Talk:Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present)

Overall source

I bumped into that source but cannot integrate it a the moment.

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2023/feb/06/ukrainians-endure-grim-winter-as-russia-destroys-infrastructure-in-maps
• https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/28/world/russia-ukraine-news#ukraine-claims-to-shoot-down-12-of-12-russian-drones-over-kyiv
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/world/europe/ukraine-war-infrastructure.html
• https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/world-bank-help-finance-ukrainian-energy-infrastructure-repairs-2023-04-12/ Yug (talk) 🐲

Increase in gamma radiation levels - hardly credible

The article says, "The series of explosions led to a significant increase in gamma radiation levels, suggesting the release of depleted uranium dust into the air which could pose severe risk to public health". However, the source is an Indian website that itself does not cite any of its information. Pretty much only Indian and some Russian POV articles cites talk about this, it was also heavily promoted by known disinfirmation accounts back when it happened.

If we look at the actual "spike", it happened two days before the strike and was statistically insignificant.

Krystos (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

tbe source for the above claim is twitter, which is nor considered a reliable source. However the person sounds authoritative and more importantly is pretty peripheral to the fact of tbe strike, so I removed the sentence. Appending the removed text below in case someone wants to nail down the facts here:"The series of explosions led to a significant increase in gamma radiation levels, suggesting the release of depleted uranium dust into the air which could pose severe risk to public health." ,Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Date in title

Do we even need the date range in the title? There aren’t any title conflicts with other articles that I know of HappyWith (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• According to WP:NCWWW "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement." I would hope this is not a recurring event so we would not need to have the date in the title, I feel as it is not needed, especially as eventually it will need to be updated with the end date if it is kept. Dobblesteintalk 23:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

the death toll Russian strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure is undercounted

there has been multiple waves of that have caused causalities since November 2022 Monochromemelo1 (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine into here

So far, 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine is the only strikes wave of dozens to have its own article. I think we should keep it all in one single article. We've previously merged such articles into here, see the redirects this article has [1]. I have a sense that users will be more than okay with breaking this consistency this time for some reason but I still think this discussion should take place. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

At 25k bytes I think this is too big to be merged. And if this is true that this is indeed the biggest airstrike of the war I would totally oppose a merger. Borgenland (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this because an incident on this scale should warrant its own article. MountainDew20 (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

dear @Super Dromaeosaurus thanks for starting the discussion. i agree it should be had. i also agree with @Borgenland and @MountainDew20. many of the much smaller airstrikes have their own articles. in late december ukrainian officials claimed 11,100 missiles and drones (not counting december 29th's attack) had been launched 12 and so the 29th's countrywide attack upped the total number flown by russia since the full-scale invasion of ukraine on february 24th 2022 by more than 1%. it makes sense to have separate articles for attacks this big. ~Johnfreez (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It is the biggest or one of the biggest attacks during all the war. It deserves own article. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agree. It was big and important enough to deserve a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Another merge proposal

I can understand keeping the 29 December article as it was the biggest such attack so far in the war and it also caused a political crisis. But why do we now also have an article for 2 January 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine? We are almost two years into the war and over one year into these kinds of attacks and I see no reason now to start suddenly giving each attack its own individual article. The 2 January one did not break any records and its article is pretty short. We can easily merge it into Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present)#January 2024. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I would keep page 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine for the time being, but merge 2 January 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine somewhere, possibly even to page 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine which then should be renamed to something like "Happy New Year strikes" [2]. It seems they are going to conduct such strikes every week (a few days are needed to prepare the next strike). My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be okay with that outcome. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks for continuing the discussion @Super Dromaeosaurus, @My very best wishes. i think there should be separate articles for such large attacks. at least a few things should be considered: if more people had been injured, we might not be having this discussion. 2 years into the full-scale invasion, it's very possible the number of human victims of airstrikes by russia in ukraine has decreased dramatically due to military aid that has much improved ukrainian air defense since february 22nd, 2022. also there have been plenty of articles on smaller single location airstrikes, so i recommend that we continue with separate articles on airstrikes of much larger magnitude.

more generally it seems there are a few different article scopes in time and space documenting airstrikes during the Russo-Ukrainian War:

• airstrikes on single locations lasting a short period
  • 30 December 2023 Belgorod shelling
  • Hroza missile attack
  • August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike
  • 2023 Kramatorsk restaurant missile strike
  • 2023 Dnipro residential building airstrike
  • et cetera (for numerous examples see especially the War crimes section of the Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine)
• airstrikes on multiple locations lasting a short period
  • 2 January 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine
  • 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine
  • by this logic there should be articles written on other multiple location attacks, for example the 24 February 2022 Russian strikes on Ukraine that occurred across the country, including in Donetsk, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Luhansk, Odesa, and other regions (see the invasion timeline)
• airstrikes citywide since the full-scale invasion
  • Dnipro strikes (2022–present)
  • Ivano-Frankivsk strikes (2022–present)
  • Bombing of Kharkiv (2022–present)
  • et cetera (see the Military engagements section of the Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine)
• airstrikes on multiples locations since the full-scale invasion
  • Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
  • Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present)

on the 2nd of january, 2024 there were around 99 missiles and 35 drones fielded by russia, and fortunately a relatively low number of people victimized because of better air defense. so i suggest we have articles for such large attacks. ~ Johnfreez (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The 2 January 2024 attack does not have any distinctive feature separating it from the other dozens of attack waves that Russia has launched since October 2022, unlike the 29 December 2023 one. Its article remains short. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with @Super Dromaeosaurus that, while the 29 December one makes sense, the 2 January article should probably be folded into the parent article. Arcendeight (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Support per above. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

support- I agree with main reason to merge. Wendylove (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)