Talk:Kramatorsk railway station attack

Two identical copies of this Wikipedia article are coming up in Google search

A merge should be done quickly, before each copy gets editited differently.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

which copy are you referring to? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems to have resolved. For about 30 minutes, a Google search would produce two identical results.

I thought someone had botched an article move. (I did this once and ended up with two identical copies of a Wikipedia article).

Anyway, it seems to be ok now.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Need for map in article

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)

The map is meant to be used for pages on populated settlements, not attacks on railway stations (which have different coords than Kramatorsk anyways). Save that material for the Kramatorsk article, not this page. Neither will edit warring the reverts of multiple editors further your point. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: Chesapeake77 seems to have violated the 3RR rule. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know about the rule. I will stop reverting it.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Adding an inappropriate infobox messing up the page and then posting "warnings" on users talk pages for reverting your actions is completely unacceptable. Also using edit summaries to accuse editors of "vandalism" for reverting you. AusLondonder (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I apologive for the added reverts. I did not know that was against the rules.

Here is a list of 13 Wikipedia articles about train stations. All 13 train-station articles have maps. List of busiest railway stations in Austria.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Bombing?

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)

Well, if you think a bombing usually looks like this:

Fig 1.

Then this is not the most common form. The airstrike (deliberately) caused an explosion so it counts as a bombing. Articles for airstrikes often feature the word "bombing" inside them- See Rann bombing, Amiriyah shelter bombing, Bombing of Banski dvori, 1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing, etc. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:44, 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 discussion above 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.

Requested move 8 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• Half support: Should be named to "train station" at the very least - "railway" is a bizarre word choice. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 19:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support though open to better alternative. "Rail" is misleading as it sounds like it bombed rail tracks. "Station" needs to be in there for sure. Volunteer Marek 20:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support move to Kramatorsk railway station attack. Admittedly there's no tags on this page yet but the main 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article is written in British English. Buttons0603 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought about this. It seems that both terms are currently being used in British English. Native speakers of British English would probably call the attack simply the Kramatorsk station attack, to which I would not object. However, I don't know about whether that would be recognized instantly by English speakers in other countries.   Cs32en Talk to me  21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support move to Kramatorsk railway station attack. The Ukrainian language uk:Краматорськ (станція) says 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)
• Support move, but only to Kramatorsk railway station bombing or Kramatorsk railway station attack. The title of the station at which the attack happened is Kramatorsk railway station so this would be a more appropriate choice. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support because station should be in the title. Jim Michael (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support "Kramatorsk railway station attack" for consistency with the station article and for precision. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support move to Kramatorsk railway station attack, because a bomb has no propulsion and no navigation. It also was not an air strike, because the explosive device was not launched from a (manned or unmanned) aerospace vehicle. The used Tochka-U is a surface-to-surface missile. Xenagoras (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Factual correction: bombs can be guided, fwiw. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I corrected my statement. Xenagoras (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support move to Kramatorsk railway station attack for consistency with similar articles on stations in Ukraine. AusLondonder (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support move to Kramatorsk railway station attack because it occurred in a " railway station", then the word must be in the article. I hope the name is changed as soon as possible because this article is used as a basis for translation into other languages. Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Disputed edit: Statement by Russian Ministry of Defence (The Hindu)

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.

  Cs32en Talk to me  20:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has a biased opinion regarding to this article (considering the lack of evidence and base for argument). Suggest to revert all of the changes made by this user. UserLore (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do not insult other Wikipedia users. You're new here so I assume you didn't mean harm, but this is not a constructive way to act. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

“Remove garbage” is a constructive way to explain the changes then? This user vandalised the article 3 times in a row, removing 2295 bytes of information. Because of him an article received semi-protection (this is the reason why 3 vandalism attempt is still active, 2 previous attempts were successfully reverted by other users). I can’t revert the changes myself, because of my status of unauthorised user as you mentioned. But, it is certainly not a healthy way of acting, if we are accepting a concept of neutrality of course. UserLore (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I asked for semi-protection because you were inserting material based on crap sources into the article using multiple accounts. Volunteer Marek 22:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Ultimate argument, for those who don’t have anything else at least. Once again suggest to revert the information this user deleted in this article (2295 bytes). Until there is an evidence of the so called “garbageness”. UserLore (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Tbh, I suggest we all cool down a bit; let's not cast aspersions. That said, one must use reliable sources. By community consensus, many Russian state outlets are considered unreliable. See WP:RSPS. Firestar464 (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Map

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 article91.210.248.228 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That info is not the source afaict and the relevance is not obvious. Volunteer Marek 21:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Disputed Edit: Evidence of Tochka-U missiles in Russian use.

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.

Although Russia officially denies the use of Tochka-U missiles by their military, this weapons system has been documented by the Belarusian Hajun Project during numerous Russian military movements throughout Belarus in March 2022. In addition, one month before the strike on Kramatorsk, Russian investigators documented Russian Tochka-U strikes on Mariupol and the outskirts of Chernihiv.

References

  Cs32en Talk to me  00:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved, as the user has modified the content and has referenced a secondary source.   Cs32en Talk to me  01:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Sources for the claim "Russia state media said Russia fired the missile"?

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)

The Grauniad is a reliable and well-respected source, so no issues there. There's this which has detailed links; but the about-face from the Russians has been reported in plenty of other places too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This other source refers to Telegram channels, not state media, with regard to the claim that the attack targeted a military transport.   Cs32en Talk to me  00:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The source you give [2] does not contain the claim which is made in our article lede. Xenagoras (talk) 00:56, 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)

Russian Telegram channel "Siloviki" is not Russia state media, but a private channel. Xenagoras (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Support by a reliable source is sufficient for inclusion in the article. Yet, without additional sources, it is doubtful whether there is sufficient notability for the inclusion of that content in the lead section.   Cs32en Talk to me  00:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"Russia state media said Russia fired the missile" is an exceptional claim because Russia denies it had fired the missile. An exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. I have not found any besides the Guardian, which is why this claim should be removed from the article. Xenagoras (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia first claimed it had fired the missile. Simply because they now attempt to deny it (as reliable sources show) does not make it an "exceptional claim". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Simply because Russia denies having fired this missile, our article contains an exceptional claim. Read the policy which states that, Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources are 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 defended are 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)

Russia claiming it fired missiles at military targets is not "out of character". Russia retracting such claims once those missiles miss their targets by very wide margins is not out of character either. More importantly, what is or is not an "exceptional claim" is subject to editor opinion; and editor opinion does not get to override reliable sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources: [3]; [4] 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)

As said above, the Telegram channel "Siloviki" is not Russia state media. Dmitriy Steshin did not make a claim about the attack, he only forwarded a message by someone else, additionally the forwarding was done on a private person's Telegram channel, plus Komsomolskaya Pravda is not Russia state media. The WaPo article quotes an anonymous Pentagon official who said that "Russia initially announced that it had carried out a successful strike". This is also not Russia state media, but an anonymous Pentagon person. Xenagoras (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

We go with sources not personal opinions. Volunteer Marek 02:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean that what I said are my personal opinions? Xenagoras (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:VNT. You can't dismiss reliable sources just because you personally think something is an "exceptional claim". Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources, not on editor interpretation thereof (that would be WP:OR). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Press conference of Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba

Rafaelosornio, you reverted [6] my edit [7] 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." [8] 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)

If he said it one day before the attack, then any inclusion here is at best WP:SYNTH (and more probably, just juxtaposition which gives an impression that two things are connected, where no such connection is made by the sources: in effect, plain and simple WP:OR). Unless there are explicitly sources which make the link between that and the article subject, it doesn't belong here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah not seeing any relevance for this either. Volunteer Marek 03:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

False balance

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)

Serial number of the missile

The missile follows the same serial number system as other Ukrainian missiles.

https://twitter.com/cirnosad/status/1512516946696146944?cxt=HHwWgMCoyceJxf0pAAAA 67.71.97.60 (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)