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)

Yet Ukrainian and american propaganda is allright, huh? Article uses radio free europe and meduza as sources, both of which are funded by american government. If you "aren't adding anon tg channels as a source", then just add a video that shows ammo that was stored there exploding after the hit, just like you did with cctv footage. Don't be a hypocrite. Unfam (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)