Talk:March 2022 Donetsk attack

Victims identification

Considering that victims were most certainly all natives of Donetsk and taking in mind that population there highly dislikes Ukraine, isn't it too rough to call them "Ukrainian civilians in Donetsk"? Nix3214 (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. UserXpetVarpet (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Categorization

What is the justification for keeping this article in the category "Russian war crimes in Ukraine" when there is no consensus that Russia was behind the attack? The body of the article does not justify this assertion. 79.144.76.2 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Wording

" Donetsk People's Republic said that the attack was made by Tochka-U tactical missile system used by Ukrainian forces, which was shot down by the DPR Armed Forces" So by their account this does not seem to be a deliberated attack on the civilian center, instead the missile was shot down and fragments hit the civilians? Sgnpkd (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The target of the missile was the building of the Donetsk Regional Administration and the adjacent square. That is, if the missile had not been shot down, there would have been much more civilian casualties. 84.240.245.179 (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

3 May attacks

Should this article be expanded with the attack of 3 May? report example 82.174.61.58 (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, as that is a separate incident, and it's also at a town in the region of Donetsk which has been under Ukrainian control, not in the city of Donetsk. I'm not sure whether that would warrant its own article. That attack is also already mentioned in the Battle of Avdiivka (2022) article. Tristario (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Volunteer Marek, what did you mean by "sources which have a history of spreading fake news and disinfo"? I don't see any deprecated sources here and while I understand the concerns about using Russian sources in general, here they are used for reporting the position of the DNR (separatist) authorities. If you think they are not reliable for *that*, happy to discuss it at WP:RSN. Note that you also reverted some details I've added and that the sentence "Independent analysis stated that the rocket had been fired from Russian-controlled territory" has a wrong reference to the Guardian article which says nothing about it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

DNA India is published by Zee Media Corporation. "Zee Media Corporation Limited has been involved in many controversies such as broadcasting fake news through its news platforms" [1]. It has fabricated news stories, spread conspiracy theories, published pure bullshit, etc.

Likewise Izvestia isn't a reliable source.

"Not deprecated" is not the standard for inclusion. It's the MINIMUM. A source can be "not deprecated" and still not reliable, complete garbage. Which is what we have here. If this info is legit find actual reliable sources, it shouldn't be hard. Volunteer Marek 20:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about the issues with DNA India. In such case we shouldn't use it.

Anyway, Izvestia is perfectly reliable for reporting the statements made by Russian or DNR officials. Considering that it's not deprecated, the burden is on you to show that it's not reliable for this. Do you have any examples of them misrepresenting the words of Russian authorities? Alaexis_¿question? 08:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Re sources, you may be interested in the following one, which is both reliable and highly informative: Euronews (in Russian). A few excerpts: "According to the latest data , 23 people were killed, at least 18 were injured", "According to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the Tochka-U tactical missile was launched from the Krasnoarmeysk region, controlled by the Ukrainian military. According to Denis Pushilin, head of the self-proclaimed DPR, the downed missile carried a cluster warhead, which led to so many casualties." Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. we'll need to re-write the article from scratch, because highly disruptive edits have made a mess out of it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I’d appreciate it if you didn’t refer to good faith edits which remove non encyclopedic text from the article as “disruptive”. Instead of “rewriting article from scratch” we should probably simply delete it since it fails to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Volunteer Marek 00:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you refrain from editing articles on subjects that you believe are not notable. Instead of editing them, you should either apply the template:Notability or take them to AfD if you believe that the subject is hopelessly non-notable. What's the point of editing an article that you think we should delete? I don't get it. The result is bound to be disruptive if that's your view on the subject. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

founder of Conflict Intelligence Team Ruslan Leviev

...is not a WP:RS and references to his views on the subject are WP:UNDUE. In fact, as far as I know, the Conflict Intelligence Team did not publish a proper report on the incident. There's no analysis, no research, no field work. We just have an interview to Ruslan Leviev released by a youtube channel, Популярная политика and/or Nastoyaschee Vremya, whose contents were reported by Ukranskaia Pravda. Note that the interview was released in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the following day. The ballistic arguments one can read on Ukr Pravda, based on the direction the missile is pointing, are ludicrous - one cannot understand the direction of a missile from one picture. So no serious investigation has been done, this doesn't pass the threshold of WP:V and I don't think we should report it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

... ... ... you're trying to insert sources into this article which have a well established reputation for spreading fake news and... you complain about CIT? Seriously? Volunteer Marek 23:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain about CIT. I complain about an interview, made to the founder of CIT on the day following the attack, published by a youtube channel. This is not serious debunking, this sounds much more like generic unrestrained political conversation if not fake news. But let me quote Volunteer Marek on this: we need "MULTIPLE serious reliable sources", you cried, before publishing something so ludicrous as an army voluntarily bombing its own territory. Do you want a diff? Here it is. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If you could provide a link to a CIT analysis that would be helpful and we could quote it in the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but did the claim that it was a Russian missile originate on 4chan? No? Then why are you trying to make the false comparison with what actually was 4chan bullshit (the idea that Kramatorsk was hit by a Ukrainian missile)? And there are two secondary sources right there. Not sure why you're asking for a primary source. Volunteer Marek 23:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually I don't even know where did the claim originate from. We have a link to the interview on a youtube channel called Популярная политика, but Ukranskaja pravda says it originates from Nastoyaschee Vremya. But the point is clear enough: an interview in the immediate aftermath of the attack to a programmer and journalist who is also a vocal opponent of the Russian regime is not a reliable source on the question "where did the missile originate from?". We should drop it and just mention the Ukrainian official sources on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, Ruslan Leviev is not reliable, he always posts anti-Russian government viewpoint whether YouTube or wherever.Just Prancing (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

CIT themselves seem to be legit but they haven't published any analysis of this incident. Leviev said it on the next day after the incident and he himself said those were preliminary conclusions. Alaexis_¿question? 18:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• We now have two sources (one of them printed) that support the statement. A conclusion, even if preliminary, by the Conflict Intelligence Team worth inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry @My very best wishes, I did not understand your comment. Where did you find A conclusion, even if preliminary, by the Conflict Intelligence Team? I might have missed the source, obviously, but I've just seen an interview to Ruslan Leviev (who is obviously not a "team"... and who shared his views, but did not reach any firm conclusion) on a youtube channel, plus a printed account on that interview by Ukr Pravda. Is there anything else? Do you think that that is a WP:RS on the question "where did the missile come from?". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

But that was widely published. For example, this WaPO article, Inside Russia’s propaganda bubble: Where a war isn’t a war

Ruslan Leviev, founder of a Russian analytical group that uses open-source data to track military activities, said photos from the incident suggest the missile flew from Russian-controlled territory and was not intercepted.

The context: "Inside Russia’s propaganda bubble: Where a war isn’t a war". This episode is considered a false flag attack by Russian/DNR forces. Let's add this WaPo article as reference. My very best wishes (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

you cannot summarize that excerpt from Washington Post as follows: "According to an investigation by Conflict Intelligence Team the missile originated from Russian-controlled territory". As far as we know, there has been no investigation by the CIT, so this would be misrepresenting the source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

template:Notability

I added a few sources to the article (Reuters, which for some reason had been removed from the article; Euronews, Le Figaro, Fatto quotidiano); I also used a by-passing reference to the incident in a Washington Post article, plus info from a Human Rights Report on cluster munition. There are more sources, but they basically repeat what we already know (Berliner Zeitung, Der Spiegel, Repubblica). I guess it's not for me to do it, but I think that the template:Notability should now be removed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Donetsk attack → March 2022 Donetsk attack – There was another attack on June 2022, see Maisky Market attack. The current title is ambiguous and problematic. Super Ψ Dro 07:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support  There’s now an August attack too, with the DNR “internal ministry” getting shelled. —Michael Z. 23:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal

Similarly to other proposals i made in several bombing articles, i suggest merging this article and other articles about bombings in Donetsk into an "Bombing of Donetsk" article, as all these articles are pretty small and on the same scope as each other. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)