Talk:Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Exact time of explosion/destruction

Ukrainian and Russian WP state that the destruction/explosion took place at around 2.50am local time. It would be good to add a more precise time to this article than the current "in the morning", but I couldn't (yet) find a good English language source. Here are the sources cited in the UKR and RUS articles: [1] [2] AncientWalrus (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't have to only use English-language sources. In these cases Ukrainian- or russian-language sources will always be more complete. Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but I with my limited knowledge of the languages and their publications I can't tell how reliable these sources are. Someone has now added the time so this should be resolved.  Done AncientWalrus (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

'Ukrainian- or russian-language sources will always be more complete.'-that's only an opinion, and certainly not true HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what time zone it is in. Cwater1 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Local time of course, 2.50 UTC+3 AncientWalrus (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

oh okay Cwater1 (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

May bill

Why does the article not mention that on 31 May Russia passed a bill allowing it not to investigate infrastructure disasters that happened in occupied territories? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It does now  Done AncientWalrus (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Photo

add Zacharpolis (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked the license and it looks ok (the website states it's CC-BY) so I added it.  Done AncientWalrus (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

The confirmed death toll has risen to 9 people now: [3] 93.72.49.123 (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that the article 2023 Kherson Oblast floods be merged with this article as the content of that article can be placed in this article under "Impacts". Aqeccac (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Super Ψ Dro 08:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. --P37307 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support - obvious action. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support --Givibidou (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support immediate merge per apparent unanimous consent. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support CIN I&II (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I carried out the merge. Super Ψ Dro 11:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian government declaration

In the infobox, it is claimed that Russia has accused Ukraine for the destruction of the dam. However, there is no declaration of the russian government in the article nor in the sources. The mayor of Nova Kakhovka and russian media accused Ukraine, they're not representatives of the russian government. We can assume it's highly probable that the russian government will accuse Ukraine, but it isn't correct to report this before they make any official declaration. Givibidou (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Information about water level difference ?

Only online source i found is from hydroweb: https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/?basin=Dniepr&lake=kakhovka It's not live (update every 2-6 days), it's better to put it there on in main article about dam ? Sokol 44 (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

For the "background" section

From the (anti-Putin) Moscow Times:

"What would happen if the dam were blown? The consequences of a major attack on the Kakhovka dam would depend on how much of the structure was destroyed, experts told The Moscow Times. In a catastrophic scenario, destroying the dam could send a highly destructive flood wave down the Dnipro River, causing severe flooding in large areas of southern Ukraine. Backswell would also likely flood the Inhulets River, a tributary of the Dnipro. However, terrain levels mean the flooding would likely be worse on the Russian-held left bank of the Dnipro, making a detonation of explosives on the dam an unlikely move for Moscow. "[Destroying the dam] would mean Russia essentially blowing its own foot off,” military analyst Michael Kofman said on the War on the Rocks podcast last month. “[It] would flood the Russian-controlled part of Kherson [region]… much more than the western part that Ukrainians are likely to liberate." And the secondary effects of blowing the dam could be just as severe for Russia. Lowering the river level behind the dam threatens both water supplies to Moscow-annexed Crimea and risks cutting off access to cooling water for the Russian-controlled nuclear power plant in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region." [4]

This is from November of last year.

Interestingly, some of this same analysis was included in an earlier version of an article they published today, but they then did a post-publication edit to remove it. [5]

-2003:CA:870C:E40:3D94:9DEB:158E:1D0B (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Kofman says a lot of things, honestly. Like, he also said that Ukraine would fall immediately when the invasion kicked off, and has said things about Ukrainian personnel quality in the battle of Bakhmut that basically no expert agrees with. I'm not sure how reliable of a source he is on his own. HappyWith (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction. Just because it wasn't a good idea at the time doesn't mean it isn't a good idea now, and yes newspapers tend to recycle materials that why we should be careful in the early stages of on going events.

To put you mind at ease. Evidently no dam was blown when Russia retreated, instead they demolished the bridges over the river and used the floodgate to raise the water levels, which helped cover their retreat and hinder the advance of Ukrainians. Since then Russia had a chance to prepare, now that Ukraine is again on the attack the dam is damaged, and I haven't heard of Russian troops effected by the floods only Ukrainian civilians. --Nilsol2 (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

205th brigade

Ukrainian officials placed the responsibility for the destruction of the dam on the 205th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade. In October 2022, the brigade's Telegram channel said that "There is confirmed information about our mining of the dam, and its explosion in case of an uncontrolled advance of the enemy." In the same month, Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence said that the Russians had mined the dam in April 2022. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

References

evacuated villages

Update the evacuated villages according to the official information: https://mvs.gov.ua/news/vazlivo-rosiiani-pidirvali-grebliu-kaxovskoyi-ges Daniel Maak (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Czech reaction

Add to reactions: The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the destruction of the dam, stating that Russia is "deliberately endangering the lives of tens of thousands more civilians". 93.72.49.123 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

References

British Foreign Secretary James Cleverleys quote

So James Cleverleys quote is evidently taken from an Interview he had given east of Kiev with Reuters. As can be seen in this Article: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk-foreign-minister-says-ukraine-dam-blast-result-russian-invasion-2023-06-06/

Just to add a source on this claim. But the exact quote is: "But it’s worth remembering that the only reason this is an issue at all is because of Russia’s unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine." Der Overmind (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Do NOT use live update sources

It is obvious that we shouldn't rely too much on live update sources the contents of which rapidly change, making verification of the information on the article difficult. However, it appears this article is based on such sources. I've already tagged two random instances in which I found what was being said is not cited in the article but I suspect there's far more. Super Ψ Dro 11:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It makes reading the article difficult if something is changing rapidly. Cwater1 (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

More background...

From the Washington Post:

"[Ukrainian Maj. Gen. Andriy] Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages. The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off." [6]

-2003:CA:870C:E40:3D94:9DEB:158E:1D0B (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this should definitely be added to the background to show the bigger picture. Solidtwo (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless we have a source that actually discusses this in relation to the dam destruction then including it would be WP:OR on our part, and would clearly be a NPOV violation. — Czello ^(music) 09:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

What bigger picture? --Nilsol2 (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I assume it's attempting to promote a conspiracy theory that Ukraine destroyed the dam. — Czello ^(music) 11:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

American intelligence

According to the American intelligence russia is a perpetrator https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/khakovka-dam-live-updates-ukraine-russia-blew-up-kherson-rcna87855 31.47.96.132 (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

They are leaning. Given this is an unfolding live event I would wait for secondary sources to confirm a Government's position.

Otherwise you need to note the word "leaning" Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"Failed"

Saying that the dam failed suggests this was an accident. I know of no source saying that. The perpetrator has not been independently determined, but each side says the other destroyed it. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Saying the dam failed does not imply it was an accident. Almost all major news headlines now refer to this in more neutral terms - "incident," "collapse," "destruction," or "breach" and not an "explosion" or that it was "blown up." So it appears that facts around this have changed, and the language of this article should reflect that. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Advanced planning and warnings

"Ukraine war latest: Intelligence says Russia prepares ‘terrorist attacks’ in Kherson Oblast in anticipation of Ukraine’s ‘speedy’ advance - It was published in October 21, 2022 and was saying:

"The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a U.S. defense think-tank, said on Oct. 20 that “continued Russian preparation for a false-flag attack” on the Kakhovka dam is likely meant to steer away attention from Moscow’s battlefield losses in the south."

"This week, Russian forces had planted additional explosives at the Kakhovka hydroelectric station, according to the intelligence, as they expect Ukraine’s “speedy liberation” of the occupied territory on the west bank of the Dnipro River."

And so on. Russian forces were planting the explosives on the dam during more than a year, starting from April 2022. My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this should be included in "background" section. My very best wishes (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• The fact that the water level had been increased since February after dropping for awhile before that([7], [8]) should be considered. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, especially since all the sources mention this isn't due to any unusually high snow melt.

  Quote from the AP article "Now, either deliberately or through neglect, the flow through the dam is not adjusting to the river’s seasonal flow."

  It would need context for the average reader IMO though. How does evidence of inreased water flow this provide evidence to support claims of advanced planning or warning. Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we add Russia in Reactions section?

We can use this statement from Kremlin, this and this from Russian Foreign ministry, this from Russian representative to UN. Boyinaroom (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see why not. I'd like to see the statement from the video of Vladimir Saldo about Nova Kakhovka being okay with a window behind him showing the city is flooded too. Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian negligence

Worth noting that there are some prominent opinions that the dam failure was not caused by a controlled demolition but as result of structural damage which was caused by Russian negligence in maintenance and operations of the dam. That was voiced by Ruslan Leviev, Christopher Miller and Evan Hill, all quite respected and not pro-Russian figures. These are based mostly on analysis of satellite photos from end of May to 5 June, showing gradual deterioration of the dam at the place which later collapsed, specifically increasing flow of water, parts of the road collapsing into water. The opinions are summarized here https://theins.ru/en/news/262360 I do see their weakness at some point (e.g. road pieces collapsing does not prove explosives were not planted inside the machine building) but I believe it's worth discussing here.

Cloud200 (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree, see: Talk:Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam/Archive 1#"Failed". - Fuzheado | Talk 13:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I can find no secondary sources to substantiate a negligence claim. The BBC article being cited across wikipedia does not suggest the noted damage was responsible.

"A road across the dam appears to be damaged from 2 June, but there did not seem to be a change to the flow of the water until 6 June when the breach of the wall and collapse of nearby buildings can be clearly seen. It is currently unclear whether the damage to the road is linked to the 6 June breach."

In my opinion there are a few articles erroneously using this secondary source with missing context, Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Negligence is very unlikely if you read the various expert opinions herein, e.g. A combination of damaged sluice gates and high water might tear away a few gates, but would not be expected to rip apart so much of the dam, the professor said. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course that was not negligence. The charges were carefully placed deep within the construction to demolish water gates from below. Therefore, there was no large explosion visible from the outside. That was a controlled implosion. As about the ref (Insider), it gives a link here. Making such "law" can be interpreted as the Russian side planning the demolition at least a couple of weeks before, although the charges were placed already in 2022. They mined other objects in anticipation of the offensive, most notably a chemical plant in Crimea [9]My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Downweight or remove this sentence from the lead?

A huge loss of water in the Kakhovka Reservoir may threaten the water supply to Crimea and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, both currently under Russian control, but there is no immediate risk. I'm not sure if we want to give this idea a lot of weight. May want to look into softening or removing from the lead. Per the reliable secondary source Institute for the Study of War, in this assessment:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Ukrainian officials stated that the drop in the water level at the Kakhovka Reservoir should not affect the safety of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP). IAEA Director Rafael Grossi reported that the drop in the water level at the Kakhovka Reservoir poses “no immediate risk to the safety of the plant” and that IAEA personnel at the ZNPP are closely monitoring the situation.[9] Grossi stated that the ZNPP is pumping water into its cooling channels and related systems, and that the large cooling pond next to the ZNPP will be ”sufficient to provide water for cooling for some months.”[10]

and

Some Russian sources indicated that the damage to the dam could threaten the water supply to occupied Crimea, but ISW previously noted that Crimea survived without water from the Dnipro River in the years between Russia‘s initial illegal annexation in 2014 and when water access was restored following the 2022 full-scale invasion.[36] –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The current article has a whole sub-section devoted to the "water supply" to Crimea and the ZNPP, so we should at least mention this topic. However, the wording would be good to change, as none of the sources we have listed seem to say that the loss of water "may threaten the water supply" to the ZNPP. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

US intelligence is "leaning towards" Moscow being behind the attack

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-flooding-fears-after-major-dam-hit-by-shelling-in-russia-controlled-kherson-region-12897228

Relevant opinion of a third party. 2A02:2F0B:B300:9F00:41C2:D0D4:672D:8326 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Map showing flooding area

The following map could potentially be added: [10] AncientWalrus (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Politico article

[11]: "Ten natives of the town of Oleshky and the village of Kardashynka, located some 20 kilometers and 36 kilometers southeast of the city of Kherson respectively, told POLITICO that locals tried to flee immediately after the dam blasts — but Russian troops blocked them and forced them to return home to wait for an official list of evacuees who would be bussed out of the area." 93.72.49.123 (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV vs FALSEBALANCE

This is just to start a section on the question of whether the sources justify attribution of the destruction to Russian forces alone, or whether we have to include the POV presented by various Russian authorities claiming that the dam was "shelled" by Ukrainian forces. In other words, WP:NPOV vs WP:FALSEBALANCE. Boud (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As well, there were holes in the dam already yesterday. Might as well have collapsed on its own due to lots of water lately. Though obviously it wouldn't collapse, if whichever soldiers didn't damage it in the past months. Andree.sk (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair point: but so far we don't seem to have any sources describing as a more complex causal chain (damage + high water level + previous damage by RU forces). If you find a source, then please edit. Boud (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of other evidence, I agree that structural failure is plausible. If so Russia as the occupying power is responsible for this. Interestingly I found this information on RU/UK version of this page, and we already know that under Russia control the water have raise to an all-time high.--Nilsol2 (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

From a quick browse of the current content and sources, it looks like there is not (yet) a broad consensus that Russian forces were responsible: Russian authorities blame Ukrainian forces. A Bayesian judgment based on the much higher frequency of blatantly false statements from Russian authorities would require WP:OR. We'll know in the coming hours or days (or weeks) how reliable sources interpret the evidence. Boud (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

What we need are groups like ISW to publish their analyses, and in the long term (years?), judicial investigations. Boud (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

ISW's June 6 analysis offered this: ISW has not yet observed clear evidence of what transpired at the KHPP on June 6 and is therefore unable to offer an independent assessment of responsibility at the time of this publication.

and

ISW cannot offer a definitive assessment of responsibility for the June 6 incident at this time but finds that the balance of evidence, reasoning, and rhetoric suggests that the Russians deliberately damaged the dam. Their June 7 analysis didn't speak to the topic of blame. I think this second quote is a bit too speculative to use in the article. We probably need to wait for reliable sources to find more evidence and coalesce around a conclusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I started a section Attribution, so that we can clarify which sources say what. Boud (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Russia's various claims are mutually inconsistent. It is intact, it was destroyed by a rocket launcher, and it was destroyed by Ukrainian sabotage. We report all of that in the article. But idk what we can/should do in the infobox. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I say just give it as disputed. We will probably never know 100% who did it. The same with the Nord Pipeline. Fruitloop11 (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It would not be FALSEBALANCE to include the Russian claim. Either claim is plausible at this point. There would be clearer indications as to culpability in the future, probably. I'm seeing a Nordstream situation here. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with Festucalex's reasoning – it's probably best to wait for an objective and third-party fact-finding before we arbitrarily exclude one side's claim in favour of another. – Olympian ^loquere 06:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you put shelled in scare-quotes, this is common military terminology Fishing Publication (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Reading the numerous expert comments contained herein, the most likely scenario is clearly an explosion from inside. Experts cautioned that the available evidence was very limited, but they said that an internal explosion was the likeliest explanation for the destruction of the dam [...] And local residents reported on social media that they heard a huge explosion around the time the dam was breached, at 2:50 a.m. with a non-explosive "natural" collapse becoming very unlikely: A combination of damaged sluice gates and high water might tear away a few gates, but would not be expected to rip apart so much of the dam, the professor said. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with my esteemed Russian and Palestinian colleagues, Olympian and Festucalex. The portrayal of the stance of the aggressor, who held control over the dam and who has demonstrably executed numerous similar attacks on civilian infrastructure over the past 15 months, surely qualifies under the concept of "False Balance". If this isn't a textbook example of false balance, could you please provide one that fits your interpretation? Фіялетовий (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

EuroMaidanPress has now pointed out the obvious -- Russian claims contradict each other.[12] The problem is that this source is not WP:INDEPENDENT. Is there an independent source that has done the same thing? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I see Ukraine has pointed out the same thing[13]. What we need is an independent source that does so. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, since sources do include both Russian claims (undamaged and destroyed by Ukraine), we can do the same thing. It's not WP:SYNTH as both claims can be found in the same source, i.e.[14] We can't say they are inconsistent until a source does that. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Фіялетовий: I respectfully disagree with my Ukrainian colleague Fiyaletovi. Wikipedia doesn't create political or historical analysis (see: WP:OR), even if we're tracing past patterns (see: WP:SYNTH). We can remove disputed claims from the infobox only once Russian (or Ukrainian, or American, or Zimbabwean) culpability has been proven and published in reliable secondary sources. I have every urge to remove ridiculous Israeli claims from the Wikipedia articles of our national heroes and liberation movements, but I don’t do that because of Wikipedia’s guidelines (see: WP:NPOV). You feel the same against Russian claims. My personal beliefs don’t matter here, and neither do yours nor anyone else’s. 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I agree with you that sources do not dispute that the dam was destroyed. But the initial Russian statement was that it was undamaged, and sources have reported this.[15] I don't think it is consistent with WP:NPOV to "clean up" Russia's statements by reporting the second Russian statement (that Ukraine did it) without reporting the first Russian statement (that the dam was intact). The fact that these two statements contradict each other, and that the first one obviously contradicts reality, is not a reason to leave one of the statements out of the infobox, when sources reported both. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. Russian officials made a number of contradictory claims, which undermines whatever they have to say. Also, yes, there is WP:GEVAL problem in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a destruction (yet)

There are 2 or 3 big holes in it, but in total only ~ 1/10 of the width? https://www.idnes.cz/zpravy/zahranicni/rusko-ukrajina-kachovska-prehrada-utok-valka-zaporozska-jaderna-elektrarna.A230606_145915_zahranicni_dtt/foto/AHA4885ce8af0_profimedia_0781698901.jpg Andree.sk (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The part at the right of the photo where you see green is presumably considered to be "not part of the dam", in the sense that even if it's artificially constructed "land" with trees, it wasn't part of the controllable mechanics of "the dam". A photo like this shows that about "half the dam" is open. I added "effectively" to the text, since pedantically, parts of the dam still appear to be in place. In terms of destruction in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it seems to be common to use the word "total" to describe destruction which is a lot less than 100%, where the "destroyed" object effectively has no parts that can still be used (even if walls are still standing). Boud (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that it is premature to use the word 'destruction', as reports indicate that only the top part of the dam was damaged and the lower structure is still in place, so it might possibly be repaired at some time. "Breaching" would be a far more accurate assessment. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian withdrawal (or not) from Protocol I

I reverted this edit [16] by @Modest Genius adding Both Russia and Ukraine are signatories to the protocol, but Russia withdrew its ratification in 2019. The legal status of Russia's withdrawal seems to be unclear, as one can see at the discussion on the Protocol I page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I#Russia which states:

The available reports regarding this action do not indicate that Russia has revoked their accession to Protocol I as a whole, and the Russian Federation is still included on the lists of parties maintained by the International Committee of the Red Cross and by the United Nations.

It would be good to find some more in depth discussion than a Reuters news article re Russia's legal status. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Also see the talk discussion here which concluded that Russia had not withdrawn from the protocol itself. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@AncientWalrus: OK, thanks for notifying. I was just going by the cited source, I didn't realise there was any debate over which parts Russia has withdrawn from. I do think it's inappropriate to have a sentence pointing out that blowing up dams is against the protocol, without saying whether Russia and/or Ukraine are bound by that protocol. Can that be clarified in the article? Modest Genius ^talk 18:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, having reread the relevant talk sections, news articles and original sources, it's clear that Russia has not withdrawn from protocol I, but only from the fact finding mission which is set up by article 90. I agree it's confusing, Reuters seems to have gotten it wrong. So the answer is that both Russia and Ukraine are bound by the provisions of protocol I. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for digging and I'll take your word for it. I've clarified in the article that the protocol applies to both Russia and Ukraine. Modest Genius ^talk 16:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

interactive map

I created an interactive map on the German wiki, based on official information, and you can copy it to this article Daniel Maak (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Were there no evacuations on the eastern (Russian held) side or did you not get information from that side? AncientWalrus (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@AncientWalrus @AncientWalrus These are only showing the villages the Ukrainian National Police and the State Emergency Service evacuate(d). Daniel Maak (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Dnipro vs Dnieper

We should agree on what to call the river, the article used both, so I went ahead and changed all mentions of the Russian name Dnieper to the Ukrainian name Dnipro. NYT, Reuters, Guardian, seem to use Dnipro. This is consistent with using Kyiv as opposed to Kiev. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Survey of what current sources use:

• Dnipro: BBC, NYT, CNN, Al Jazeera, Axios, Guardian
• Dnieper Newsweek
• Both: USA Today

AncientWalrus (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk decided to revert my edit and also change the pre-existing mentions of Dnipro with Dnieper. I think we should get consensus on which to use. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Unlike Kyiv, this river is located not only in Ukraine 31.47.96.132 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• We should use Dnieper because that's what our article uses. If that needs to be changed, it should be discussed there. As noted this isn't exclusively a Ukrainian river. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Makes sense to be consistent with the river article name. But what if sources referred to it as Dnipro for the Ukrainian part and Dnieper for the Belarusia/Russian? AncientWalrus (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with 331dot here. Let's use what we call the river on its own article, and if need be, let's discuss a name change there. Super Ψ Dro 19:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy with that. Move is discussed there, this article will use whatever the article is called. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There’s no logic to any of the above.

Cited sources mainly use Dnipro.

What exactly does “located in Ukraine” have to do with it? Kyiv is located in Ukraine, but there is an exception (I don’t know why) to use “Kiev” for articles about Ukraine when it was in the Soviet Union. But if it is material to the question, the subject of this article is located in Ukraine and only in Ukraine.

This article should follow its sources.  —Michael Z. 23:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

New editors keep re-introducing Dnipro, for example @Hairy Dude in this edit. This is understandable, as after all, most sources use Dnipro. That's a strong argument to use Dnipro as opposed to Dnieper. The minority of the English speaking population that will have heard about the river before the dam's collapse may have learned about it as Dnieper, but those who are only reading about it now will read about it as Dnipro. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

No matter what we decide to use for now, we should probably be consistent, otherwise things are confusing. Maybe it could help to add a parenthetical (also known as Dnipro) to the first mention of the Dnieper river in the article. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Or also known as the Dnieper. But it looks like few or none of the cited sources do that.  —Michael Z. 13:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

About a third of the more extensive list of sources I checked used Dnieper, see at Talk:Dnieper. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

What do the sources cited for this subject use? Your lament about “new editors” describes swimming upstream. A consensus to ban the current, with extensive references to the seas and oceans, won’t help. —Michael Z. 15:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I made the change on the assumption that Ukraine-related articles would use the Ukrainian name. That's purely an assumption, not based on any particular guideline. IMO it's fine if we call it different things for different purposes, e.g. Dneiper in its own article and Dnipro in Ukraine-related articles. Ultimately though I have no opinion either way. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

My understanding from the article on the river is that Dnipro is the Ukrainian name and Dneiper is the Russian name (both transliterated to the Latin alphabet). Both names are in common use in English. The article is located at Dneiper, but it covers the entire length of the river (including the parts in Russia and Belarus) so its name is not necessarily binding on the Ukrainian portion. MOS:PLACE is a bit vague on what constitutes an 'appropriate context', but IMO we should use the Ukrainian name in an article about a dam in Ukraine, offering the Russian version as an alternative on first mention. Modest Genius ^talk 16:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

NYT pov in the lede

I removed here the NYT pov in the lede as it is WP:UNDUE weight. Seems to have both parties stating the other did it and that can be summarized in wikivoice instead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Expert opinion is something very different from parties' views. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

(ec) The NYT is not located in one of the parties to this conflict. Its also not their POV but that of experts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I've meanwhile added the expert view where it clearly belongs: next to the BBC sentence about deteriorating condition in this edit. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not POV, that is factual. What is non-neutral POV is removing that and leaving Russia and Ukraine’s two accusations as if they were equally valid. We can’t do that without mentioning that Russia has lied about everything in the war since 2014, and that Russian state propaganda has been advocating destroying Ukrainian infrastructure including dams for months.  —Michael Z. 23:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Farming

Please add some perspective to the farming section:

The regions expected to be affected by the dam breach—Kherson, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia—account for around 12% of Ukraine’s agricultural output source

This should have an affect on 2022–2023 food crises:

UN World Food Programme (WFP) has warned of negative consequences for hunger worldwide following the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in Ukraine. source

Interesting correlation, same day we have the world's largest ammonia pipeline shelled in Ukraine, leading to fear of another environmental disaster source. Notabily, ammonia is used for making fertilizer, which is one of the main culprits of the unprecedented food crisis in the world. --Nilsol2 (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Also please add a see also link to Economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --Nilsol2 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Fatalities

I added a verified death toll on the Infobox yet it doesn't appear no matter how many commands I typed. Borgenland (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, by using "fatalities". See Template:Infobox civilian attack for how to use it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh i thought Russia had left Kherson like 6 months ago....

That.... 186.28.107.91 (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

They left the city, on the right bank of the river. The left bank is still occupied. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

French Reaction

Not extended-confirmed protected so I can't add this myself, but politico reports that Paris is quote " rushing aid including water purifiers, 500,000 water purification tablets and hygiene kits to help people displaced by the disaster.".

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/08/zelenskyy-kakhovka-dam-visit-00100986

Can anyone fit this in the international reactions portion of the article on my behalf? Thanks Alexcs114 :) 13:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 13:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

False balance in section Reaction

Discussion in #False balance of accusations in the lead / reactions above.

The Reactions section first display the voice of Russia, which is unusual. Discussion on that matter has stated in the (expanded) section above. Yug (talk) 🐲 17:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the actual issue here is having a logical order. Zakharova says: "The reaction of the West in all such situations is 100% predictable...". But what reaction? This needs to be stated before. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Seismic signals recorded from an explosion at the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine

Add link to: https://www.jordskjelv.no/meldinger/seismic-signals-recorded-from-an-explosion-at-the-kakhovka-dam-in-ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.121.211 (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The current text in the article implies NORSAR is the owner of the seismic array that detected the event. But the source says NORSAR's analysis detected an event from seismic station in Romania. I think "A Seismic station in Romania detected signals that NORSAR scientists interpreted as a weak..." would be more accurate. Ghtfv (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point: you're partly right. However, the NORSAR source says Data from regional seismic stations. It does not say that only the Bukovina detector detected the event. There is clearly a plural used: seismic stations. NORSAR scientists chose to display one graph for one of the stations (the one in Bukovina), rather than publish all of the data. It seems that NORSAR itself has four traditional detector stations (arrays?) and one fibre array detector, apparently all in Norway. It also appears from the text that a "station" can have an array of detectors - in particular, the Bukovina detector is an array. Done Boud (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I assume that "regional" means megametre scales - the terminology is probably something like local (10-100 km), regional (1-2 Mm), global (10 Mm). This is likely to be a standard informal convention in seismology. The simplest option without sources is to retain the word in the NORSAR source - "regional". The distance to Bukovina clearly shows that the scale is about a megametre (620 km is logarithmically a lot closer to 1 Mm than to 100 km; 10^2.79 is logarithmically much closer to 10^3 than to 10^2). Boud (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Maxar Technologies image released June 5

Update... I was wrong, but I'll leave the thread for the archives My original comment was OR (photo interp) and here is some more OR.... I now think that bit of concrete is still in its original place, and was part of a lock adjacent to Turbine Building 4, or maybe its just a wide pier to hold up the road as it bends around building 4. Either way.... nevermind.... original comment, for the archives read as follows An image released by Maxar Technologies on June 5 shows the Turbine Buildings still OK but just to the west of them the road is severed. If you look close, it looks like at least part of a gate pier (the concrete pillar like things) has dislodged downstream. I admit this is OR (just zoom in on the photo and see for yourself). One of any number of media sources using this image is this one republished by Times of Israel I have no professional qualifications to know what I'm looking at in the picture, just saying what it looks like to me... and if that really is concrete bridge parts dislodged downstream, I have no idea what significance this has, if any.

Has anyone found a good source that discusses this?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in background. This is unlikely to have caused the failure according to experts (and also common sense), given the widespread collapse in multiple places far from the part that was damaged before 6 June. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the Russian's destruction of the road surface, adjacent to the "right bank" (facing downstream) in Nov 2022. The section I'm talking about, and depicted in the image I linked, is right outside the turbine buildings at the opposite end of the main span. This damage only appeared in Satellite images in the week before the big flood. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC) PS Imagery from BBC suggests this damage, right outside the turbine buildings occured sometime June 1-2 2023. That imagery is from more of an overhead angle and doesn't show the potentially moved pier as well as the Times of Israel image I shared at first (which was from more of the side). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It's in background section: On 2 June, a small part of the road over the dam appeared damaged, according to satellite images obtained by BBC News.[21][22] AncientWalrus (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks (insert self trouting) don't know how I missed that. Sorry to take your time to fix a stupid mistake on my part. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries at all! AncientWalrus (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Specify what type of investigation were cancelled by russian government

Insert "technical" before "investigations" here:

On 30 May, a week before the dam breach, the Russian government decreed that there would be no investigations into accidents at industrial and hydroelectric facilities in occupied Ukraine "that occurred as a result of military operations, sabotage and acts of terrorism".

Russia cancelled technical investigations, not all investigations. Quote from the source:

Quote from the document: "Until 1 January 2028, technical investigations shall not be carried out into accidents at hazardous production facilities and accidents at hydraulic structures that occurred as a result of military operations, sabotage and acts of terrorism." Maragiozis (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Valid point, done. Not that it does change much, as you can't do a criminal investigation in such case without a technical one first. Cloud200 (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Coordinates problem

There is a set of coordinates at the top of the article:

46°46′40″N 33°22′13″E

As a part of the North Crimean Canal section I added a graphic that has coordinates just to the right of that and down, being the intake of the canal:

46°46′N 33°23.7′E

Somehow these coordinates are being shown when one clicks on the coordinates at the top, such that the pushpin shows the canal intake instead of the location of the dam. Does anybody know what causes this problem and how to solve it? Swood100 (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

OK I solved it. Using "display=inline" keeps those coordinates from becoming the title coordinates for the page. Swood100 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed move as minor edit?

User:Triggerhippie4 moved the page from Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam to Kakhovka dam collapse and marked it as a minor edit. Should we not first discuss this and get quick consensus? AncientWalrus (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't meant to mark it as a minor edit, sorry for that. To my knowledge, it's still not determined if it was, in fact, intentionally destroyed. "Collapse" is used in many media, for example, AP. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a revert to the status quo, Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam is justified while a formal {{RM}} is proposed by Triggerhippie4 or anyone else. See WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS above. We don't (yet) have any sources for "complex causal chain" (see above - damage to dam + failure by Russian occupiers to do proper maintenance + Russian occupiers allowing water level to go to record high + spontaneous failure due to cumulation of risk), and there is a claim by Ukrainian sources that the engine room exploded (not just collapsed). Both the RU and UA sides claim this was a deliberate destruction. Boud (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, let's revert. The revert also doesn't require consensus. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Both Russia and Ukraine accuse each other of deliberately causing the destruction, see attribution. No one seems to claim it just happened. So destruction seems more precise than collapse. I know that "it just happened" was a talking point a few hours after the attack, but now almost all I can find says "attack", "destruction" etc. Your cited source also says "Moscow and Kyiv blame each other" -> not natural. NYT calls it destruction, CNN calls it destroyed. You could have at least raised it on the talk page first? AncientWalrus (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Exercise caution here. It is far more important to remain neutral than to fall for predictable accusations. The dam failed; how it failed is unknown. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no accusation in the title, it doesn't say "Russian destruction" it just says "Destruction" which is neutral. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"Destruction" implies someone destroyed the Kakhovka Dam. Again, there's plenty of accusations about its destruction, but until there is sufficient evidence that it was destroyed, it's much safer to say it failed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Nature can also destroy things, a person is not necessarily implicated. E.g. World Meterological Organization writes: Storm surge from Hurricane Haiyan in the Philippines left buildings destroyed, trees up-rooted, cars piled on top of each other and many homeless. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the move per requested at WP:RM/TR. Please raise a WP:RM discussion next if anyone here intend to move to the 'collapse' version. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And @Tomastvivlaren just moved it again. Please don't move without prior discussion. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And now it got moved again by User:ElijahPepe. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I've requested move protection [17] AncientWalrus (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I've applied move protection for the next week. In cases where the title of a page is controversial, a requested move (or similar talk page discussion) should be held beforehand to get consensus. It is clear that changes to the title of this page are controversial, especially changes from "destruction" to "failure". Hut 8.5 16:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't move without discussion

Please don't move this page without discussion per WP:RMUM. There is a discussion, hence undiscussed moves are not allowed. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The page has now been move protected AncientWalrus (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RM for instructions on how to propose a title change. Boud (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of "2023" in article name

I suggest that the year "2023" should be included in the article name, for example by moving it to 2023 destruction of the Kakhovka Dam. Argument: To not confuse it with the 2022 attack on Nova Kakhovka. It is a common form, for example in 2022 bombing of Kryvyi Rih. Another user also made an attempt to rename the article with the year included (but simultaneously made more changes to the name).Tomastvivlaren (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No need for the 2023 unless the dam has been destroyed before. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It was blown up before in WWII. But I don't this disambiguation is required, as the current situation is the common usage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Dam didn't exist in WW2. It was built in 1956. Borgenland (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

To clarify further - what the AncientWalrus meant was probably the blowing of Dnieper Hydroelectric Station - it is located on the same river. 31.183.217.246 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

No need for year as WP:NOYEAR states: "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." The dam destruction hasn't happened in the past, and is unlikely to happen again. Also, since the dam is specifically named in the article title, we don't need the year for disambiguation purposes. – Fuzheado | Talk 14:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Counteroffensive section

The section of the article claims that only Russia benefits from the flooding, whereas in reality it has been reported that Ukraine also benefits from it given that the positions of Russian military units on the other side of the Dnieper have been flooded (https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3719148-kakhovka-hpp-explosion-causes-flooding-of-russian-positions.html) and the Crimean peninsula is now receiving drastically less water for its inhabitants (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/destruction-kakhovka-dam-takes-ukraine-war-into-uncharted-territory-2023-06-06/). HorCrux48 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would caution about using Ukrainian sources for such glass half-full perspectives. I doubt you'll find a source saying that *overall* Ukraine benefited militarily from this without doing SYN. Because for months Ukraine have been waiting on the heat of summer to dry the ground, were trying to establish crossing points on the island and the other bank, while trying to widen the front for Russian elsewhere. This flooding created a natural barrier effectively shrinking the front for Russia, and creating a HUGE problems for Ukraine when its ramping up for the counteroffensive.

However, I would add to the article that Ukraine stated that this won't *stop* their counteroffensive --Nilsol2 (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Most of the flooding occurred on the Russian side of the river, I don't think this entirely benefits Russia if their defensive lines are destroyed. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It benefits them if it produces swampiness so that Ukraine has to wait a month before they are able to threaten to drive their heavy machinery through there. It also benefits them if they no longer have to heavily defend against Ukraine being able to drive their tanks across the bridge. Swood100 (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't that they could really do that in the first place, with the bridges being blown out, and pontoon crossings are far too risky, so there was no need in destroying the dam in terms of heavy machinery since the river was already doing that for them. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sanity check - NORSAR

This is just an elementary arithmetic sanity check on the info we have from the NORSAR seismic array of detectors. The report shows a figure where the time of the event is from around 01:55:50 to 01:56:10 UTC+2, with a distance of 620 km from the Kakhovka dam indicated. Typical P wave#Propagation speeds are about 5000 m/s (the range depending on the type of stone varies from around 2000 m/s to 7000 m/s, though most of the stone types listed there are from around 5000 m/s to 7000 m/s), per Wikipedia. So the travel time from Kakhovka to Bukovina would be around 2 minutes. That's presumably why the estimated time of the event is 02:54 UTC+3. (It's not a misreading of the graph.)

The estimated position is right in the middle of one of the big missing parts of the dam on the current OpenStreetMap map.

The interpretation as an explosion is by whoever manages the NORSAR webpage, presumably scientists.

Sooner or later there are likely to be sources (like ISW) interpreting all the info together (initial Telegram reports of explosions 02:00-02:30, NORSAR detection of an explosion at 02:54). (Either NORSAR missed the earlier explosions, or the 02:54 explosion was much more powerful than the earlier ones; info on how powerful an explosion is needed to count as 1-2 magnitudes (which scale?) will presumably go into the analyses.) Boud (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That was now published everywhere [18]. So yes, that was a deliberate destruction - as a matter of fact. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Either NORSAR missed the earlier explosions, or the 02:54 explosion was much more powerful than the earlier ones - NORSAR's update gives an additional, weaker seismic event at 02:35. Updated in the text. Boud (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I added the timing of the explosion in the lead before to read this section. Review (and removal) needed. Yug (talk) 🐲

@Yug: Copyedited. Boud (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Ecological crisis

I've removed the following sentence from the lede:

The downstream flooding, mixed with human and industrial waste, is believed to have created the largest ecological crisis in Ukraine since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

as it was: a) vague (is believed, but by whom?), b) unsourced, c) no mention of "ecological crisis" appears in the main article. While certainly many animals and plants will have been killed, flooding itself is not that unusual. The claims "biggest ecological crisis since Chernobyl" appear to be rhetoric rather than evidence based. It's hard to quantify ecological damage, Politico has an article on the ecological damage of the war itself here. Until there's something more evidence based, the ecological crisis point should go into reaction. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I found the source for that and added it to the section on environmental effects. Swood100 (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

We have an article on the war's ecological damage: Environmental impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian interview

Russian state media have just published an interview[19] with a masked person presented as a commander of the unit who guarded the dam. He describes the sequence of events - first one gate failed, then another, then cracks appeared in concrete structure etc. Notably, nowhere he mentions any rocket or artillery attacks, which was key part of the previous Russian narratives. As this starts to look very much like the Russian "firehose of lies" response to MH17, I don't think it's really worth mentioning in the article. It doesn't add any factual information about the dam failure on its own, it could be useful for a hypothetical future "conspiracy theories about Kakhovka dam" article though. Cloud200 (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The article leaves open six possibilities that are in contention:

• Failure as a result of natural causes

• Failure as a result of improper operation of the hydroelectric power station by the Russian administration

• An explosion on Tuesday, June 6, at 2:54, as indicated by clear seismic signals

• A heat signature consistent with a strong explosion detected shortly before the dam collapsed by American satellites equipped with infrared sensors

• The Russian version: a series of artillery strikes by the Armed Forces of Ukraine

• The Ukraine version: a motorized rifle brigade of the Russian army

The report from the Russian TV channel contradicts the official Russian version but is certainly more favorable to Russia than the version that they intentionally bombed the dam. Should we assume that readers are not aware that people charged with crimes frequently lie in order to escape punishment, and often get their friends to lie on their behalf? Is a murder defendant not entitled to have his claimed defense reported? Swood100 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• So, an unknown person appears on Russia-1 and makes claims that contradict all other facts and official statements on the subject (as noted in the linked article). Yes, sure, this does not belong to the page, agree with Cloud200. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

He was not described as an "unknown person" but as a "commander from the Kakhovka hydroelectric power station". Swood100 (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

We do not know who he really is, he can be an actor, whoever. That would require identification by a third party using face recognition. That's why he hide his face. My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The Insider is not Russian state media. If it was, we should include this info here. But it's an independent outlet, so I am less sure. Super Ψ Dro 22:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The Insider is a good source, but if anyone wants to use it on this subject, it would be this article. My very best wishes (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

NYT quote in the lede is undue

Excess weight is given to the NYT opinion in the lede. The WP:LEDE summarizes and if there is consensus in the RS we can summarize it in the lede. I will remove it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

More dams destroyed by Russia

It appears that Russia destroyed a smaller dam along Mokri Yaly river in Donetsk region south of Velyka Novosilka on June 11 [1][2] and with yet unconfirmed reports of another on June 12.

[1] "Ukraine has accused Russian forces of destroying another dam with the aim of slowing a counteroffensive launched by Kyiv." - theguardian

[2] "Russian and Ukrainian sources claimed on June 12 that Russian forces destroyed a dam on the Mokry Yaly River south of Velyka Novosilka on June 11" understandingwar

--Nilsol2 (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

NYT and others had warned about the risk of dam collapse

The article is biased. It ignores multiple pieces of evidence that there had been a high risk of the dam collapse due to improper operation and damage received by the dam in 2022. On the 17th of May, The New York Times published an article warning about the possible dam collapse: [20]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/world/europe/dam-flood-ukraine-kakhovka.html.

Ukrainian investigative journalists had also published an article warning about the imminent risk of the dam collapse: [21]https://investigator.org.ua/news-2/254079.

Photo of a sluice gate damaged in 2022: damaged sluice gate 1

OSINT investigation by Ryan McBeth: How Russia Destroyed the Kakhovka Dam

2A0B:6204:41D1:6800:E741:24B7:79B2:CAE8 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim, the NYT article make no mentions of 'risk of a collapse'. It talks about rising water levels in the reservoir may lead to flooding.

Contrary to your claim, the second article doesn't speak of imminent risk of the dam collapse. It does says that due to "uncontrolled discharge of water could lead to further destruction of the hydroelectric power plant, in particular, the underwater part of its turbine building. This may lead to flooding of the Kherson floodplains if the water level in the reservoir does not decrease." [google translate]. However, there are some very interesting details there and the linked articles.

Yes, it is one of 22 sluice gates.

Ryan McBeth make a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true e.g. regarding the operation of the gates. --Nilsol2 (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The NYT and Ukrainian journalists do warn about the dam collapse because downstream flooding is impossible if a dam is operated correctly or otherwise closed. That's evidently logical. Contrarily, you appear to suggest that the risk of collapse is negligible, irrespective of the manner in which the dam is operated. 2A0B:6204:41D1:6800:E741:24B7:79B2:CAE8 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

In line with your thesis there are articles such as this one: Western journalists speculate that it might not have been explosion that destroyed dam at hydroelectric power plant and reports such as this one which says:

A third explanation posited by some open-source intelligence (OSINT) analysts and journalists who analysed satellite images taken prior to the destruction of the dam and theorised that the dam’s collapse was the result of pre-existing damage. Evan Hill and Christopher Miller of The Washington Post and The Financial Times, respectively, highlighted damage that was visible between 28 May and 5 June at sections of the bridge crossing the dam and its sluice gates. These satellite photos also showed water flowing over the top of the dam in the past week.

See also the analysis of those “prior breakup” issues here. Swood100 (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Then there’s The Moscow Times which says:

Some military and OSINT bloggers also questioned whether the breach was caused by a deliberate attack, saying that the collapse could be the result of previous shelling.

"It makes no sense for either side to undermine the dam," said Ruslan Leviev, the founder of the Conflict Intelligence Team which investigates the Russian military. Swood100 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Then there's this article which covers some speculation that the dam may have collapsed due to earlier damage. Swood100 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Molfar (OSINT group)

Can we keep the Molfar (OSINT group) sentence in the Destruction section? Molfar (OSINT group) is not (yet?) Wikipedia notable, and there are few signs of its reliability, except for the fact that Newsweek, which itself is mostly unreliable since 2013, recommends the Molfar report. A few sources that could potentially be used for an article and/or to judge Molfar's reliability include:

• Foreign Policy 2 March 2023, a Ukrainian military investigations company called Molfar, Molfar was formed from the due diligence wing of Noosphere—a company specializing in rocket and satellite technology—that was bought out by Artem Starosiek, a Ukrainian, and formed into an independent corporate entity. Based in Ukraine with 56 employees, Molfar... - moderate depth coverage
• a blog by a person identifying himself but not Wikipedia notable
• another blog by a person identifying himself but not Wikipedia notable

My guess is that this is sufficient to keep the sentence (though with only one proper source (Foreign Policy) so far, a standalone article would be difficult to justify). Boud (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Molfar has been referenced by PBS Newshour, Politico, NY Times, Forbes, The Guardian. Not sure what the standard of proof is. Swood100 (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m not even quite sure what OSINT is. For example there is this other reference which says:

According to OSINT researchers, the environmental and economic consequences of the destruction of the Kakhovskaya HPP can be equated to the consequences of using tactical nuclear weapons of 5-10 kilotons.

The factors of such destruction are actually identical to a nuclear explosion without radiation contamination, informs InformNapalm on Telegram.

But that seems to come down to a source called InformNapalm. Who gets to be called OSINT? Swood100 (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Good finding with those other sources; my updated guess is that Molfar (OSINT group) would satisfy the general notability guideline. The ultimate "standard of proof" for an article is whether it survives an AfD. Boud (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

In terms of this current article, the question about Molfar is its reliability, in terms of a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The general "standard of proof" for source reliability is community consensus (or revised policy and guidelines: these are not written in stone, even though they happen to be very robust). My own feeling is that a new OSINT organisation, as compared to well-established ones like Bellingcat (2014) and Institute for the Study of War (2007), should first have a Wikipedia entry that is old enough to have had sufficient Wikipedian peer review - i.e. editing and external sourcing with both positive and negative criticism - to judge if it's anything more than "We read Wikipedia and did some WP:OR to add extra value". How old is old enough? The Bellingcat entry started in 2014 as a redirect to its founder, and the ISW one started in 2011. I would say a minimum of a few weeks, depending on editing intensity and quality. The risk with a new research group is that there's insufficient time to know where it stands in terms of reliability, who controls it, how independent it is, and so on. Boud (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The Molar report is quite badly written, at least in terms of quality of prose. Could potentially be excused due to Ukrainian roots of the organization. AncientWalrus (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the quality of the writing. In the first place, they write in an overtly partisan fashion, with such phrases as “the Russians started pushing their propaganda” and “The occupiers mock the disaster”. Don’t they realize that this harms their credibility? Then, their conclusion is that the Russians blew up the dam via explosives but in the part of the report titled “We conclude” they say this:

The flooding of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant occurred because the Russians occupied it from the first days of the full-scale invasion and had uninterrupted access to it. Then they mined it, and then deliberately increased the water pressure, which led to the destruction of the dam and its supports. As a result, they destroyed the dam.

This appears to say that it was the water pressure that led to the destruction of the dam and its supports, and the Russians deliberately increased the water pressure, therefore they destroyed the dam. Molfar needs to hire some professional writers. Swood100 (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, this Politico article references the Molfar report that we cited. Swood100 (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)