proved that this was an ukrainian missile. Ukraine kills civilians and then blames Russia all the time. Ruslantlvv ( talk) 19:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kramatorsk railway station attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A merge should be done quickly, before each copy gets editited differently.
Chesapeake77 ( talk) 13:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
All place-related Wikipedia articles have maps. I move that this one be kept, or improved but definitely not removed.
Please discuss / vote below.
Chesapeake77 ( talk) 14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Cite reliable sources for your various claims. Nicodene ( talk) 22:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Can't cite it, can't include it in the article. Sorry. Spread your message to the world and convince them first. Then report back here if that works. Nicodene ( talk) 23:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is bombing the most felicitous word to use in this article's title? When I read "bombing", I tend to think of bombs dropping from airplanes or being planted by terrorists or criminals. Deor ( talk) 16:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
That seems rather condescending, I agree an airstike sounds better. Bombing inspires the idea of a static object being dropped or detonated in place while an airstike is more missle/guided ammunition. Putting a picture of a cartoon bomb might be what YOU think but seems like a rude way to address this concern. The Introvert Next To You ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
It looks as if the missile was not meant to penetrate structures, but rather to deliver a bomb (or, more likely, several bombs). Thus, it was likely both a missile attack and a bombing. Let's see what reliable sources call it. Cs32en Talk to me 19:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at multiple reliable sources, the word "attack" seems to be preferred. Some call it a "strike", which is quite similar. While it can legitimately be called a bombing, that seems to be less prevalent in reliable sources, and it may lead readers to assume that someone planted a bomb, the kind of execution that is most readily associated with the term "bombing". I'll open a Request to Move, but I hope this will not take too much time to reach a conclusion. Cs32en Talk to me 19:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This was not a bombing, because a bomb has no propulsion and no navigation. It also was not an air strike, because the explosive device was not launched from an (manned or unmanned) aerospace vehicle. This article should to be renamed to "missile attack."
Xenagoras (
talk) 22:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I second the missle attack and/or strike as I was miss informed about being an airstrike (my apologies) The Introvert Next To You ( talk) 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to "Kramatorsk railway station attack" - per WP:SNOW RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Kramatorsk railway bombing → Kramatorsk train station attack – Reliable sources appear to prefer the term "attack" to "bombing", and the station is very often included when referring to the event. Some sources call it a "strike", which has very similar meaning. Cs32en Talk to me 19:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Given that this is a recent event, and that a larger number of people currently participate in editing the article, I suggest that we close this Request to Move earlier than after seven days, if consensus emerges. Cs32en Talk to me 19:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Залізни́чна ста́нція Крамато́рськ, which seems to be closer to Kramatorsk railway station (after switching to a more natural English word order) than Kramatorsk train station. Boud ( talk) 21:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This edit, in the section "Response", was reverted, simply stating "find better sources". I have reinstated the edit. Let me say that I would not have done so if a decent attempt to justify the revert would have been made.
The Russian Ministry of Defence asserted that the attack was carried out by Ukrainian forces and originated from Dobropillia, southwest of Kramatorsk. [1]
Cs32en Talk to me 20:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Source changed to authoritative, including beginning paragraph: "At 10:10 a.m. local time, the Russian Defense Ministry said: "High-precision air-based missiles in the Donetsk region at the Pokrovsk, Slavyansk, Barvenkovo railway stations destroyed weapons and military equipment of Ukrainian troops arriving in Donbass..." Add to the article 91.210.248.228 ( talk) 20:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Except for the first source, the sources given for the content do not link the information to the subject of the article. Thus, the content, as of now, constitutes original research. Also, more general reliable sources are needed to establish notability. I'm copying the content here, as there may well be such sources, and a modified version of the edit may be included in the article.
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
Cs32en Talk to me 00:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The lede states, initial reports on Russia state media said the missile fired at Kramatorsk hit a military transport target
, using a Guardian article
[1] as source. Are there any additional sources for this claim?
Xenagoras (
talk) 00:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Russian Telegram channel Siloviki prematurely published information that Russians are “working on a cluster of armed forces of Ukraine at Kramatorsk railway station” and celebrated casualties among Ukrainian combatants. A few minutes after the initial post, they edited it, presumably after reports of civilian casualties proliferated.RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sourcesare exceptional claims. "Russia state media said that Russia fired this missile" is certainly surprising and certainly important. The policy adds,
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defendedare exceptional claims. The Russian state denies having fired this missiles which means Russia claiming the opposite is out of character. Additionally, Russia has many times been claiming to not target civilians, which also means that "Russia state media said Russia fired this missile" is out of character and against Russia's declared interest. Xenagoras ( talk) 02:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The posts were swiftly deleted when the horrific civilian toll became apparent. “10 minutes ago — strikes on the Kramatorsk train station. Working against a consolidation of Ukrainian Armed Forces fighters,” reported pro-Kremlin channel Siloviki, meaning men of power. It was reposted on other pro-Kremlin channels. One of the channels that reposted it is run by Dmitriy Steshin, a Komsomolskaya Pravda journalist.; [5] ... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.Furthermore, context matters which means,
sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.The claim about Russia state media having said it fired the missile is presented as a statement of fact in our article, but there is zero direct support in reliable sources or even primary sources. I searched the internet with English and Russian keywords for this claim and found nothing which directly supports this claim, not even a screenshot or archived version of a deleted web page. The source for this claim is an anonymous senior U.S. defense official quoted by WaPo and regurgitated on other news outlets. [6] [7] Since policy states that,
the reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, this claim should not be in the article. Xenagoras ( talk) 19:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
initially, Russian state media [...] claimed successful Russian airstrikes on [...] Kramatorskrefers to the following Telegram posting from ANNA News, which does not make the disputed claim:
In English (translated with DeepL.com):"Наши источники в Краматорске сообщают о том, что около двадцати минут назад удару подвергся район ЖД вокзала.
Также поступают сведения, что накануне ВСУ пригнали туда состав техники. Эта информация проверяется." [10]
Our statement that"Our sources in Kramatorsk report that about twenty minutes ago the railway station area was hit.
There are also reports that the day before, the Ukrainian armed forces brought a train of equipment there. This information is being verified."
initially, Russian state media [...] claimed successful Russian airstrikes on [...] Kramatorskshould therefore be removed, as ANNA News is not Russian state media and the relevant Telegram post does not make the disputed claim. Xenagoras ( talk) 11:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Rafaelosornio, you reverted
[12] my edit
[13] about Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba at a NATO summit saying one day before the missile attack, "You don't understand how it feels that Russian soldier rape children."
[14] You used the edit summary I don't see how this is related to the article.
There are several dozen articles in reliable sources which report on the text "for our children" / "on behalf of the children" painted on the missile, and various articles pondering what this text is supposed to exactly mean.
Xenagoras (
talk) 02:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Trying to portray Russian disinformation as of equal weight or validity to what reliable sources actually say - that Russia was responsible - is simply a repeat of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. No serious source actually thinks that it was anyone other than Russia that shot down MH17, just like no serious source believes that Ukraine attacked its own train station in a false flag attack. Why do we have to go through this every time? Volunteer Marek 05:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian claims the missile is Russian purely out of speculation. The launch point of the missile is not yet verified nor the serial number on the engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.97.60 ( talk) 09:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
This page is currently under edit protection from non-autoconfirmed users, so you can't make edit requests here. Nevertheless you can make your edit requests at this following page, until the protection is lifted:
AdrianHObradors ( talk) 14:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The blog "Moon of Alabama" is cited extensively in the section "Challenges to official Western and Ukrainian claims". This site appears to be a highly partisan source with no established credentials in this subject. I do not believe it meets the criteria under WP:RS. Perathian ( talk) 14:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, it seems like the only other source present, a link to a CNA article from June of 2021, is being applied in a way that looks like original research. Unless more reliable sources can be found to support the section, it should either be removed or rewritten. Perathian ( talk) 14:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Please, note that English translation of the phrase on the rocket is ambiguous unlike in Russian. English "for children" can be understood like "in memory of children" ( Russian: ЗА ДЕТЕЙ) as well as "towards to children" ( Russian: ДЛЯ ДЕТЕЙ). It can distort the meaning of the phrase and confuse users of Wikipedia. I was made such editing but it was reverted because it was "my own original research" despite the fact that this is a linguistic fact and can be proved by any Russian-speaking person (including me). Cannor147 ( talk) 18:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Intercepted Missile attack on Kharkiv near railway station one hour before Kramatorsk attack was reported by Alex Thomson (Channel 4 News) on Twitter. https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1512700563468820486 . There is no news article for this yet so i will just notify in talk page. -- Zache ( talk) 20:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Some Telegram channels have been used to support content of the article. I'm a bit unfamiliar with media organisations using Telegram channels. If reliable sources use Telegram channels, and these channels are operated under the same editorial oversight as their other published content, then these channels would be reliable sources as well.
I think it is necessary to clearly state the publisher of the Telegram channel, in order to make that assessment. I expect reliable sources to operate at least a website, and the respective Telegram channel to be a verified channel.
Is there already some establish Wikipedia policy on this? If not, how should we handle such information? Cs32en Talk to me 21:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
It's just a question, I completely do not know who they are.-- Rafaelosornio ( talk) 21:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
At the moment, there is a single sentence about allegations made by Russian and pro-Russian activists in the article, based on reliable sources.
While this is clearly a minor aspect of the event, as evidenced by reliable sources, a single sentence is not much space in the article as well. Also, there is currently content related to an NGO worker and the chairman of the Ukrainian Railways in the article, supported by a small number of reliable sources. Cs32en Talk to me 22:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Apparently, some editors want to keep certain information that is sourced to few reliable sources in the article, while keeping other information also sourced to few reliable sources out of the article. They argue based on WP:RS in the first case, based on WP:UNDUE in the second case. That needs to be sorted out by a discussion on the talk page. See the latest such edit here: [15] Cs32en Talk to me 02:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Can we clarify how these pieces of information are being related to the subject of the article by the sources that have been given? Right now, it's not "Russia's response", because these statements or messages were issued either prior to the event or are not evidently related to the Kramatorsk attack. They are not "Assessments of the response" either. Cs32en Talk to me 03:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Italian journalists of
TG La7 showed the identification numbers of the missile (
video). The ID number 9M79-1 confirms definitely that it was a
Tochka-U missile (see:
OTR-21 Tochka#Configuration).
Italian newspaper
la Repubblica reported
in this article that the missile serial number Ш91579 (shown in TG La7 video) has been considered by some pro-Russians as the proof that the missile has been fired by the Ukrainian forces (since in the past the Ukrainian army launched missiles to the DPR with similar and very close
serial numbers Ш91565 and Ш91566); others instead do not consider the s/n as decisive since we still don't have the official inventory of all missiles. --
Holapaco77 (
talk) 12:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at reliable sources, the following picture emerges:
Therefore, following the way this event is presented in the majority of reliable source, we need to say that the strike is attributed to Russian forces. Cs32en Talk to me 15:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The current revision bluntly states that Russia performed the attack, followed by two citations - one to BBC and the other one to LeMonde. Reading the articles they do not conclude anything on who did it. BBC still hasn't been able to verify who did it [2]. I think that either the citations should be changed, or the statement needs to be changed, because the current citations does not support the claim. (as far as I've understood it, both sides claims that all evidences points to that the other side did it, so I hope we can settle this once and for all soon). 2001:4651:63EA:0:0:0:0:ED4 ( talk) 23:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
References
While missiles generally do explode, missile strike and air strikes are generally not classified as explosions.
In general, attacks that involve explosions are only categorized as explosions if the explosion was a consequence of the attack, not part of the attack - for example, if an attack on a munitions depot causes an explosion.
Examples of airstrikes not classified as explosions can be found here: Category:Airstrikes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Cs32en Talk to me 21:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
an article should be categorised under the most specific branch in the category tree possibleRandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article falsely claim that it was a russian rocket.
1. There is NO evidence that it was a russian rocket. 2. The rocket/missile was a Tochka rocket. Russia does not use tochka rockets. And the serialnumbers have been reported, and it matches same numbersequences as other Tochka rockets the ukraine military has used against Donbass, Melitipol, and numerous other places in the last 8 years.
So article need to get updated. At absolutly minimum change wording to words like allegedly. And add chapter about counterarguments/counterevidences.
Wikipedia should not be a propagandatool. 91.74.84.74 ( talk) 13:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is the photo I suggest-- the reason is that it shows an empty baby carriage, with blood on pavement, rather than showing a childs body (which might be too much for many readers).
Nevertheless, photos are supposed to be representative of the story and so having a child-related post-attack photo would be appropriate for the article.
Given that 7 children were killed and more were injured, there should be at least one photo suggestive of child casualties. This would be a representative use of a photo.
See proposed added photo here--
Chesapeake77 ( talk) 11:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
hello , article needs serious edit. For example - the first sentence "A missle strike by Russian armed forces" - has two references 1,2 has anything to do with the statement. Which Russian Army forces detachment and from which spot? Where are the details like intelligence data, satellite images and so on. that Russian Army did this?
"Initially Russian state media and pro Russian Telegram channels claimed...", again the provided references 21,22 do not seems to contain proofs ? Where are these publications in Russian state media?
Many details like that rocket were TockaU and the exact serial number were removed from original publucation. Why? FillCastel ( talk) 13:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
No, Sorry if this has been already discussed- previous topics are too long and messy for me to understand. If this is clear to you please place here the final answers of the questions I asked above (one sentence please). 1. How was proved that Russian Army did it (by these references)? 2. Were in the Russian State media or Telegram I can read such announcment saying that TockaU was fired against Kramatorsk on 8th April by the Russian army (provide link)? 3. Why the fact that rocket is Tochka-U and the serial number were removed?
About the last - there are naybe 20 sources I found with Google not only Russian but also UNIAN, etc..
Wikipedia should be about facts, don't you agree? But all facts were removed from this article and replaced by what someone thinks that could have happened. FillCastel ( talk) 14:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
References
It has not yet been possible to verify the source of the missile.
At the time of writing, the available open source evidence remains insufficient to reveal all details about the strike, including the direction of origin of the missile.
Alaexis ¿question? 05:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Please allow me to create a separate topic about TochkaU rockets used by Ukraine with references about the serial numbers and the modernization program of Ukraine from 2019 of these rockets. After 2014 Ukraine has used more than 120 Tochka U - there are plenty references, also non-Russian. Please let first collect the facts anc then draw conclusions FillCastel ( talk) 12:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Please consider to remove reference [51] by ISW from the main article as not supporting its claim. In ISW "Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, April 8" it refers in turn to reference [13]: " https://www.facebook.com/mod.mil.rus/posts/3200588880183846; https://www.facebook.com/mod.mil.rus/posts/3200528216856579; https://www.facebook.com/mod.mil.rus/posts/3200588880183846; https://t.me/nm_dnr/7479; https://altyn73 dot livejournal.com/1458271.html; https://hromadske doua/posts/rosiya-namagayetsya-pereklasti-svij-zlochin-u-kramatorsku-na-zsu-rozsliduvachi-vkazuyut-pro-inshe." These references do not support "Russia’s 8th Combined Arms Army (operating in Donbas) is equipped with the missile" claim anywhere. Reference " https://altyn73 dot livejournal.com/1458271.html" states that Russia’s 8th Combined Arms Army had such system around February 20'th 2021, see https://kuban24.tv/item/v-korenovskom-garnizone-v-preddverii-23-fevralya-proshel-den-otkrytyh-dverej. However, in August 2021 all Tochka-U systems were replaced with Iskander, see https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4371125.html and https://regnum.ru/news/it/3341512.html. There is completely no evidence Russia’s 8th Combined Arms Army is using Tochka-U in Donbas. Following up, I would highly recommend to verify credible sources to the original references. Otherwise we are just using unreliable sources parroted by so called credible media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirielz ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Western fact checkers say the following:
We now have two claims of undue weight for the same content:
Given that this is supported by five (!) different citations, all of which link it to the missile strike on Kramatorsk, and given that those citations include the BBC and the Atlantic Council, can someone explain to me in what way mentioning this information is 'undue'? Nicodene ( talk) 10:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Useful new report that can be used to improve the article: https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/interactive/2023/02/21/death-at-the-station/russian-cluster-munition-attack-in-kramatorsk#_ftnref41 Nicodene ( talk) 17:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Italian journalists documented and proved that this was an ukrainian missile. Ukraine kills civilians and then blames Russia all the time. Ruslantlvv ( talk) 19:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)