Talk:Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant drone strike

Distorted citation and possible "narrative pushing"

Super Dromaeosaurus, I've noticed a concerning pattern in your recent contributions to this article. It's ok to add citations that only support one side, but we should always keep in mind WP:DUE weight and balance to make sure we're not 'doing too much', not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor "pushing a narrative". This situation reminds me of our interaction in that 2024 Kharkiv offensive article, specifically in the Battle of Vovchansk, iirc. And I wasn't the only one 'putting on some brakes', Cinderella157^{(don't feel obliged to participate)} also wasn't supportive of your style.

I would have just added an "unbalanced" banner to the section, like I did in the past, however the IAEA citation struck my curiosity and, when I checked it, I was shocked to see it was distorted. You wrote:

IAEA experts also asserted that the observed drone parts were consistent with a Shahed-type drone.

while the article said:

Separately in Kyiv today, an IAEA expert team observed the remains of a drone that Ukraine said were collected following the strike on the NSC. The team observed drone parts that they assessed are consistent with a Shahed-type unmanned aerial vehicle. However, the team did not make any further assessment regarding the origin of the drone.

The first archive of the article has the same wording. The wiki paragraph doesn't give an appropriate context, and your choice of the word "asserted", not present in the article, doesn't help either. I know I'm supposed to WP:AGF, but.. ngl, this kinda felt like a 'sneaky' move, idk... And even if one argues for it being a mistake/accident, there's still WP:CIR... Therefore, I believe this could all be fuel/evidence for some sort of administrative action, but I still believe this can be resolved here, without any of that. So please don't take this negatively: I know where your heart is, but please pal, not like this.

I want to avoid an edit war, so I think it's only fair to ask you to correct/amend your changes considering this talk. Or, if you really don't have the time, to at least be mindful/tolerant with potential reverts. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Flemmish Nietzsche, who has also been monitoring this article. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Alexiscoutinho, friendly reminder that it was you who was the focus of an administrative report, in which at times it seemed like the discussion would veer into a topic ban for you (which I opposed). If you want to report me for defending, with sources, that it was not Ukraine, which is under invasion by a country that has sent thousands of drones in wave attacks, that struck it's own nuclear power plant with a drone during a drone wave attack, go ahead. I will take it as a badge of honor.

I don't see where have I distorted the IAEA's quote. You've also not elaborated on what context do you believe is missing, nor do I see the problem with asserted, but I am not a native speaker and wouldn't mind using "assessed" instead.

Using a cautious word choice is not going to be appreciated at all if you include acussations of editing with a "pattern", "pushing a narrative", "distorsing" quotes, "sneakiness", lacking competence and requiring administrative action. I don't see how can I take any of this as anything other than personal attacks.

I am willing to discuss things but I actually have no idea what issues are you raising, other than asserted/assessed. Super Ψ Dro 16:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want to report me... I do not. That's why I raised this concern here, despite me considering it quite grave. Just wanted to pass the impression that I believe that one could do it if they didn't know you / have a good history with you. Unlike me, who finds you mostly reasonable. Take this as a 'friendly reminder/notice/warning', not an unfriendly threat.

I will underline in the original quote above the important context which is missing (or was potentially omitted) to save space and not be repetitive.

Using a cautious word choice is not going to be appreciated at all if you include acussations of editing with a "pattern", "pushing a narrative", "distorsing" quotes, "sneakiness", lacking competence and requiring administrative action. If you refer to me trying to use cautious words, valid point. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it clearer now? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I had imagined you referred to that last sentence of the quote. It is redundant, this was already in the text before any of my edits [1]. Regarding the rest of the underlined text, it is interesting because it implies such a bad faith assumption from them it hadn't even crossed my mind. I've addressed this point [2]. Do you notice any other issues in the text? Super Ψ Dro 21:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

It is redundant, this was already in the text before any of my edits It would have been redundant if you hadn't added the IAEA citation implying that they attributed the strike to a Russian drone. The article was contradicting itself.

it implies such a bad faith assumption from them I disagree. It should have been clear by now that we, editors, can't take official statements for granted, from either side. Both governments have made false claims in the past to varying degrees. This is the war of propaganda. Although you might be more believing of Ukrainian statements, I and certainly others too, are not, especially in this incident where Occam's razor points more towards a false flag given the much greater potential benefit to Ukraine than to Russia in the international relations sphere. That's why we must scrutinize sources when covering topics under WP:RUSUKR.

it hadn't even crossed my mind. This and your previous responses have mostly convinced me that there was no intention to distort or 'sneak in' anything. Instead, I just see 'too much innocence'/not enough scrutiny. Neither of which I believe are enough for any WP:CIR actions besides my 'wakeup call' here 😉. Others are welcome to give an opinion though.

I've addressed this point [2]. Do you notice any other issues in the text? Let's focus on this IAEA one first.

IAEA experts also stated that the observed remains of a drone that Ukraine attributed to the strike were consistent with a Shahed-type drone.

I still think that this is 'sugar coating' it too much. Come on, those drone parts were shown to the inspectors 13 days later, and in Kiev, >100 km away from the crash site. This is soo fishy. If this was a murder case, such 'evidence' would be null. For me, at least, it seems much more likely that Ukraine collected the remains of one of the drones that attacked Kiev that day (the capital was attacked that day, right?) and claimed they were from Chernobyl. Don't you agree that the citation needs to be changed to convey more nuance/context and be more neutral/neutered? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that the IAEA is immediately later said not to attribute blame to any side, I disagree that I had implied such a thing.

As usual I enjoy your capacity to word your arguments even with this interesting Occam's razor concept I hadn't heard before. You know how it goes here, we have opposing personal opinions so I will not discuss aspects depending on personal opinion. Beyond subjectivities I would argument that WP:FALSEBALANCE applies quite generally over this topic area and that there is tacit community consensus on it, as a majority of Wikipedia editors have a certain view on what this war is for and why did it start which I share, if I am not mistaken you had risked being topic banned over the use of sources too close to the opposing view, it is clear the consensus in the topic area is to generally not trust the pro-Russian narrative. I cannot recall any article on this area in which Ukraine is suggested to have committed a false flag, while Russia is rarely given the benefit of the doubt on the topic of blame (see Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, Bucha massacre, I think you get it). It's interesting in this case because I haven't even seen claims in sources that the attack was a "Ukrainian false flag" and I actually have my doubts that any reliable source with this claim can be found. But we do have many sources blaming Russia even without attribution, not only the ones I put into the article but also some other ones [3] [4].

This was to expose my thinking process on how I believe we should address this case based on Wikipedia's procedures, I note that this discussion should stick to the article's current contents and not become about whether Russia did the strike or not because I consider it insulting to my or anyone's intelligence and I would disengage. I dropped some of my edits, for now at least, in case there's any editor actually willing to discuss why is water liquid.

Continuing on the IAEA's quote, I note firstly that it is attributed rather than an absolute claim, and secondly that you have not presented sources for what you've suggested. I am honest when I tell you I see literally nothing wrong in what I wrote. The neurons that activate in my brain to tell me I am not being impartial are not activating right now. Super Ψ Dro 21:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)