Talk:Kakhovka Dam

Russian Disinformation

As reported by ISW on October 20 (https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates), Russian forces are currently making preparations to destroy this dam as part of a false flag attack on Ukrainian infrastructure. As such, Russian disinformation sources have been putting out false claims to set the stage for that attack.

The source specified for the allegedly planned false flag attack relies on a statement of Selenskiy, which for obvious reasons should not count as an objective source. In fact, there are good military reasons for AFU to blow up the dam (flooding russian controlled Kherson and the Dnepr estuary and by this cutting off russian supply and withdrawal routes), while the russian side obviously has all reasons to avoid or prevent this outcome (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqV1ts5TIPE). Ijuedt (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

As a part of that campaign, this Wiki page has been targeted with disinformation from 2 Russian government sources. I recommend that the page be locked, the Russian government papers be removed, and a non-disinformation source (e.g. ISW) be added to provide context on the current situation. 122.148.247.13 (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you please clean the article of disinformation? Schwede66 01:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

capacity in KM^3

It's given in cubic metres, but to have as well or instead cubic kilometres would be an idea. 92.2.215.165 (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Pro-ukrainian biased statement

Why is not russian claims not included on this Wikipage? There are tons of claims that Ukraine have attacked this Dam. Basically, why are ukrainian claims included but not the russian one?

A second point is the use of ISW as a source. ISW is not objective as some people here seems to believe, it is run by neocons and ultimately pro-american military-industrial like former US generals. Bacckos (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that any Russian sources can be considered reliable? Schwede66 05:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that any Ukrainian sources can be considered reliable? Don’t forget the Ghost of Kyiv or the rocket that hit Poland. You are not immune to propaganda. FlatDuckling (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

How can you look yourself into a mirror after statement like that?

And no, you don't need Russian sources. There's plenty of American ones, such as NYT article from 2022 when Ukrainians admitted that they shelled the dam.

Nothing worse than a clueless man who has the superiority complex. Classic representative of the West. 188.2.152.232 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Bacckos I agree under certain conditions ISW may meet conditions of primary sources but its use here is as a secondary source that gathers information to suggest pripr planning.

Remember a source is "not inherently disallowed based on bias alone"

The issue with Russian sources is you can't find any other secondary source that agrees with those sources beyond sources on the block list.

So what ISW does is they present information curated from both sides and present them until conclusive evidence is available.

Ukrainian or Russian claims are not included or excluded. Claims must be backed up with reliable secondary sources. It is hard to do that with Russian media. It is like they might lie or something. I can never find other sources to back up Russian sources. Jgmac1106 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible destruction?

There’s rumors of it being destroyed, and a seemingly real video has been released showing it in ruin and water flowing through.

I think we should wait for official sources, but I wanted to start the conversation. Tiduszk (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It's 100% destroyed Russians confirmed it this morning, obviously we don't know who's responsible but all that matters is that the dam is physically not there anymore. Time to start thinking about past-tense. 209.141.164.23 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We know very well who's responsible - Russia. They were the last ones to have access to it. They threatened to do it. They proved to not care about civilians before. They benefit from it militarily. YouAreNotYourThoughts (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Destruction

States that Ukraine did it definitively but there’s no trustworthy evidence to suggest such a thing. 174.67.32.133 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian milbloggers are not a reliable source. I think the edits should be undone and the page protected until we have a reliable source. Tiduszk (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It is confirmed, there is clear as day proof 2600:4041:7970:CC00:ADC3:B362:DEE:D201 (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the milblogger that was used as a source saying it was Ukraine. (Now removed from the article). There is no reliable source on who did it. Tiduszk (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like several are editing about it, stepping on each other. Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I will hold off on editing but we just need to provide a summary. There is an entire article about destruction of dam. The details should focus mainly on the DESTRUCTION and not attribution given the name of section

Russian milbloggers would also be considered a primary source and violate original research rules. If you have any secondary sources that site "clear as proof" please add. Given contentious nature of the topic you may want to add multiple secondary sources to demonstarte "clear as day proof" Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Currency conversion

Can someone add a currency conversion in the opening? I’ve seen it before but don’t know the code offhand Victor Grigas (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. I tried using {{to USD}} but it was too complicated so I just manually inserted the (2019) dollar values. Λυδαcιτγ 14:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussing recent article move

Earlier, Audacity boldly moved the article from Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant to Kakhovka Dam. Given the WP:RECENTISM around the dam breach being in the news, that is somewhat understandable. However, the dam and power plant are not one and the same, so it causes issues with the Wikidata modeling at its associated item/concept - Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (Q3379049). I don't have a perfect solution for what to do next, but thought it should be brought up for discussion. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing that out Fuzheado. I was going off of the lede, which seemed to equate the two: "The Kakhovka Hydroelectric Station (Ukrainian: Кахо́вська ГЕС імені П. С. Непорожнього; commonly the Kakhovka Dam)..." The rest of the article also generally refers to the dam rather than the power plant. I guess I'm not sure whether this is an acceptable use of wikt:metonymy or whether we need to find some way to disambiguate. Λυδαcιτγ 05:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be a formal RM. Super Ψ Dro 13:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wrong move!

All other dams on the Dnieper are known by their official names as "Hydroelectric Power Plants". But in any case, fix at least the language links! Now there are 32 "hydroelectric power plant" articles and three "dam" articles for the same dammed dam. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

comparison to volume of the great salt lake

This is not a good comparison as the volume of the great salt lake is very variable. 92.110.165.40 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I found that same reference in multiple hydorological articles but I would favor removing comparison as too American-centric.

I am in favor of you removing it and just stating the size. Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure America centric is a problem - it is the English language wiki, so you would expect it to be centric to English speaking countries, right. The main problem I see is that the great salt lake is not always the same size area wise and volumetric, so a poor comparison. 92.110.165.40 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

height of dam is not 30m?

Pictures of the dam lead me to believe the dam is actually about 16-18m height, not 30m as stated. And the page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakhovka_Reservoir

Says that the water level is 16m?

World topograpic map says about 16m.

When giving the height of a dam you usually measure the water head. 82.196.111.42 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)