Talk:Kakhovka Dam

Russian Disinformation

As reported by ISW on October 20 (https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates), Russian forces are currently making preparations to destroy this dam as part of a false flag attack on Ukrainian infrastructure. As such, Russian disinformation sources have been putting out false claims to set the stage for that attack.

As a part of that campaign, this Wiki page has been targeted with disinformation from 2 Russian government sources. I recommend that the page be locked, the Russian government papers be removed, and a non-disinformation source (e.g. ISW) be added to provide context on the current situation. 122.148.247.13 (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The source specified for the allegedly planned false flag attack relies on a statement of Selenskiy, which for obvious reasons should not count as an objective source. In fact, there are good military reasons for AFU to blow up the dam (flooding russian controlled Kherson and the Dnepr estuary and by this cutting off russian supply and withdrawal routes), while the russian side obviously has all reasons to avoid or prevent this outcome (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqV1ts5TIPE). Ijuedt (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you please clean the article of disinformation? Schwede66 01:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

capacity in KM^3

It's given in cubic metres, but to have as well or instead cubic kilometres would be an idea. 92.2.215.165 (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Pro-ukrainian biased statement

Why is not russian claims not included on this Wikipage? There are tons of claims that Ukraine have attacked this Dam. Basically, why are ukrainian claims included but not the russian one?

A second point is the use of ISW as a source. ISW is not objective as some people here seems to believe, it is run by neocons and ultimately pro-american military-industrial like former US generals. Bacckos (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that any Russian sources can be considered reliable? Schwede66 05:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that any Ukrainian sources can be considered reliable? Don’t forget the Ghost of Kyiv or the rocket that hit Poland. You are not immune to propaganda. FlatDuckling (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

How can you look yourself into a mirror after statement like that?

And no, you don't need Russian sources. There's plenty of American ones, such as NYT article from 2022 when Ukrainians admitted that they shelled the dam.

Nothing worse than a clueless man who has the superiority complex. Classic representative of the West. 188.2.152.232 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Bacckos I agree under certain conditions ISW may meet conditions of primary sources but its use here is as a secondary source that gathers information to suggest pripr planning.

Remember a source is "not inherently disallowed based on bias alone"

The issue with Russian sources is you can't find any other secondary source that agrees with those sources beyond sources on the block list.

So what ISW does is they present information curated from both sides and present them until conclusive evidence is available.

Ukrainian or Russian claims are not included or excluded. Claims must be backed up with reliable secondary sources. It is hard to do that with Russian media. It is like they might lie or something. I can never find other sources to back up Russian sources. Jgmac1106 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible destruction?

There’s rumors of it being destroyed, and a seemingly real video has been released showing it in ruin and water flowing through.

I think we should wait for official sources, but I wanted to start the conversation. Tiduszk (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It's 100% destroyed Russians confirmed it this morning, obviously we don't know who's responsible but all that matters is that the dam is physically not there anymore. Time to start thinking about past-tense. 209.141.164.23 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We know very well who's responsible - Russia. They were the last ones to have access to it. They threatened to do it. They proved to not care about civilians before. They benefit from it militarily. YouAreNotYourThoughts (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Destruction

States that Ukraine did it definitively but there’s no trustworthy evidence to suggest such a thing. 174.67.32.133 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian milbloggers are not a reliable source. I think the edits should be undone and the page protected until we have a reliable source. Tiduszk (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It is confirmed, there is clear as day proof 2600:4041:7970:CC00:ADC3:B362:DEE:D201 (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the milblogger that was used as a source saying it was Ukraine. (Now removed from the article). There is no reliable source on who did it. Tiduszk (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like several are editing about it, stepping on each other. Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I will hold off on editing but we just need to provide a summary. There is an entire article about destruction of dam. The details should focus mainly on the DESTRUCTION and not attribution given the name of section

Russian milbloggers would also be considered a primary source and violate original research rules. If you have any secondary sources that site "clear as proof" please add. Given contentious nature of the topic you may want to add multiple secondary sources to demonstarte "clear as day proof" Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian news agency is attributing it to Ukraine rocket attacks damaging the sluce valves. This point is not in dispute, the ukraine army openly admits it was firing missles at it.

The ukraine state media is attributing the damage to Russia. Russia openly admitted it has the dam rigged with mines, in case it became necessary to destroy the dam if it was overrun with ukraine forces. This is also not in dispute. By all reports the ukraine offensive was going poorly that day and it was in no danger of being overrun, but reports there are unreliable.

US government is on record blaming russia, but as allies of ukraine, and traditinally opposed to russia, they would support and anti-russian position purely on principle not evidence.

What is in dispute is if these attacks contributed to it failing, and if it was deliberate on either side. Anything at this point is speculation no matter how loudly the world leaders yell at each other.

It is mentioned in two articles. here and here in russian news where they blame ukraine. Admittedly nobody seems to trust Russia, but then any sources in Ukraine should also be considered suspect, there has been multiple cases of both ukraine and russia lying. Nord for example.

Some have also raised the possibility that with the damage to the sluce gates, and the dangerously high water level that nobody blew it up. It simply failed. Not helped by evidence found by kimdotcom (another unrelaible source) that in french satelite photos, all the dams still under ukraine control upstream of the dam have all had their sluce gates fully open contributing to the high water level of the dam to begin with.

In any case, there is no way to be certain, as there will be significant propoganda on boths sides it is a simple fact of war. We should just briefly summarise both positions on the topic, from a neutral position, and not fall into the trap of becoming another source of propoganda or picking sides. That is the safest way forward until /evidence/ can be cited, and not simply blindly take a side because fox news told you to.

If you find my position uncomfortable, then perhaps you should read the other talk notes, they raise the same points a year or more prior to the dam even being damaged.

Wiki should be neutral, not a propoganda tool 119.17.152.5 (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

If you can find secondary sources that are allowed on Wikipedia that back a theory that Ukraine decided to blow the dam in Ukraine to flood Kherson you are welcome to add them.

Really this article isn't about the attack and we just need a quick summary. I have not found a single source. You can not consider TASS a reliable source even though it is not on Deprecated Sources as it is a primary source of the Russian Government. It would be like using a State Department Press Release.

Can you find a single reliable source supporting you two TASS articles? Jgmac1106 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I was more driving home the point that the article should simply state its origins, purpose, history, some engineering details perhaps, and that the dam was destroyed in the ongoing conflict (perhaps link to the wiki article on the conflict, plenty of sources for that) which is more than adequate for the "why" instead of pointing fingers. This should resolve most of the talk conflicts above I was originally responding to.

Anything else would be propoganda, the wiki article should remain neutral and cite facts, getting side tracked citing every rant from a politician throwing blame is just going to end up with the article locked.

If we made a detailed wiki page for everything destroyed in war, and all the claims this would be wikiwar not wikipedia.

Considering most of the credible discussions seem to suggest as a whole, that events in the war contributed to its failure, it may be there is no single point where we can place blame. Whatever side your cite, they all agree that it was destroyed as a result of war, so maybe stick with that, and refer it back to the main ukraine conflict article. 119.17.152.5 (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. The evidence points to internal explosions, the Russians had control and access, and the Ukrainians had warned months earlier that the Russians were setting charges. The Russians have a history of blowing dams in Ukraine, including the Karachun dam near Kryvyi Rih on September 14, the Vovcha dam at Karlivka, April 22, and the Mokri Yaly dam near Novodarivka, June 11. Russian media regularly promotes destroying dams to affect the Ukrainian population, and some of it assumes that Kakhovka was a successful operation. It was blown right at the start of the Ukrainian counter-offensive: defenders blow dams in the path of the attacker, not the other way around.

All of this is background. All these facts should be presented before false-balance counter-accusations, and then also the facts that the Russians have denied and lied about every crime in Ukraine since February 2014, and that the Russian story comes with zero supporting evidence.  —Michael Z. 18:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"Wiki should be neutral, not a propoganda tool." My best approach suggestion here is simply list the dam as destroyed during the ongoing conflict, maybe even toss in a photo before/after, and link to the main ukraine war article, which could then list the circuimstances around its destruction in the context of operations, and cite sources as evidence becomes available. This would leave the article here much less complex, and make later additions (for instance if they rebuild it) less messy to add later and much tidier. This would be perfect for the points Micheal Z just raised or list the claims made by both sides; examples: [1] or a more close to neutral position here: [2] Although those sources are of questionable quality they would suit a paragraph on the main conflict article on the dam.

Chasing links here to support a position either way however would quickly become unmanagable and likely would eventually end up with the topic being locked due to the sheer number of such claims being thrown about, very few of which are credible enough to even cite especially with the high possibility of propoganda motivations.

I've searched for notable sources, and although there are multitudes more articles on the topic, most of them by their own admission are still highly speculative, and several are blatantly propoganda. There has been a few opinion articles by engineers, but once again speculative. I know those on the Ukraine and Russian side really want to leverage wiki to support their position, but we need to remain neutral, and I am really sitting on my hands here given the extreme pro-ukraine position listed on Micheals's profile.

As I understand it, we should approach such articles as if we are 50 years in the future, writing an entry in an encyclopedia - which would simply list the main claims, and conclude with what the evidence actually found. Since no investigations have been allowed as it is still an active war zone, then we should defer that point to the article on the war itself instead of making the academic equivalent of an article patriotically chanting the name of their nation. 119.17.152.5 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Currency conversion

Can someone add a currency conversion in the opening? I’ve seen it before but don’t know the code offhand Victor Grigas (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. I tried using {{to USD}} but it was too complicated so I just manually inserted the (2019) dollar values. Λυδαcιτγ 14:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussing recent article move

Earlier, Audacity boldly moved the article from Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant to Kakhovka Dam. Given the WP:RECENTISM around the dam breach being in the news, that is somewhat understandable. However, the dam and power plant are not one and the same, so it causes issues with the Wikidata modeling at its associated item/concept - Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (Q3379049). I don't have a perfect solution for what to do next, but thought it should be brought up for discussion. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing that out Fuzheado. I was going off of the lede, which seemed to equate the two: "The Kakhovka Hydroelectric Station (Ukrainian: Кахо́вська ГЕС імені П. С. Непорожнього; commonly the Kakhovka Dam)..." The rest of the article also generally refers to the dam rather than the power plant. I guess I'm not sure whether this is an acceptable use of wikt:metonymy or whether we need to find some way to disambiguate. Λυδαcιτγ 05:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be a formal RM. Super Ψ Dro 13:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wrong move!

All other dams on the Dnieper are known by their official names as "Hydroelectric Power Plants". But in any case, fix at least the language links! Now there are 32 "hydroelectric power plant" articles and three "dam" articles for the same dammed dam. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

comparison to volume of the great salt lake

This is not a good comparison as the volume of the great salt lake is very variable. 92.110.165.40 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I found that same reference in multiple hydorological articles but I would favor removing comparison as too American-centric.

I am in favor of you removing it and just stating the size. Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure America centric is a problem - it is the English language wiki, so you would expect it to be centric to English speaking countries, right. The main problem I see is that the great salt lake is not always the same size area wise and volumetric, so a poor comparison. 92.110.165.40 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

height of dam is not 30m?

Pictures of the dam lead me to believe the dam is actually about 16-18m height, not 30m as stated. And the page Kakhovka Reservoir says that the water level is 16m?

World topograpic map says about 16m.

When giving the height of a dam you usually measure the water head. 82.196.111.42 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2023

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: not moved. Unanimous opposition, grounded in policy behind WP:COMMONNAME. Clear consensus against reverting the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Kakhovka Dam → Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant – There should have been a formal RM for this article to be moved, so I will start one. Note that the old title fulfilled WP:CONSISTENT with the other such stations in Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 23:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose It is WP:COMMONNAME following its destruction, as with Hoover Dam. A large portion of sources in the news media uses the shortened "Kakhovka Dam". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose. I agree. I just looked at Google Trends. Everyone is searching for Kakhova Dam and not Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant. Jgmac1106 (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose. Agreed with the above. There are plenty of articles about power stations with the title "Dam". Can always have a redirect ("Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant redirects here"). Uninspired Username (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Slightly oppose, the current article is fine for describing it's use as a power plant (or at least previous usage) + I agree it would make it more confusing to find. Moving the article might be a better choice in the future, especially if/when it's rebuilt. Silverleaf81 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose It is now know as a Dam and referred to as such in major news sources following its destruction, so we should keep the current name for now (maybe change it later if it starts functioning as a power plant again). 2G0o2De0l (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The common name seems to very much be dam rather than hydroelectric power plant, probably for the obvious reason that dam is much shorter to say and write, and the topic is currently very popular. A dam and associated hydroelectric power plant are in principle distinct topics, though closely enough overlapping that separate articles will generally not be justified. WP:CONSISTENT would be nice to have, but list of dams and reservoirs shows several hydroelectric power generating dams that are called dams rather than power stations (arbitrary selection): Plastiras Dam, Corbara Dam, Trängslet Dam. Boud (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose not an improvement per above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2023 (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.

Cause of destruction

Here is a source from today at AP that states both sides blame each other. The summary in the WP:LEDE with the POV from NYT is WP:UNDUE weight and I will remove it. If this change is controversial, feel free to run an RFC on it. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Your link to AP goes 404 for me. Stating both sides blame each other is equally undue and amounts to false balance. I have replaced with "while under Russian control". AncientWalrus (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m opposed to the change. Citing the AP source that barely mentions it in passing is a bit ridiculous. The “blame” version is grossly false balance. The lead should begin with known facts, and apparently equal statements should not be mentioned without the background that shows that they are far from equal.

Copy-pasting my statement from #Destruction above:

The evidence points to internal explosions, the Russians had control and access, and the Ukrainians had warned months earlier that the Russians were setting charges. The Russians have a history of blowing dams in Ukraine, including the Karachun dam near Kryvyi Rih on September 14, the Vovcha dam at Karlivka, April 22, and the Mokri Yaly dam near Novodarivka, June 11. Russian media regularly promotes destroying dams to affect the Ukrainian population, and some of it assumes that Kakhovka was a successful operation. It was blown right at the start of the Ukrainian counter-offensive: defenders blow dams in the path of the attacker, not the other way around.

All of this is background. All these facts should be presented before false-balance counter-accusations, and then also the facts that the Russians have denied and lied about every crime in Ukraine starting with the actual invasion of February 2014, and that the Russian story comes with zero supporting evidence.  —Michael Z. 19:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This is all true, but probably belongs to another page, Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam. This page should focus on the history of this dam. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Page still opens ok for me here, not sure your issue. No 404. It has since been changed and is now just blown up. We dont know who blew it up and pretending there is some consensus because NYT says so is absurd and grossly undue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Diagram of Wall

I've found this link, which shows the construction drawings - showing the cross section of both the dam and hydro station (but it is in Russia). https://www.politnavigator.net/kakhovskuyu-gehs-rano-khoronit-cherez-10-dnejj-stanet-yasno-mozhno-li-vosstanovit-stanciyu.html

I've also added an existing cross section of the wall (I found it on the Russian Wikipedia page) - but have noticed that the location of the tunnel in the dam wall is in the wrong location (it is shown as being under the dam wall, but in the construction diagram, is it shown much higher up actually IN the dam wall).

If it is considered significant, does someone want to add these details (or others from the construction drawings) into the article? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.8.151 (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)