Talk:25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes

Careless use of wikivoice

This article may suffer from an excessive use of wikivoice. I've read a few sources and they generally quote Ukrainian officials. Consequently, attribution should be given since those may not necessarily be statements of fact. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Double explosion in Epicentr K Hypermarket

How can we be certain that two bombs were dropped on it? Because secondary explosions are a thing. Is there precedent for the Russians to use two of these big bombs in the same building? Because, afaik, they can't be intercepted. If we can't be certain that it's a fact, then we shouldn't use wikivoice. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh well, it is attributed intext. Though I hate when attribution is written at the end... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection of CCTV footage of the incident, it becomes clear that there were actually three explosions. Therefore, the Ukrainian claim of two guided bombs is already likely not true. It can either be three bombs/missiles or a single bomb with secondary explosions (or 2 bombs with one secondary). The "one bomb" scenario is compelling for several reasons: 3 FABs in the same building seems overkill; the Ukrainian officials already lost a bunch of credibility with the 2 bombs/explosions claim; the timing of the explosions suggest that the first triggered the other two, which then happened almost simultaneously; the Ukrainians have precedent of storing military equipment in/near civilian buildings; and finally, it simply sounds propagandistic to accuse the Russians of deliberately targeting civilians, it would be the dumbest thing to spend 3 FABs to only kill 16 civilians (which is, of course, very sad).

Needless to say, this should be incorporated in the article through a source. But this concern is enough to prompt adjustments in the wording of the article. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Well is there a source drawing those specific conclusions from the CCTV footage, or is that you or someone of Reddit's reasoning? Because the CCTV footage doesn't explicitly show either way that there were three bombs or one bomb and two succeeding explosions.

We also already attribute the claims of two bombs to "local officials", so what more wikivoice changes need to be made?

I also agree about the targeting civilians claim, I'll remove it in the infobox. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Well is there a source drawing those specific conclusions from the CCTV footage Currently trying to find. Apart from that post, at least one Russian milblogger (boris_rozhin, who's often cited by the ISW) says it was a military strike. Reddit's reasoning Look, I know what you're saying, but I find their reasoning much more believable than the claims of Ukrainian officials, especially when they're talking about a video/evidence.

Because the CCTV footage doesn't explicitly show either way that there were three bombs or one bomb and two succeeding explosions. Yes, as I said before. Though, such probability analysis should be made by real sources, of course. Though this and that discussion serves as motivation/inspiration, idk.

so what more wikivoice changes should be made? I'm not really thinking about wikivoice anymore, I'm actually talking about writing "claimed"/"alleged". Seems justified. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There are some reasons to believe that there were shells inside the building. Eyewitnesses have filmed the results of the strike, with what sounds like ammo detonating in the background. I've uploaded it on a video sharing website in. I have no experience with editing wikipedia articles what so ever and don't want to accidentally ruin it, so I decided to post it here instead. Unfam (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We need a written source to cite that argument though. I've found a milblogger accusation, but ideally we should find a better source. Thanks for the video though, I was kinda looking for it. We also have to be cautious as those smaller secondary explosions might be something other than military explosives. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

As for written sources TASS claimed that AFU used hypermarket for storing ammo. Russian political scientist, journalist, etc. Sergei Markov also made a similar post in his telegram channel. Also, another milblogger "Военный Осведомитель" published the video I linked in a post above in his telegram. Not sure if last 2 going to be usefull in any way, but TASS is pretty big. Unfam (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. They seem usable. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

No, we aren't adding anon tg channels as a source here.

Regarding your TASS addition, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP - Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. We are not relying Russian propaganda machine claims here. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you aren't adding anon tg channels, then add the video itself, just like how yuo did with cctv footage. As for "Russian propaganda" - seams like you had no problems with using meduza and radio free europe as sources, both of which are actual american propaganda funded by american government. Not to mention all the ukrainian news articles. Unfam (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, this page is a subject of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War and you should not edit it as you don't have WP:XC rights. Please undo your sourced info removal [1]. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Undo it yourself. You've already removed sources you didn't like any way. Unfam (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just removed the part that uses a website funded by american government as a source. Unfam (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I've added back the link on a tg channel with the video of multiple secondary explosions after the hit. You can change how it's worded or remove the source, if you don't like it, but please either upload it like with cctv footage, or provide another source with this video. There already links on another tg channels listed as sources, so I don't understand why you only have problems with this one. Also, please don't edit the page with "without providing any sources" right after deleting said source. Unfam (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

anon tg channels Which specifically are you calling anon? I only saw one. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We are not using tg channels as sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, find another source with that video then. Don't just remove it. Unfam (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Then how do you propose to cover the theme of the "secondary explosions"? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

[2] ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

👌 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

cherry-picked background

@Alexiscoutinho, you undoed [3] adding a context to the reporting on the grounds that it's "cherry-picked". Well it's the only context the source Russian Forces Hit Hypermarket In Deadly Assault On Kharkiv, Surrounding Villages (rferl.org) gives to the reporting, so your thesis about "cherry-picking" is wrong. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The source was seemingly cherry-picked. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

No, this new claim is also wrong. My edit [4] added 2 sources, and those are the only 2 non-Ru-govt-controlled sources available which give background to Russian claims. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh! How convenient! Only anti-Russian sources can be used. Russian sources can't be used because you think they are propaganda... And you expect us to represent the Russian POV like that? You seem to be forgetting that WP:NPOV is not negotiable. All I see here is an attempt to suppress the real Russian POV by only using sources from the massive Western propaganda machine. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It's not Wikipedia problem that Russian government rendered their controlled sources unreliable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Those Telegram channels are reliable for statements of the users themselves. They're literally representing themselves. Besides, the Russian view is already published in an accepted source, so removing the auxiliary comments is not removing the view, it's just isolating, putting it in a vacuum, when, in reality, everyone knows that it's not just the Russian intel agencies that accuse that. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Generally social media like YouTube or Twitter are not generally encouraged as a source. I can't find an explicit mention of Telegram in Wikipedia policies, but to me it would seem it violates WP:SOCIALMEDIA, specifically several of the five listed points. In any case, one would imagine information reported from Telegram would make its way into reliable sources. Super Ψ Dro 14:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

one would imagine information reported from Telegram would make its way into reliable sources. The problem is finding them. Most main sources are satisfied with whatever the Ukrainian officials say. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If something is not to be found in reliable sources, it is not worth including in an article. Under these grounds I offered removing the looting video claim from the 2024 Kharkiv offensive page. Super Ψ Dro 14:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The real Russian POV is that Ukraine is a Nazi state led by a drug addict that has been genociding its own population on the east of its country for eight years and forced upon itself an invasion that is being fought against with the direct involvement of 50 countries that have wronged Russia. That Ukraine stored ammunition in a civilian mall is obvious bullshit. In my opinion it'd be worth mentioning the claim anyway if reputable sources report on it (on the claim). Telegram is for sure not an appropriate source. notes.citeam.org / Teletype doesn't seem very reliable either. Meduza is reputable as far as I know though. To be fair, it wasn't necessary to mention the Bucha massacre in the article either. Super Ψ Dro 14:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Teletype is not reliable but lots of RSs refer to CIT so I decided to switch tg references with it, until some more established and reliable sources report on it. Bucha was only a wikilink and one can come with better something. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've now seen CIT seems to have some status. The fact that it has a page in Wikipedia is positive. This is one of those blurry cases that I very much like to avoid. Ideally we should report on this claim with some other undisputedly reliable source. If there isn't any alternate sources, I think the claim becomes quite weak and that it would not survive WP:RSN. Super Ψ Dro 14:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I removed it, initially [5] , but then it was re-added with tg channels using an edit war. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should remove the claim if a better alternative does not come to light. I've seen TASS cited in a diff, not sure if for this claim. Note that it isn't considered reliable "with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest" (WP:TASS). Super Ψ Dro 14:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

On the other side, the claim about "secondary detonations" is widely distributed across Russian propaganda outlets, including English-speaking. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should remove the claim if a better alternative does not come to light. The Russian version should stay unless it's retracted, even if it's just to be labelled as untrue in the end. Note that it isn't considered reliable "with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest" (WP:TASS). It is reliable for statements of Russian officials. Afaik, WP:NPOV only bothers with the reliability of the publisher, not the primary source itself. There, notability should suffice. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The text should by all means be removed if there are no reputed sources mentioning it. Reliability has far more priority in Wikipedia than appeasing both sides to achieve a false neutrality. Note that I mean the text cited to the CIT, not to Meduza. If CIT's claim has only been reproduced in an apparent offshoot of Telegram, it is clear the view has not achieved much weight. It would be a violation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I don't see much point on elaborating on these claims when we already have a reliable source mentioning them. Again, if nobody elaborates on them, we shouldn't either. Super Ψ Dro 15:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

a reliable source mentioning them
you mean which? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It depends. Social media should be avoided as much as possible in general, and are not appropriate for controversial claims if they are the only source for them. What other sources are there elaborating on the logic of the secondary detonations? Super Ψ Dro 16:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm asking - which source do you mean with we already have a reliable source mentioning them? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Meduza. It cites Russian state media stating the mall had a military warehouse and command post. I am only raising concerns over the following sentences in the same paragraph. Super Ψ Dro 16:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Videos are then the most reliable thing out there. If you don't think too much into them, they can't tell lies. As such, all two sources talking about two explosions would be less reliable than the Telegram video showing three explosions.

It would be a violation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. You know what also hangs on WP:ECREE.. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can use a video to elaborate on the claim on our own. Everyone can have their own interpretation and way of wording it from watching the video. WP:VIDEOREF says "you must establish that the uploader and the video meet the standards for a reliable source". So it's the same situation. Again, do we not have anything better?

You know what also hangs on WP:ECREE. I actually don't. What do you mean? Super Ψ Dro 16:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Source on Ukraine strike. Super Ψ Dro 17:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

you must establish that the uploader and the video meet the standards for a reliable source nobody doubts that the uploader uploaded the real video of the actual incident in this case. Therefore that guideline would just be paperwork/bureaucracy.

What do you mean? That Ukrainian claims also fall under it. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The real Russian POV is that Ukraine is a Nazi state led by a drug addict that has been genociding its own population on the east of its country for eight years and forced upon itself an invasion that is being fought against with the direct involvement of 50 countries that have wronged Russia. Overgeneralized and exaggerated. There are always the more radicals, but most people adhere to a toned down version.

That Ukraine stored ammunition in a civilian mall is obvious bullshit. Is this bullshit (Kyiv mall strike)? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Non reliable sources are not reliable

User:Flemmish Nietzsche undid my edit of removing unreliable sources [6] by basically claiming that it’s okay to … use non reliable sources. As long as these present “Russian viewpoint”, I.e. POV.

In the same edit they removed relevant text which actually WAS sourced to reliable sources.

That is so very obviously against policy that I don’t even know how to respond. Flemish Nietsche I would appreciate it if you self reverted. Volunteer Marek 05:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add the Russian POV content myself, it's just there's been two whole discussions above your post here that have elaborated on why we have this, and a RSN post ([7]). Not my wording, but @Alexiscoutinho explained it pretty well there, "One could similarly argue that the Ukrainian claims of war crime are WP:EXCEPTIONAL when they can't even count properly the number of large explosions that happened in the strike. It's also confusing how removing a balanced explanation/elaboration will improve the section given the same general claim is already deemed satisfactory for inclusion before. It's not like the article is too big or covering too many views. Feels like WP:IGNORE. If the secondary explosions are confusing enough to make all but the specialists be unsure of what they are, then I see it as a duty for Wikipedia to cover a more detailed explanation for transparency, thus overriding WP:RS paperwork." This seems like an exceptional circumstance here where we should show the views of both sides even if one (the Russian side) uses unreliable sources as it may be an explanation for why those second explosions occurred. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter whether you added “the Russian POV content” yourself originally or not. The point is you reverted to restore it. Quoting approvingly the editor who DID add the unreliable sources and “Russian POV content” originally does not exactly bolster your argument.

Seriously, you should undo that revert. Volunteer Marek 05:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Well I quoted approvingly of that editor because I agree with him.. you really should consider this circumstance rather than blindly deleting any content which contains what seem to be biased and unreliable sources. I'll self-revert for now though because I have better things to do than argue about this. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Deleting content based on unreliable sources is basically policy. But thank you for the self revert. Volunteer Marek 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, how convenient... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Why you meanwhile insist in unsourced and distorted text be presented in Russia article [8] ? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Telegram is not a reliable source. Editors need to stop using it. This seems like an exceptional circumstance here where we should show the views of both sides even if one (the Russian side) uses unreliable sources this is absolutely not such a situation. There is nothing exceptional about Ukrainians claiming Russia bombed their city for the umteenth time and killed yet again dozens of civilians. There is everything exceptional about Russian propagandists claiming "secondary explosions" to shift the blame to Ukraine and justify the murder of these civilians. No reliable sources are reporting on these supposed secondary explosions. These edits are not contributing to NPOV but pushing Russian propaganda, even if done in good faith. Super Ψ Dro 07:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Telegram is not a reliable source. Please don't abuse the RS argument. Telegram will always be reliable for statements attributed to the user/person himself and can always be reliable if used by a subject matter expert. It's literally just a platform. Reliability comes from how and by who it's used. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no abuse here from my part. You cannot cite a video, without text nor analysis, posted by a random Russian news channel on a social media platform. This is in violation of WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH and WP:SOCIALMEDIA. You need reliable sources. The proper way of making use of information found in Telegram is cite secondary sources talking about this info. The ISW for example is a secondary source which lists many Telegram links as sources in their daily updates. Again, we cannot cite Telegram directly, much less a video rather than textual information. Super Ψ Dro 11:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Then the video from a camera inside the market should be deleted. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not being used as a source. The caption is also pretty uncontroversial. Super Ψ Dro 15:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced to non-RS. No compromise. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That you cannot use a video as a source does not mean we cannot have videos in the article. "An eye for an eye" logic is completely incompatible with editing here. Super Ψ Dro 18:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Secondary explosions video

Stop deleting any mention of the secondary explosions video. If you don't like tg channels - upload it on the wikipedia dirrectly, like the cctv video. Stop trying to hide the evidence that aren't in favour of your biased POV. Unfam (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That would probably be a copyright violation. Super Ψ Dro 15:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

CCTV videos are not eligible to copyright. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Then upload that video. Super Ψ Dro 18:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

At this point I think it would be suicidal for me to upload a CCTV video tracing back to Telegram; too many scopes locked on me. I would, however, greatly appreciate if someone else did it. The video is here https://t.me/jnb_news/48930. If someone finds it published in a more appropriate source, then it would be even better. Though that might be hard and I don't know how to efficiently search for videos (I only know for images), especially since I have to Google translate anything in Russian or Ukrainian. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, it can still be found here and here. Oh, btw, doesn't that Ukrainian watermark means it was first published by the UA gov? If so, then the video should be in one of their FB pages. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I also managed to find it in the same verified news Telegram account that was used as source for the other video: https://t.me/RBC_ua_news/96971. The news article seems to link to the original Telegram post by the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office: https://t.me/prokuratura_kharkiv/16395. I think this should be enough. But I won't touch it for fear of the witch hunt. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained downplaying

I request editors to diligently read the article before reverting. This [9] edit to the death toll I made this morning was inappropriately removed due to edit warring that I was not involved with. I have since restored an updated version tonight. Thank you. Borgenland (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Russian claims

Should we remove background and context, given to Russian claims by the secondary RSs [10] , and leave them bare? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's useful to add context that ties this to the 2024 Kharkiv counteroffensive, i.e. say that as part of/since the beginning of the offensive, Russian and Ukrainian forces have significantly ramped up cross border strikes, most notably on Kharkiv and Belgorod. This would help the reader understand that this is not an isolated episode, but is instead tied to a campaign revolving around suppressing rear activities.

The part about past war crimes doesn't help with the understanding of this article and is unnecessary. It's obvious to the reader that Russia would deny targeting civilians and that Ukraine would deny using human shields. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We may think so but it's not what the sources say, and they say the following:
Russia has denied targeting civilians during its war with Ukraine, despite widespread evidence. Russian forces regularly target Kharkiv with missiles, guided bombs and drones. Starting from 10 May Russian forces are trying to advance in Kharkiv oblast. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That may indeed be what the sources you used say. But that doesn't guarantee inclusion, nor balance, nor due weight. Btw, did Ukraine even formally/openly accuse Russia of war crimes in this episode? Or is it just the media alluding? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Neither the text talks about the war crimes. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Didn't understand. Do you mean this discussion isn't guaranteed for inclusion? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Our article should provide the context provided by RS. I see you are against it but are lacking arguments. Therefore we'll follow the RS. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Our article should provide meaningful context provided by RS. It shouldn't be that complicated. What text do you propose exactly, the same old one? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Russia has denied targeting civilians during its war with Ukraine, despite widespread evidence. Russian forces regularly target Kharkiv with missiles, guided bombs and drones. Starting from 10 May Russian forces are trying to advance in Kharkiv oblast. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I propose the following instead:

The strikes happened amid an ongoing limited Russian offensive in Kharkiv Oblast which started on 10 May. The city of Kharkiv has faced frequent attacks since months prior and its energy infrastructure has already been severely damaged. Ukraine has also increased shelling of the Belgorod region.

On 19 May, 6 people were killed in a Russian strike on the outskirts of Kharkiv, according to the Regional Prosecutor's Office. The same day, three Ukrainian drones were shot down over Belgorod region, burning a church roof, according to local officials. On 23 May, Russian forces fired 15 missiles at Kharkiv, resulting in the death of 7 people and wounding 20.

Russian forces have previously struck at six other Epicentr shopping centers in Bucha, Nikopol, Mariupol, Kharkiv, Kherson and Chernihiv.

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Note how your sources give context for the whole strike episode, while my proposed sources give context specifically for "Russian state media cited a security source as saying that a "military warehouse and command post"" claim. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that I find it hard to give background to that claim without insinuating a scenario through WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think the most we can write without including hidden meanings is "Russia has denied targeting civilians during its war with Ukraine." without the "denied" wikilink. Maybe we could add an extra, third sentence, telling how the Ukrainians dispute the Russian version/accuse of deliberately targetting civilians. The most neutral connector would be "on the other hand".

In the meantime, I'll add the general background which you seem to have no problems with. Revert if you disagree. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems the "righting great wrongs" going on here is you insisting that both sides are covered equally, see WP:DUE. TylerBurden (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It's me arguing that the main purpose of generically citing "despite widespread evidence." is to insinuate that it's more likely that the Russians struck a purely civilian target again, i.e. follow the pattern and "don't believe the Russians". I don't think it's encyclopedic to cover info aimed to extrapolations of past events into current and future events. We cover the facts. The facts are that Russia and many notorious milbloggers accused Ukraine of storing military stuff there; that Ukraine and Zelensky said various things pointing to a war crime by Russia; that there were 3 large explosions; that there were secondary pops/small explosions that seem confusing but which have alternative explanations; and afaik that there wasn't an independent investigation (by UN, Human Rights Watch, an independent news org like NYT, etc) to prove which version is right. So it wouldn't be about WP:DUE. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

We cover the facts.
No, we write articles using secondary sources, including due weight from there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly. And of course we cover the facts. Or, more accurately, we write factual statements (which obviously includes statements like "Person X said Y, which was proven wrong by evidence Z"). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a way to include that "despite widespread evidence" statement fairly and without alluding to anything here. The wording would go something like this:

"In the past/earlier in the war/previously Russia has denied attacking civilian targets, despite widespread evidence in some/multiple incidents.<ref bsn(only that thrown in statement from the RFE is simply not enough for such sensitive statement; something other than NEWSORG would be great)> However, an independent investigation still hasn't been conducted to clarify/prove the disputing versions."

The above is much more encyclopedic and actually acceptable in my understanding. However, some new and better sources would need to be procured. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

References

question

is this sentence more accurate? "The city of Kharkiv has faced frequent attacks since previous months and its energy infrastructure has already been severely damaged. Ukraine has also increased shelling of the Belgorod region." Фіма (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The proposed change is: "months prior" -> "previous months". Idk, the opinion of a native speaker is required. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)