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)

[User] when analysing the missile fragments, given the photos available public, the rocket fuel part is located at 48.725646, 37.541958 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/48%C2%B043'32.3%22N+37%C2%B032'31.1%22E/@48.7256478,37.5408637,338m), while the target is at 48.725986, 37.542934 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/48%C2%B043'33.6%22N+37%C2%B032'34.6%22E/@48.7259878,37.5418397,338m); this indicates a possible false flag, given that rocket type is always guaranteed to drop the fuel before the impact area. https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/220408121708-03-kramatorsk-rocket-040822-exlarge-169.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Kramatorsk_railway_bombing_2022_April_8_%289%29.jpg https://cdni.russiatoday.com/files/2022.04/xxl/625e85442030273f796869cb.jpg

Cite reliable sources for your various claims. Nicodene (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I can only provide the sources linked, and unfortunately the sources for this attack are not properly studied, there is no proper investigation and if there were, the rocket fuel pod would be in a nasty position against Ukraine; images which were extracted from:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/08/europe/kramatorsk-railway-station-strike-intl/index.html

https://www.rt.com/russia/554138-kramatorsk-train-station-attack/

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/appalling-attack-on-kramatorsk-railway-station-on-8-april-2022-uk-statement-to-the-osce

https://osce.usmission.gov/the-russian-federations-ongoing-aggression-against-ukraine-the-attack-in-kramatorsk-of-april-8-2022/

But one thing is for certain, the rocket fuel landed at 48.725646, 37.541958 and the target was ahead at where it was pointing towards. 2001:12B4:6B5:B200:DD3B:221E:4FE0:4600 (talk) 22:19, 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)

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)

As of March 2022, all Russian state outlets are now considered unreliable. Everything is now without independence.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:55, 25 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)

How is The Guardian reliable on this topic when nobody knows where the missile was launched from? They have no more knowledge than the rest of us. It should not be called a Russian missile without further updates. Remember it took years to find out who caused the MH17 crash. 67.71.97.60 (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia (unlike 4chan twitter accounts). And no, it didn’t take “years” to find out who caused Mh17 “crash”. It was obvious and well established within days that Russia shot it down, although a full investigation did take longer. Volunteer Marek 09:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that twitter accounts should not be cited. So how about removing the twitter citation to Nick Waters from the article? 67.71.97.60 (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Glad you agree. Which citation are you referring to specifically? Volunteer Marek 15:24, 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)

Please give a few examples for Russia retracting such claims once those missiles miss their targets by very wide margins is not out of character either to support your assertion. What is or is not an "exceptional claim" is defined by policy. Xenagoras (talk) 19:08, 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)

I am not dismissing reliable sources, I am applying policy. Verification of statements of fact is necessary for each statement from news reports: 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)

We go with reliable sources, not your own personal opinions. Volunteer Marek 19:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xenogoras

According to the BBC:

«В районе 11:00 утра по местному времени государственные СМИ и пророссийские телеграм-каналы сообщили об ударе по Краматорску: “10 минут назад прилеты по ж/д вокзалу Краматорска. Работают по скоплению боевиков ВСУ”, - говорилось в канале “Силовики”. Схожие сообщения опубликовали в каналах “Сводки ополчения Новороссии” и “Анна ньюз”. Одно из сообщений перепостил в свой канал "Русский тарантас" сотрудник “Комсомольской правды” Дмитрий Стешин. После появления сообщений о жертвах среди гражданских на вокзале в Краматорске он отредактировал свое сообщение.»

In English:

'At about 11:00 local time, state media and pro-Russian Telegram-channels reported a hit on Kramatorsk: "10 minutes ago [there were] aerial strikes on Kramatorsk railway station. They are targetting a concentration of Ukrainian fighters," as reported in the channel Siloviki. Similar reports were published in the channels Svodki opolcheniya Novorossii and Anna News. Dmitriy Steshin, from Komsomolskaya Pravda, reposted one of the reports to his channel Russkiy Tarantas. After the appearance of reports on casualties among civilians at the train station in Kramatorsk, he redacted his post.'

Anna News is based in Moscow and registered with Roskomnadzor. According to our article on state media:

"State media or government media are media outlets that are under financial and/or editorial control of the state or government, directly or indirectly. There are different types of state and government media. State-controlled or state-run media are under editorial control or influence by the state or government.[1][2][3]'

Leaving aside anything else that the Guardian article may have had in mind, this counts as an example of Russian state media, per Wikipedia's definition. Nicodene (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

State media are media that are run by the state. If a state exerts limits on the activies of non-state media, these media remain non-state media. Whether they are reliable or not is another matter. Some state media (such as the BBC) are more reliable than other state media, and the same is true for non-state media.   Cs32en Talk to me  06:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You can disagree with the definition if you like, I am simply reporting the one given on the Wikipedia page and supported by various citations. Nicodene (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

ANNA News is not state media, but private mass media. Registration with Russia's mass media regulator Roskomnadzor (which fulfills a similar role as UK's mass media regulator Ofcom) is mandatory for all mass media in Russia [8]. ANNA News is so unimportant that it is not even mentioned in our article on mass media in Russia. It is at position 319 in Russian news and media [9]. The BBC article which our article uses and which you refer to in order to support the claim that, initially, Russian state media [...] claimed successful Russian airstrikes on [...] Kramatorsk refers to the following Telegram posting from ANNA News, which does not make the disputed claim:

"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]

In English (translated with DeepL.com):

"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."

Our statement that initially, Russian state media [...] claimed successful Russian airstrikes on [...] Kramatorsk should 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)

@Xenogoras

No. Per the definition of state media given above, Anna News qualifies. Moreover, we have reliable sources cited in this article (1, 2) that state that Russian state media, not necessarily just AN, published the relevant information, and we have not a single source, credible or not, saying otherwise. Find one, or this conversation is never going to go anywhere. You have absolutely zero justification to remove that information from the article as of now, so I am reverting your edit. Original Research is not a justification.

And yes, there are effectively no independent media based in Russia anymore precisely because of Roskomnadzor and the further clamping-down on the media as a result of the ongoing war. Discussing the British Ofcom is out of the scope of this thread (see: whataboutism, also WP:NOTFORUM). Suffice it to say that there are plenty of anti-government media based in the UK, and none in Russia. Nicodene (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

This is my last edit on Wikipedia.

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. — George Orwell, "1984" [11]

Xenagoras (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

State media are media that are directed by the State. If the state restricts publishing, but does not direct it, you may call these media "state-controlled media", but not "state media". Roskomnadzor may order media not to publish something, but it does not direct media to publish specific editorial content, i.e. it does not direct their publishing.   Cs32en Talk to me  02:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Press conference of Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba

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)

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)

It is not synthesis, because my edit added a piece of information separately from existing article text and with its own sourcing and without combining to other pieces of article text. Xenagoras (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Not relevant indeed. Also any suggestions that Kuleba's statement is somehow related to thew text on the missile is obvious synthesis.--Staberinde (talk) 21:45, 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)

Russian state responses on potential warcrimes and other activities have been proven to be contradictory and change as newer evidence towards their involvement emerges, as referenced by Volunteer Marek and MH17. I would agree that attempting to balance out an article based on state disinformation would do a disservice to all. RLS 84 (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Didn't Wikipedia spread Western disinformation that all of the Ukrainian guards were killed in the Attack on Snake Island? It took weeks to correct that disinfo just as it will take weeks for this article. 67.71.97.60 (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between Misinformation and Disinformation. This is not a place for whataboutery, do you have realiable sources that would support the Russian state response to this? RLS 84 (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It was disinformation put out by Ukraine and its allies. The propaganda intent was present. The Snake Island casualties should have been listed as unknown just as the source of the Kramatorsk missile should be said to be unknown. 67.71.97.60 (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

No proof whatsoever that the Ukrainian government knew they survived. In any case, keep your comments on other topics to the Wiki talk pages dedicated to those topics. WP:NOTFORUM. Nicodene (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

But if the Ukrainian government were unaware

that it's troops had survived, then how did the service personnel get off the island, where were they staying for a few weeks just the attack and who told the world's media that the troops were not in fact dead? 91.110.75.1 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Launch point of the missile

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)

Reliable sources are saying the missile was fired by Russian Armed Forces. Unless you have sources that say otherwise then it is correct to say this in the article. RLS 84 (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

How can they be reliable sources on this topic when new information can come out rapidly in less than 24 hours? 67.71.97.60 (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources As per Wikipedia policy, reliable sources are cited. RLS 84 (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk page is currently protected, requests to edit please follow link below

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:

Wikipedia:Request for edit

AdrianHObradors (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"Moon of Alabama" blog used as a source

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)

And Western media is not highly partisan? Come on dude. Let's not be naive here. Telegram channels are also referenced in the article. Romanov loyalist (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There are two sources given in that (now-deleted) section: An irrelevant blog (WP:SELFPUB) with no serious evidence of reliability and an article that was written before the attack even happened. I second Perathian. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant? The information there is more reliable than anything in mainstream media, and I have not seen any of it disproven. The article that was written before the attack establishes that the Russian military doesn't even have Tochka-U missiles at this point. Romanov loyalist (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

In what parallel universe is "Moon of Alabama" a reliable source for these claims? They should not have been inserted into this article without clear consensus. A political blog for such highly controversial claims? AusLondonder (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone thinking that "Moon of Alabama" blog is a reliable source should immediately stop editing, and go study Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. The user's chosen nickname is also... revealing. Nicodene (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Translation of phrase ЗА ДЕТЕЙ

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)

Hi @Cannor147, while you are right, you might be interested in checking WP:TRUTH. While you and Russian speaking people would understand what it means, if you don't source it anywhere, other people visiting this page will only have your word on it.

I will let you know that it has however already been changed. Have a nice day! AdrianHObradors (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Other cities

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)

Reliability of Telegram channels

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)

@Cs32en I have again removed one of them, because its time estimate was imprecise ("approximately 10:30"; Meduza provided more specific times), but this source is critical to establishing the proper timeline of events, because it names the time when the attack was first reported by Ukrainian sources. It is the official Telegram channel of Strana.ua. Nicodene (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for these times? I'm not sure Strana.ua meets the reliabilty standard for potentially controversial information.   Cs32en Talk to me  22:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Fine. I haven't the will or energy to defend Strana (since the beginning of this war, it has become pro-Ukrainian and much more meticulous; see their videos). I have replaced it with a citation from Meduza, which reports:

«Украинские СМИ обратили внимание, что 8 апреля в 10:24 и 10:25 — примерно за 20 минут до первого сообщения о ракетном ударе по вокзалу — в телеграм-канале «Типичный Донецк» появились два видео, предположительно, с запуском ракет. В подписях говорилось, что ролики сняты в городе Шахтерск, который контролирует ДНР.»

Nicodene (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Meduza is not an independent media, it is considered a foreign agent that has issues with independence from foreign funding.

Basically western media translation to Russian.

I would not put it as a credible and unbiased source. Mirielz (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Getting censored by the Russian government is almost a badge of honour at this point. Meduza is very much considered a reliable source on Wikipedia; this topic has been discussed extensively on Russian Wikipedia. Nicodene (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Are both sources (Urgente24 and TG La7) reliable?

It's just a question, I completely do not know who they are.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

TG La7 seems reliable as a news source.Anonimu (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Even if (and I don't think it is), it violates WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 21:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The Italian WP article says it won several awards for the best news programme in Italy. Unless we have any indication of unreliability (or another clearly reliable source contradicting it on a particular report), we can safely assume it is reliable.Anonimu (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Director of TG La7 is Enrico Mentana is one of the most famous and appreciated TV journalists in Italy.--Holapaco77 (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Response by Russia and its supporters

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)

The BBC found both pieces of information noteworthy enough to include. Nicodene (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That policy is about determining what merits a Wikipedia article. Are you proposing we delete "Kramatorsk railway station attack" entirely? Nicodene (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI: No, it relates to "content" first and "what is included" not only to page subjects. It is widely considered and used as a criterion for article content on pages throughout WP insofar as they relate to contemporaneous and recent events. See also WP:RECENTISM and WP:ONUS. More generally, the emphasis was not WP:NPOV, per WP:WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 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)

• The whole "denied by Russia" bit is borderline WP:MRDA. Of course one would deny hitting a clearly civilian target with their imprecise missiles. I have removed the parenthetical from the infobox, since there is no serious and credible source (other than the Russians) which puts any doubt into this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well, one could also admit to it but state that is was a mistake etc. Thus, the information that Russia denied having executed the attack is of course notable and relevant. It does not need to be given in the infobox, however.   Cs32en Talk to me  15:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ID and serial numbers of the missile

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)

We’ve been through this. The whole thing is a conspiracy theory originating from 4chan. Unless you can show MULTIPLE serious reliable sources taking this seriously, we’re not putting it in. Volunteer Marek 12:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is the summary of the UN security council on 11 Apr 2022: Russian ambassador Dmitry Polyanskiy said that the serial number of the Tochka-U rocket shot in Kramatorsk is part of a group of rockets regularly used by Ukrainians to shell Donbas. So we can say that this is the official statement of the Russian Federation at the United Nations security council; then we can say that others disagree on this statement. -Holapaco77 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"By Russia" or "attributed to Russia"

Looking at reliable sources, the following picture emerges:

• none or essentially none are stating that the strike was not executed by Russian forces
• very few are stating that the strike was executed by Russian forces
• the large majority do not explicitly state that the strike was executed by Russian forces, but they almost always primarily refer to those who attribute the strike to Russian forces, while stating Russia's denial further down in their articles

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)

You appear to have cited a dead link. Searching ISW website, it does indeed state that it was a Russian attack. I've updated the text. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I did not insert that particular link. This is one source that explicitly states that Russian forces executed the attack. Most other sources do not do so. We need to go by how the majority of sources present the event.   Cs32en Talk to me  16:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Since some sources say "attributed to Russia" and some sources say "done by Russia" and NO sources (not serious ones anyway) say either "attributed to Ukraine" or "done by Ukraine" I think it makes sense to dispense with the weaseling here - subtleties can be explored in main text. Volunteer Marek 17:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

No. Those sources that explicitly say it was executed by Russia are in the minority among reliable sources.   Cs32en Talk to me  17:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The point is that no source attributes it to Ukraine. Anyway, I see you're at 3 reverts now and it looks like consensus is against you - I would appreciate it if you self reverted. Volunteer Marek 17:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I have now added three more sources that are representative of how reliable sources currently present the event. I also looked again at reliable sources. CNN, for example, seems to say explicitly "by Russia" in articles published in the last two days. It may be that in the future, the majority of reliable sources will change their reporting in a similar way. The number of reports on the event has decreased, however, so it may take a few days to be able to make that assessment.   Cs32en Talk to me  17:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

CNN - a reliable source? What are you smoking here? 46.131.43.218 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The BBC, on 10 April 2022, i.e. two days after the attack, says: "Russia has denied it was responsible for Friday's attack. It even claims that it wasn't their missile. It's still not clear what exactly happened." Thus, the BBC explicitly states that there is uncertainty. Other reliable sources do not make such an explicit statement, but they implicitly acknowledge uncertainty by not explicitly saying the attack was executed by Russia. Then, they are those reliable sources that indeed do so explicitly, but, as of now, they are in the minority.   Cs32en Talk to me  18:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)   Cs32en Talk to me  18:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

If you'll actually examine sources from within the past 24 hours, none gives any credence to Russia's denials and no editor here has cited any RS that "attributes" the attack to anyone but Russia. So WP:WEASEL WP:ONUS and WP:WEIGHT, not to mention WP:EW and that we don't add sources to contradict lead text on the pretext that editors can ad-lib their own narratives. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

There are very few newly published articles in the last 24 hours, so that is not a representative sample. It's not about giving credence to Russia's denial, as I've said before, and stating that the attacks are attributed to Russia does obviously not imply that anyone would not attribute them to Russia. If reliable sources are somewhat weaselish on how they report on something, that is what we need to do as well. WP:WEASEL applies to weasel language in the context of a preponderance of sources expressing themselves clearly. That is not the case at present.   Cs32en Talk to me  18:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Nobody seems to agree with you, so I suggest you devote your time to other areas of the page. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry. I have stopped editing that part of the article for now. There's no point in arguing with a vigilante mentality.   Cs32en Talk to me  19:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

2 hours later, that doesn't seem to have turned out to be the case. It appears that you're well beyond 3RR and counting, so I'd really advise you to move on. SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Your preferred wording remains in the article, and you are still continuing your vigilante behaviour?   Cs32en Talk to me  00:17, 13 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. 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)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. We have no duty nor requirement to report "both sides" equally. We report what reliable sources say, and they all overwhelmingly support the fact this incident was caused by Russia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with false balance, this has to do with honesty and credibility. A bold statement is followed by two citations - but the citations does not support the statement! I have great issues with that - I think it's outright *dishonest*. It would be far better to have the same statement there, but without the citations. The Russian medias are obliged by law to report what they are being told - and for every day the narrative told by the Russian media gets further and further away from what credible world media reporters with "boots on the ground" are reporting. I agree very much that it would be "false balance" to give any weight to Russian media on this - but with BBC it's a different matter. They write that "our investigation into the attack is ongoing. It has not yet been possible to verify the source of the missile.". 2001:4651:63EA:0:0:0:0:ED4 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The allegations that a non-Russian combattant executed the attack are not challenged. The Russians has stated the evidence in the UN, and no established media has refuted their claims. To me, it is non-trivial to assess that the Russian defense is futile.

So what this article should say is that BBC could not determine the source of the missile, that Ukraine claims that it is Russian, and that Russia claims that it is not Russian - that is "executed by Russian or Ukrainian forces". Perhaps a majority of "reliable" sources say that the incident was caused by Russia, but they were immidiate reports that could not possess knowledge on this.

We cannot assume that Ukrainian extremists do not perform false flag attacks or deter refugees from fleeing, when there are reports of the contrary.

Hence, the article is not neutral. Postdeborinite (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Should this attack be classified as an explosion?

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)

Yes, obviously. This attack used cluster munitions, whose purpose is to cause damage by exploding. It's central to the attack, not a trivial side effect. This wasn't an airstrike, so comparing it to the categorisation of airstrikes (not all of which include explosions) is irrelevant. It's not true that we don't categorise attacks as explosions if the explosion was part of the attack. Car bombings, suicide bombings etc. are routinely in subcats of explosion cats. For example, the 2021 Kandahar bombing is in 6 subcats of explosion cats, the February 2022 Beledweyne bombing in 4 subcats of them & the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack in 6. Jim Michael (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no separate category Category:Missile attack, Category:Missile strike, Category:Rocket attack, Category:Rocket strike. Thus, I have chosen a subcategory of Category:Airstrikes. If you look at Category:Explosions, you will see that very few airstrikes, including missile attacks, have been categorized as explosions. (If there actually exists a category that collects missile attacks, under some different name, please let me know.)   Cs32en Talk to me  22:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand you argument that this should be included in Category:Explosions because cluster munitions have been used. All missile munitions, maybe except for some smoke-emitting or illuminating devices, are meant to explode, so I can't see why cluster munitions make any difference.   Cs32en Talk to me  22:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, this attack wasn't an airstrike, so saying what cats airstrikes are or aren't in is irrelevant. Events which include explosions should be in explosion cats (or subcats thereof), whether they're accidental or deliberate; whether the explosive is in a military facility, a truck, a bag, an explosive belt or a missile; whether they were used by the military or VNSA groups. This attack prominently & deliberately used explosions; it makes no sense to exclude it from explosion cats. Jim Michael (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't say it wouldn't be correct if all events in which explosions take place would be categorized as explosions. Right now, we rather ask the question: what are people who are searching for explosions likely looking for? Presumably, they are not looking for missile strikes. Thus, generally missile strikes (as well as airstrikes) are not categorized as explosions. I don't see how that attack would "prominently & deliberately" use explosions, distinct for, for example, Mykolaiv government building airstrike (which was actually a missile attack, but is categorized as an airstrike).   Cs32en Talk to me  22:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

If that strike wasn't an airstrike you bring an interesting point. We might need to clean the category a bit. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

If the Mykolaiv attack wasn't an airstrike, its title & categories shouldn't say it was. Most sources don't say it was, but the article's Guardian ref does. Jim Michael (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I would say no. Personally I would leave that category for substantial explosions, and I don't think this one is. If an airstrike for example hits something and creates a second one explosion, bigger than the missile itself, I would put it there, but otherwise not. I do think we are missing a "Category:Strikes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" category though. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Like I said repeatedly, this wasn't an airstrike. I removed the airstrike cats from this article because it wasn't one. An airstrike not hitting something to cause a second explosion isn't relevant to this non-airstrike attack. Jim Michael (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It isn't an airstrike, I agree with that, but you missed my point. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ugh, no? "Explosion" is really vague. Technically, every battle in modern history would have included a fair amount of explosions...; and every airstrike or missile strike by definition involves something exploding (unless the projectile's a dud - which I guess that, with modern methods, is a rare occurrence). The event is already categorised as part of a military campaign; and if the purpose of categories is to link related articles together, then using "explosions" with this one would not really link it with that much similar... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This wasn't a battle or an airstrike. There are missiles that don't explode. This attack in 2022 in Ukraine prominently included an explosion, so why should it not be in Category:Explosions in 2022 & Category:Explosions in Ukraine? Jim Michael (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Because "explosions" is not a helpful category. This is supposed to link related articles together. Looking at Category:Explosions in Ukraine, none of the events are anything but accidental explosions or deliberate bombings with explosive devices. No military operations there. Putting this there would effectively put it into a category where is doesn't belong and which it barely has any link with. This is, however you want to spin it, a military event of some form, and as such is already properly categorised in that category tree. Most military events involve explosions of some form, so really that would also be redundant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This was also a deliberate bombing using explosive devices. I'm not aware of any policy/guideline that says explosive attacks by armed forces (rather than VNSA groups) are excluded from explosion cats. Jim Michael (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, yes, to begin with the very top of WP:CAT, where it is explained how the purpose of categories is to link related items together. Simply because something exploded is not a sufficient relation: there's a rather large gap between some random joe blowing up an improvised device and a professional military launching a missile strike in a time of war. Since this is already categorized under the category tree of the war in which it happened, and as I was arguing that is both a more pertinent category and one which already implies, pretty much, that there were some explosions going on, then Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles is also relevant: an article should be categorised under the most specific branch in the category tree possible RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

No, there are many kinds of explosions. The fact that it was a missile strike is more relevent. Chesapeake77 (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

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)

 Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You'll need evidence of your claims. Jim Michael (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: adding one photo suggestive of child casualties

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.

• I also suggest that it replace the (bottom) photo of rescue workers (See the article). A rescue worker photo with no bodies doesn't really add anthing to the article.

See proposed added photo here--

File:Kramatorsk railway bombing 2022 April 8 (6).jpg

Bloodstained pavement, empty baby carriage after Kramatorsk railway missile strike, 2022 April 8.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The only other child related photo in WM Commons (related to this attack) is a blood-soaked teddy-toy. IMHO that would be too much for many readers.

Also a point on cultural sensitivity. Ukrainians do not allow photos of dead children in their war coverage. However an abandoned baby carriage with blood some feet away I don't think would cross this cultural practice. But perhaps a blood-soaked Teddy Bear might.

Thoughts?

Chesapeake77 (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Incorect references, lack of details and proofs for vague assesments

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)

So you created an account specifically for this. Interesting.

All of those topics are discussed above. Nicodene (talk) 18:19, 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)

If you can't be bothered to read, I can't be bothered to help you. Nicodene (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

FillCastel, the serial number is relevant as long as it can say something about the provenance and we already have a paragraph about it, so I'm not sure what you propose. Regarding the "proof" we can only write what reliable sources have reported and now, as far as I can see, most say that it's impossible to determine conclusively. The report by Institute for the Study of War attributes it to Russia without any qualifications though they don't explain how they made this conclusion. Alaexis_¿question? 05:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Alaexis_¿question? 05:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

About the serial number - I want very much to answer you properly (in the other topic) but someone is blocking me. It is NOT true that the serial number does not matter! There was article in RT from yesterday (19.04) where is explained that each TochkaU rocket has a passport, this one (Ш91579) is produced in 1991 and possesed by Ukraine (am I allowed to cite RT?), it is impossible Ukraine military not to have any documents about it. The only possibility Russians to have launched this rocket is to have seized it during the current conflict and then transport it over 4000 kilometers to East and launch it from there. I find this plot too complicated and lacking proofs - we need unbiased military experts to explain about the rocket passport, serial number and the other accompanying documents.

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)

RT has been deprecated due to the propaganda and falsehoods they have been peddling so using it won't get you far (see WP:RSP). If there is a grain of truth in this whole serial numbers thing we should use reliable sources' reporting. Alaexis_¿question? 13:19, 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)

Request denied. The cited source, namely the ISW report, directly says "despite the fact [that] Russia designed the Tochka, has demonstrably used it in previous strikes, and confirmed reports that Russia’s 8th Combined Arms Army (operating in Donbas) is equipped with the missile". Therefore, the quoted text from this Wikipedia article is in fact supported by the cited source. Nicodene (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Serial number of Tochka and authorship

Western fact checkers say the following:

Photos from the bombing site show that the weapon used was a Tochka-U missile, with the inscription "for children" (in support of children and not against children as some people have claimed). Despite the Russian Defense Ministry's claim that Tochka-U missiles are used only by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, in February 2022 the Belarusian state agency Belta reported launches of Tochka-U missiles in a joint exercise of the Russian and Belarusian Army. The self-proclaimed Lugansk People's Republic, whose independence from Ukraine has been recognized by Russia, has these missiles, the Russian website avio.pro published in November 2021. Ukraine also has Tochka-U missiles.

In addition, on March 30, 2022 a Russian Army column with several launch vehicles of the V-marked Tochka-U missile was recorded in Belarus. A day later, more Russian military vehicles carrying and launching this type of missile were transported by train in Belarus, as shown in a video uploaded to TikTok. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented that a Tochka-U missile was used by Russia in a deadly shelling near a hospital in Vuhledar, Donetsk Oblast, on the first day of the Russian invasion.

The missile had the numbers 9M79-1 and Ш91579 written on it, as photographed by RTVE journalist Victor Garcia Guerrero. 9M79-1 is the 'part number' or the identifier of that model of missile, explains to Maldita.es José Ramón López Carnero, a worker in the aeronautical industry and cursed who has donated us his superpowers on military conflicts. The number corresponds to the subsystem of the evolved Tochka-U missile and was produced in the Soviet Union, points out to Maldita.es Juan Chulilla, security and user researcher, professor at the International University of La Rioja (UNIR) and director of the podcast portierramaryaire. All 9M79-1 missiles have been produced in a weapons factory in the Russian city of Votkinsk in the Soviet era, according to munitions and weapons expert N.R. Jenzen-Jones and director of Armament Research Services (ARES) in statements to the BBC.

91579 is the 'serial number' or serial number with which the traceability of that particular missile is obtained and is unique for each piece, says Lopez Carnero. The expert stresses that it is impossible to trace the missile to one party or another with the serial number except to the buyer or seller of that particular missile. In addition, both Russia and Ukraine have captured military material from the other side, so even if it is known from the serial number that it is a Russian or Ukrainian missile, it would be possible that it was by the other side.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has used the serial number as supposed proof that Ukraine was behind the shelling because in 2015 a Tochka-U missile with the serial number Ш91565 shelled the city of Alchevsk in the Lugansk People's Republic. That there were serial numbers close to that missile allegedly launched by Ukraine "would in no case prove that that particular serial number was in the Ukrainian arsenal. I don't think it is possible in any case to prove anything with that serial number because I doubt very much that not even the Russian and Ukrainian armies maintain a realistic traceability", says López Carnero. Chulilla is of the same opinion: "Soviet manufacture was carried out in very few plants per system, or even just one, and then the systems were distributed according to criteria to which we do not have access today. Even if they were continuous numerals there would be no guarantee as to who they would have been allocated to in each case." 2.138.180.34 (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding source: Maldito Bulo is a western Spain-based fact checker fighting disinformation. Here is source.https://maldita.es/maldita-es-journalism-to-not-be-fooled/ 2.138.180.34 (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

"Undue weight"

We now have two claims of undue weight for the same content:

'On the night of 7 April, the pro-Russian Telegram channel ZАПИСКИ VЕТЕРАНА ("Veteran's Notes") warned civilians not to evacuate from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk on railways.'

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)

I also came her for the same reason. The tag was recently placed by an IP address [16] and I didn't understand what was it about. At most, I could only see a problem of citation overkill. I've checked all the sources and it's perfectly fine. I'm removing the tag undue weight (and another tag I've just added by mistake) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Considering that is the only edit that IP has made under that address, and made no attempt to indicate what the concern is, I think we can safely remove the tag. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

HRU

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)

Ukraine deliberately did this attack.

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)

Another SPA. Nicodene (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Save The Grasshopper

Given the high degree of doubt expressed over the honesty of Russian information, should not Wikipedia also question the one-sided nature of the Ukrainian film-maker? 91.110.75.1 (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The article simply states that a film was made. What’s the issue, Ivan? Nicodene (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)