Talk:2022 Crimean Bridge explosion

Title

Strictly speaking, we don't know if this is an "attack" yet; the Russians say a truck blew up, and I don't think the Ukrainians have admitted responsibility yet. Suggest this be called "2022 Crimean Bridge explosion" for now. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. While I personally believe that an attack is by far the most likely explanation, it is yet to be confirmed. Either "2022 Crimean Bridge explosion" or "2022 Crimean Bridge disaster" would be a better name, although I do suspect we'll likely have some clearer answers within a few hours. Vulpicula (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

A number of sources are currently using the word 'explosion' in their headlines to describe what happened rather than the word 'attack': Bloomberg, CNN, Reuters, BBC, Washington Post, The Guardian. Additionally, we have no confirmation that it was an attack, only speculation. (Though, the speculation is very reasonable for multiple reasons.) I would recommend a switch to "2022 Crimean Bridge explosion" for now. (If sources do start saying that it is a likely Ukrainian attack, then I would agree with Super Ψ Dro's suggestion to use "2022 Crimean Bridge attack" instead.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Note that the 2022 Transnistria attacks were never confirmed to be attacks, yet many sources described the explosions as being Russian false flag attacks to bring Transnistria to the war. We should stick to what sourcing says; if it says it was probably a Ukrainian attack (I expect sources to do so, as it obviously is), then this title should be kept. Super Ψ Dro 08:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Page moved. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 08:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Since Ukraine has now admitted that they were responsible for this attack, should the title now have "attack"? 331dot (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  And now SBU admitted Russian version of events and use of suicide driver.

  https://nv.ua/ukraine/events/krymskiy-most-kak-sbu-dvazhdy-vzorvalo-simvol-velichiya-putina-intervyu-s-malyukom-novosti-ukrainy-50347244.html 5.19.139.220 (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're assuming Wikipedia is a serious source but they are as biased as they get so they will never call it an attack. 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:1B44:F6BC:BF15:493B (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a bombing

This wasn't just a truck that exploded, this was a truck bomb. Don't play around with words. This is terrorism. 202.9.47.143 (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

No. It's not terrorism. It's called war. That's what wars are. There's a compilation of videos from dashcams and elsewhere being looped on CNN-News18 via YouTube (live at the time of writing) which clearly shows that it's an incoming missile. You can hear the sound of the entry, lasting about 3/4 second before the explosion, the sound rapidly growing louder as it arrived. It's coming in at a north-south angle from the east-west direction of the bridge, maybe 30 degrees. I don't know how fast something has to be going for it to hit its target less than a second after coming within earshot, but it has to be pretty fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.226.169 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The source of the explosion is not entirely clear, and given the war may not be. If you have sources stating it was a truck bomb, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If it was a truck bomb, that could, if the driver was aware and willing, imply a suicide bomber, as the driver almost definitely did not survive, which would be a first (to our knowledge), hence the need for caution. Johncdraper (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Now I know reddit isn't all that reliable but a post on r/combatfootage suggests the explosion came from under the bridge. Ipotato69 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

More likely an act of war than an act of terrorism, I would think, though we don't actually know. Mhkay (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Bridges are legitimate strategic targets in this war that Putin started. 50.111.55.190 (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Video that I've seen makes me doubt it was a truck bombing at all, it looked like a missile strike. Damage is also inconsistent with a truck bombing. Ukraine previously stated it may strike the bridge with a missile. Yet all of this is unverifiable at the moment, which is why the Russian state media explanation remains alongside everything else. Dionysus240 (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine is not known to possess a missile with the range to hit the bridge, I think. Some on Twitter claim it was a remotely controlled unmanned watercraft. We'll have to wait and see. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely a suicide bomber. There is no known video of a missile strike. And all of the Russian media (both pro-government and liberal) are reporting it as a truck explosion.

Luroe (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

What Russian media are reporting, is of limited relevance. They have claimed that it both a submarine, a truck and a train wagon filled with explosives.

Your personal idea about a suicide bomber is also of limited relevance. Joreberg (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

> What Russian media are reporting, is of limited relevance.

Car explosion happened on world recognized Russian territory.

So Russian media and government claims should be reflected in article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/08/crimea-kerch-bridge-attack-explosion-russia-ukraine/

> Podolyak noted that the driver of the truck that exploded was reported to have come from Russia.

Even Ukraine official faces talking about truck explosion. 5.19.139.220 (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

"Car explosion happened on world recognized Russian territory" – yeah, sure. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The suicide truck exploded in pre-2014 russian territory. 83.25.115.239 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, St. Petersburg IP - the only places it is recognized as Russian territory is Russia, and its puppets.

331dot I could see it being an unmanned watercraft. By missile I mean any aerial missile including but not limited to from aircraft, drones, etc... I only assumed this to be the case because they've spoken openly about it before. Luroe, we can't really claim that there's video of any type of attack when our perspective of the explosion is obscure. We can't tell if it's from the truck, but I was just doubting it. I'm not ruling it out and it's not my place to rule it out. Dionysus240 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

An unmanned boat was found not that long ago on a a beach in Crimea I believe. So an unmanned boat seems mostly, a suicide truck bomber is absolutely ludicrous. Besides the earliest days of the war there have been no reported suicide bombings by the Ukrainians. The Introvert Next To You (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Watching the videos of the explosion available, and seeing how the debris behave shows for me, that the center was not on the road, but lower next to it, making the boat source more likely. Is it only me who seeing it? I do not find "experts" saying anything about disproving the Russian version of "truck bomb". JSoos (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

In that case, can you explain, why there are no signs of an explosion on the lower part of the surviving span? 5.19.139.220 (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Where are images available of lower part of the collapsed spans? What signs should be seen on these, which would sort out the possibility of a boat explosion? JSoos (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If it was boat bomb, it does mean that marks of explosion on lower part of spans should be more visible than on top, right?

And we see massive black mark on top of span, but lower part of spans completely clean. 5.19.139.220 (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Finally, there is an expert also saying that the explosion was under the road surface: #Robot Submarine JSoos (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A number of experts have stated that the nature of the damage to the roadway clearly indicates that explosion was below the road rather than above it. Mhkay (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQ1jYbhxNc&t=249s This link seems to show a view from another camera that lends credence to the maritime drone theory. Radome (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Will number of expect say something against version from Head of SBU?

Or they will just silently ignore stuff? like admitting of using suicide bomber.

https://nv.ua/ukraine/events/krymskiy-most-kak-sbu-dvazhdy-vzorvalo-simvol-velichiya-putina-intervyu-s-malyukom-novosti-ukrainy-50347244.html 5.19.139.220 (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2022 Crimean Bridge Explosion.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Where was the bridge struck?

Was it on Ukrainian or Russian waters? 2A02:AA1:162C:240:C267:A971:69E8:7DE5 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian waters. It was just west of the road bridge "hump" over the navigation channel. 10:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Fanx (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Coordinates are in the article. "Ukrainian" side of border, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=45.303333&mlon=36.510556&zoom=15#map=13/45.2854/36.5371 which has been updated to show gap. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like east (or rather, southeast), not west, of the navigation channel, per openstreetmap. Boud (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

yea, my typo ... corrected Fanx (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the approximate location should probably be mentioned clearly in the main section of the article, like "western part of the bridge" or "over Ukrainian waters" because it has significant geopolitical implications that the explosion did not happen over Russian territory, even if the whole bridge is Russian.

The precise location could be detailed in the "Event" section of the article. As of now, there is zero mention of either the approximate or precise location of the explosion, only a low details map which won't help visually impaired readers. "Westbound" is mentioned twice but the direction of the traffic does not help locate the event.

Thanks for creating this Wikipedia page so quickly!

Chimel31 (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The article's coordinates points at the "inner" (southwest) roadway (direction southeast, nearest to the rail bridge), but the photos show that the "outer" (northeast) roadway (direction northwest) has collapsed on the Taman Bay side. The roadway is partially re-opened to traffic, indicating that the "inner" roadway is operational. This is only possible if the impact happened on the "outer" (northeast) roadway.

The article says that the truck came from the Taman side - we don't know that, all we can say is that the impact happened on the outer roadway. The truck could have come from the Crimean side, and then turned around at one of the inter-roadway switch points used for redirecting traffic into opposite lanes after ordinary traffic accidents. A single-side diversion can be seen on Tuzla Island at (45°16'20.3"N 36°32'42.9"E . 45.272295 N, 36.545257 E) .

I have not found references for this, but these are basic observations that should be readily verifiable. TGCP (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources now show that the truck was inspected in Taman before crossing. Not clear if it was indeed the delivery vehicle of the explosives. Ref needed for coords. TGCP (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible terrorist act?

Should we classify it in this page as a state terrorism act or mention it as such? Luroe (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Why? It's a legitimate target for Ukrainians as its a vital supply line for the Russian military. --Denniss (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The part of the bridge in Ukrainian waters is an illegal construction by a foreign occupying force - the Russian military + administration, and it has been used as a Russian military supply line to continue the illegal occupation - so it's a legitimate military target for Ukrainian forces. No hint of terrorism. Boud (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Terrorism is dependant on WHAT is done, not on whether the side considers it a legitimate target, im afraid objectivity supercedes local law; so far there are news about three civilian deaths and the use of a suicide bomber, if it was done by any other actor it would be considered terrorism. Luroe (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

if 213.233.88.64 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

A bridge is a legitimate strategic target in any war, as well as this war that Putin started.50.111.55.190 (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This cannot fall under terrorism as it follows the rules of war. As a vital military infrastructure the bridge is a legitimate target.

Otherwise all military actions should be considered terrorism. And please do not claim objectivity, also do you have proof of a suicide bomber? Ipotato69 (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The source I used for the deaths does not mention if those who died were civilians or military. There are sources that mentioned Russia has been using the bridge to transport military supplies, so we do need a source to make it clear who died. Furthermore, sources are not referring to this as a terrorist action at this time, which means that it would be a problem if we claimed it was terrorism. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Luroe,

If you have any proof for your claims about a "suicide bomber", please present this to us.

The bridge is in extensive use for supplying ammunition and fuel to an illegal military attack. The bridge is therefore definitely a legitimate target. If the operation against this bridge really has cost only three lives, it is fantastic.

Your claim about "objectivity" sounds strange. Joreberg (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is approaching WP:NOTAFORUM territory. What sources say should be followed. At the moment I have not seen any mention of "terrorism" in RS. At the same time, we do not need to comment about how "fantastic" the number of deaths is. Mellk (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like in Russia this event is being commented & handled by the anti-terrorist authority, from what I see no party officially took responsibility for the explosion. Could be an accident or a terrorist act likewise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.99.41.63 (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it cannot it referred to as a terrorist act. This is not supported. Mellk (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's sad that you can't understand that there is 2 bridges actually: one is railroad 5.19.139.220 (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Which can be used in transfer military goods.

And second one is road bridge, which can't be used for transportation of fuel & ammunition.

If you do such claims, it will be great to see any sources for that.

And truck explosion happened on road bridge, but railroad is completely intact and working normally now.

> The bridge is therefore definitely a legitimate target.

Why Ukraine didn't take any responsibility for it?

If it was completely legal attack? 5.19.139.220 (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201712050029?index=1&rangeSize=1

The list of weapons, explosives or other devices, objects and substances in respect of which a ban or restriction on movement to the territory of land plots, water space, and buildings, structures, structures located on these sites, other provided for in Part 7 of Article 6 of the Federal Law from July 13, 2015 No. 221-FZ "On the peculiarities of regulation of certain legal relations arising in connection with the construction, reconstruction of transport facilities infrastructure of federal and regional significance intended to provide transport links between the Taman and Kerch peninsulas, and engineering infrastructure facilities of federal and regional significance on the Taman and Kerch peninsulas and on amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation 5.19.139.220 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Under this premise, should the Japanese kamikaze pilots be considered terrorists? Regards, DPdH (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Not if the deed was ordered or committed by the Ukrainians, officially or not, as this part of the Russian bridge over Ukrainian waters is a legitimate infrastructure target in war time.

Actually, if someone builds a bridge in Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukranian authorities, the authorities would be entitled to demolish it even in peacetime.

If it was committed by Russians opposed to Putin, then it would be a terrorist act indeed. After all, the truck came from Russia and was inspected there, the explosives were likely procured there too. The inquest may shed more light about all this.

Chimel31 (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• We could certainly note that the Russians are calling it terrorism, but that their view is a minority view. Off the top of my head I think there are sources for that. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The bridge was indeed a vital supply line for the Russian military (btw here is video from a week ago). And given the extent of Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure throughout the war, including last two weeks of escalation over Ukrainian success which included attack on Dam, power stations[1] and missile strikes in Zaporizhzhia which killed dozens of civilians, I find Russian claims of terrorisms to be cynical and self serving. --Nilsol2 (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations from Estonia

Under "Reaction", it should be noted that the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Reinsalu has congratulated Ukraine with the operation.

https://www.latestly.com/socially/world/estonian-fm-congratulates-ukraine-on-allegedly-hitting-crimean-bridge-estonia-latest-tweet-by-the-kyiv-independent-4304427.html Joreberg (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned in 2022 Crimean Bridge explosion#Foreign. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir Konstantinov

The bolded section in "Vladimir Konstantinov, a Russian-installed leader in Crimea, accused Ukraine of responsibility" should be removed or replaced with a more neutral (for lack of a better word) description. Konstantinov's position as head of government of Crimea precedes the Russian annexation, so this is inaccurate and somewhat biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.248.170 (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• CrimeaBridge.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2022

For the following paragraph:

Oleksiy Danilov, head of the National Security and Defence Council, posted a video of the bridge on social media, along with a video of Marilyn Monroe singing "Happy birthday, Mr President".

Add this DW article as a source and change it to:

Oleksiy Danilov, head of the National Security and Defence Council, posted a video of the bridge on social media, along with a video of Marilyn Monroe singing "Happy birthday, Mr President". The explosion occurred a day after the birthday of Russian president Vladimir Putin.

46.97.176.109 (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Reword image caption

"Three years before the disaster" is the current phrase used, where I'd suggest "event" or "incident" or just "explosion" would be more neutral and factual instead of "disaster", which implies widespread or accidental damage. --FlagFreak ^talk 17:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done , with caption "Photo taken of the bridge, 2019". Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2022 (2)

Labelling Vladimir Konstantinov as a "Russian-installed" politician on line 3 requires citation. 152.86.72.217 (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The portion in question has been removed at some point in the last week, so this edit request has become moot. – Recoil (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Impossible to edit

I attempted to make a small improvement to this article, but it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Please propose your edit here, as a formal edit request or otherwise. Unfortunately, articles in certain controversial topic areas can be protected from editing due to disruption. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The identity of the victim driving in a car beside the truck is significant. He was Sergey Maslov who was sitting over an extremely sensitive case involving Ramzan Kadyrov's family. I attempted to add this to the article - but it is not editable - could someone with access add this pertinent information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.247.5 (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2022

In the first paragraph, change "two half-sections of the road bridge collapsed" to "two sections of the Crimea-bound half of the road bridge collapsed" (corresponding to the description in the Event section). 213.233.110.47 (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It's been changed to say the explosion was on the westbound lanes, that's enough to answer my request. 213.233.110.47 (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2022 - Kerch-broeksplosion fra afstand.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Time of day

Minor, but the intro mentions 6:07 AM as the time, but under the Event sub-head it mentions 6:05 AM. I assume these should match, that two different events 2 minutes apart aren't being described?

"On 8 October 2022, at 6:07 a.m., a fire broke out on the Crimean Bridge as a result of an explosion", and

"The press service of the Crimea Railway stated that at 6:05 am the equipment showed an error on the railway tracks"

73.157.2.114 (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Robot Submarine

In an interview today on BBC Radio 2, SAS soldier Robin Horsfall suggested this was a robot submarine attack. There is video footage on twitter from 8 October 2022 which seems to show a craft moving under the bridge before the attack. Further, there has been engineering analysis by @truth_tesla that determines the explosion took place 1 to 4 metres under the road surface. [See their timeline.]

Links:

Video 1

https://twitter.com/herooftheday10/status/1578712861810970626?s=20&t=vtuyXBBJMbb-T6LNGW9eIg

Video 2

https://twitter.com/TpyxaNews/status/1578711005684563969?s=20&t=vtuyXBBJMbb-T6LNGW9eIg

Robin Horsfalls LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:share:6984569053029744641

Selected tweet from @truth_tesla [series of photos and analysis]

https://twitter.com/truth_tesla/status/1579065791307468800?s=20&t=lWd9uF0HGn_rvuJgrfIrTw

Putin ordered the Russian investigation and its truck bomb theory is disputed.

David Crayford ☎ 13:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

"Video showing the truck that allegedly detonated was briefly inspected before it crossed the bridge this morning."

Tweet with video from Rob Lee, Senior Fellow @FPRI

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1578816856047374337?s=20&t=cCZYQSdZupF0CCDUxLZbZA

There is no cratering on the surface of the bridge which also lends itself to an explosion under the road surface not on it.

David Crayford ☎ 13:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There needs to be independent sources reporting on these conclusions. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Independent sources:

* Crimean bridge: Who - or what - caused the explosion? In: BBC News. 9. 10.2022 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63192757).

* Nolan Peterson: Has Ukraine Developed Kamikaze Drone Boats To Attack Russia’s Navy? In: Coffee or Die Magazine. 22.9.2022 (https://www.coffeeordie.com/ukraine-kamikaze-drone-boats).--87.170.207.164 (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The official Russian claim of a truck bomb is also unreliable for me, as the first videos of the explosion showing the truck climbing on the elevated arch bridge section, however spans collapsed, shown on satellite images, are quite far from that scene. JSoos (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: it has been reported that the truck carrying the truck bomb seems to have come from the Russian side, from the region of Krasnodar. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

For an edit request you better add a source to support your claim. That said this is correct, assuming that it was the truck carrying the bomb as the cctv footage suggest then it was traveling from the Russian side because the rail bridge is south of the road bridge --Nilsol2 (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"some rail traffic"

This is clearly a lie, the sourcing is from BBC where they say "The railway part of the bridge - where oil tankers caught fire - has also apparently reopened." Not very definitive at all... Further, video has come out that shows how the rail line has been deformed by the immense heat generated by the fire The rail line clearly is not serviceable at this time and won't be for quite some time considering the damage seen in the video 2601:600:9681:4C50:795B:D828:7E53:610 (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by Wikipedia:RS, if you want to dispute the claim you need to provide a reliable source that says otherwise. (FYI the bridge has a double-track railway, so even if Russia haven't fix the damaged rail line they could have resumed traffic on the other line or operate at limited capacity)--Nilsol2 (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Passive wording

Could the lead be rephrased to remove the passive wording "a fire broke out..." Is it better to say something like an explosion occurred that caused a fire? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Investigation

Concerning the recent edit.

If the FSB claims that two trucks were used in transporting the explosives then please clarify that in the text. Because right now it reads like the FSB released X-rays of THE truck, which plainly wrong because the released x-ray scan isn't of the truck that entered the Crimean bridge on the day of the explosion. --Nilsol2 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A vehicle bomb?

I'm sorry if this comes across as WP:FORUMy but do I understand the article correctly? Russian sources are asserting a vehicle bomb was able to dislodge three sections of the easternmost roadway, leave the center roadway untouched, and still get so hot that rail tanker cars ignited on the rail-bridge 100 meters or so away? Am I the only reader who thinks this narrative unlikely? Is there any sourcing about the explosion itself? BusterD (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A challenge for this article is that the bridge is controlled by Russia, which is currently waging a war in the region with plenty of propaganda going on (from potentially also actors other than Russia). Also, since the bridge plays a strategic role in supporting the war effort it is not given that Russia will correctly inform the public on the state of the bridge and what happened to it. So the access to information regarding the bridge from reliable sources is limited, and can certainly not keep up with all the ongoing speculation online... There is however a recent source cited here, that argues that a combination of a detonation of explosives and thermite could have caused damage consistent with what has been observed so far. Lklundin (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I imagine governments with real-time satellite imagery could choose to give us more information if and when they choose. I believe Ukraine has little reason to disclose sources and methods at this time. It's the combination of pristine center roadway and the railway's great distance from the detonation I can't comprehend. Tanker railcars are designed not to ignite. How do you fry the outside of railcars from that distance and not kill everyone within the blast radius? BusterD (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is why some experts do not believe that was a single car bomb, but assume that both parts of the bridge were mined or hit by missiles/drones/whatever independently, but at the same time. Others say it still could be a huge car bomb, even though the official Russian version is almost certainly fabricated. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 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 per general consensus — JFG ^talk 13:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Crimean Bridge explosion → Crimean Bridge explosion – Hi everyone! Since this was the first and the only explosion occurred to the bridge, and according to WP:CRYSTALBALL, the page should be renamed removing 2022 like the French [2]; the Russian [3] and the Ukranian [4] Wikis. Nicola Romani (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep the Year!

This may well not be the only attack on this bridge, even in 2022.

Article states that this is Ukraine's #1 target, and some form of conflict will potentially last decades.. We can surely expect many future attack attempts. 2A02:A44C:53DF:1:34E2:8F68:D3F:DDE6 (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Since we cannot predict the future, we must adhere to the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy. Nicola Romani (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per the reasons I have explained above and WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Nicola Romani (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: The above comment is from the nominator. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, Articles in category:Attacks on bridges all have year in title. JSoos (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support, The article can be changed easily enough if need be later. BogLogs (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Substituted {{subst:requested move}} to fix malformed move request. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose : Keep the year and add 'first' in from of it, for obvious reasons. First it is very likely that as long as Putin is alive there will be more attacks on the bridge, even within 2022. But the most important reason is continuity. Yes, the article could be renamed within the year, and renamed back when a second or third attack happens, but. just like it is quite annoying that a word in the 19th century may have had a completely different meaning than today, or when a commercial website moves pages around every couple of years making all printed links obsolete, having a page that changes names is quite frustrating. This article already has 40 copies archived at archive.org. A name change makes looking for old version, there, difficult. So an article about an event, even if it's the first of its kind should have all information to make it unambiguous, i.e. what, when and where. Dhrm77 (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  1. See WP:CRYSTAL. It doesn't matter whether or not further attacks would happen unless there is verifiable evidence that one is being prepared for. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP:CRYSTALBALL works both ways. By adding a year, one assumes that it is likely that there will be more, By not having a year, one assumes that it is likely that it will be unique. And considering that Putin is obsessed with destroying Ukraine, and even after he is gone, Russia has a history of putting psychopaths in power, (not saying that putting idiots in power in other countries is any better) it is quite likely that this event is the first of many. Dhrm77 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  2. Page moves always leave behind redirects, and moving this won't change the meaning. Plus, discussions are permanently archived. This is pretty much never a valid point to argue against a move. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Redirects are fine, but I wasn't talking about what technology can do, I was talking about the effect of many changes on human beings. Continuity is better. If the article had been started without a year, I would have been in favor of keeping the title until a second event happens. But since the article title was started with a year, don't change it to something that is very likely to be changed back. Dhrm77 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CRYSTALBALL. It is the first explosion, after all. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 15:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support  Title disambiguation is unnecessary unless there are other topics by the same name, per WP:TITLEDAB, and adding it defies the title WP:CRITERION of concision. And of course we don’t disambiguate things seen only in our WP:CRYSTALBALLs. —Michael Z. 16:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The title disambiguation is unnecessary. Originoa (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. Nigej (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The naming convention WP:NCEVENTS requires a year in a majority of cases. Besides removing the date without considering the WP:10YEARTEST test and WP:RECENTISM, and besides making this title less WP:CONSISTENT with others, removing the year makes the title less WP:RECOGNIZABLE to the reader. As a sidenote, what other wikis do with their article titles is irrelevant to this discussion, since we do not share article title guidelines and naming conventions. Pilaz (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support the lifetime this bridge has left is short. It will either go down in 2022 or in 2023 once Ukraine wins the war. The year will not be necessary for disambiguation, when in the history books of the future we read "Crimean Bridge explosions" or "explosions at the Crimean Bridge", we will know what does it mean. Super Ψ Dro 19:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. We should not attach year to every event, unless this is required to distinguish it from other similar events. Yes, there will be probably next explosions, but this falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. If that happens, then the scope and the tile of this page will be changed to something else like Destruction of Crimean Bridge, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CRYSTALBALL. RPC7778 (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think there will be another major attack on the bridge anytime soon, and if it does happen I don't think it's impossible to "unmove" a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPI2026F1 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. If another explosion happens, we can change it. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Descriptive event titles like this are always best with a year included to avoid any ambiguity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

What ambiguity? There were no other such explosions so far. I do not think we should attach year to the title of every event unless this is indeed required to distinguish it from other events. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Not only is this a significant event, meaning it is absolutely the WP:COMMONNAME for the phrase "Crimean Bridge attack/explosion", it is also the only time this bridge has ever been exploded, so the disambiguating year is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DecafPotato (talk • contribs) 17:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Support per reason above, this took the words out of my mouth Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support I agree with the proposal, as many had said previously, this is the only explosion that occurred to the bridge. Jurisdicta (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. We can always move it again. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Support We could just start a new discussion later if needed. Dawsongfg (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Move. Unnecessary disambiguation. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 13:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support move. WP:CRYSTALBALL is more persuasive than WP:NCEVENTS because there is simply no way to be confused as long as there is only one explosion at this bridge. It's not difficult to rename should that change.~TPW 15:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The year disambiguation in the title is unnecessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCEVENTS, the year is normally included, regardless of whether or not the event has happened multiple times. Danski454 (talk) 17:18, 22 October 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.

Edit required: Truck X-Ray discrepancy confusion

There's been a claim going around the internet that the x-ray photos are an obvious fake because they don't match the truck that blew up. However, the original release of the photos did not claim they were from the truck that blew up, but rather a separate truck that was used to transport the trailer into Russia.

This whole claimed narrative is no more legitimate than anything else the FSB puts out, of course, but the "x-ray discrepancy" evidence is just misinformation on top of disinformation. It's "disproving" a claim that the FSB never actually made. We should correct this section of the article so as not to continue spreading this mistaken claim.

Here is one potential source we could use: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-russias-fsb-share-fake-x-ray-crimea-bridge-blast-truck-1751118

If anyone has better information, please correct me though! SmoothAmber (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Our article doesn't claim it is fake. And I already asked above to clarify the discrepancy. According to FSB narrative seemingly there are two trucks, the X-ray video is from a border check of the Truck that entered Russia, then the load was transferred to the truck from which the explosion is thought to have originated but wasn't scanned at the bridge for some reason. However, I don't have a source for that, I used SYN to deduce that, hope you can do better. --Nilsol2 (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Current fact checking from Newsweek would not be considered a reliable source per WP:RSP. I have no opinion about the assertion above itself, but we'd need much stronger sources than those I'm seeing so far. BusterD (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I added more context to explain that, along the newsweek lines. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory Information

In "Effect on Russian Forces", it is claimed that "rail traffic [resumed] almost immediately", and then a few sentences later it's said that " Various analysts said on 10 October that trains would likely cross the bridge at reduced speed and loads.".

I looked at the sources cited for the section, and it seems like the claim that traffic was almost immediately restored comes from the Russian Deputy Prime Minister saying that traffic on the bridge was fully restored. An effort should be made to find out exactly when and how rail traffic was restored through a more reliable source. Harry Hinderson (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we can reword it to compromise, maybe something like "while rail traffic resumed quickly, it did so with reduced speed and capacity." Although I do agree that Russian government primary sources are suspect during a war, since almost everything they say becomes propoganda RPI2026F1 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

RPI2026F1 Russian primary sources are no more or less reliable than Western primary sources. Wikipedia should not take sides simply because it is an English speaking medium. In fact it should be particularly weary of this natural bias. 2.138.205.68 (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Americans can make propaganda too. The thing is that using a secondary source would be much better since a country at war will say good things about themselves. America did it too during the Iraq war. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. There is no free press in the Russian Federation and propaganda is the rule of the day. 50.111.8.120 (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The military cargo was transported exclusively on trains. How badly that part of the bridge was damaged? Best I could find in recent sources (a day ago) was this., i.e. Since the explosion, train traffic on the rail bridge had been halted to clear damaged rail cars. Russian officials said trains were able to operate on the line although it was not clear if rail traffic had resumed. Based on that, it is not clear to which degree the traffic has been restored; the claim it was completely restored in a few hours is apparently not true. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Marchenko quote details

The quote attributed to Major General Dmitry Marchenko is marked as needing further detail. Sources that indicate the quote is from "an interview with Radio Liberty" on 16 June 2022 include: (1) The Odessa Journal -- https://odessa-journal.com/general-marchenko-kerch-bridge-is-the-military-target-number-one/ "General Marchenko: Kerch bridge is the military target number one", dated 16 June 2022. (2) Radio Svoboda, Ukrainian version of the same Odessa Journal article -- https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/news-marchenko-kerchenskyi-mist/31899558.html (3) CNN in October -- https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/10/europe/russia-ukraine-strikes-crimea-bridge-analysis-cmd-intl (4) possibly also The Organization for World Peace -- https://theowp.org/ukrainian-general-targets-destruction-of-crimean-bridge/ PeteGaughan (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Does this page still needs extended protection?

Also an english source for the full restoration of rail traffic on the Bridge

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/05/05/russia-restores-rail-traffic-on-controversial-crimean-bridge-a81053 Nilsol2 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No mention of even the possibility of calling this a "suicide attack"?

Several reputable articles from the New York Times and CNN mention the possibility that this was a suicide attack. Why is the word "suicide" not mentioned even a single time in this Wikipedia entry? I would hate to believe that the word "suicide" has been intentionally omitted or even scrubbed in order to avoid putting Ukraine in some sort of bad light, analogous to the suicide bombers who killed US Army service members and civilians over the past 2 decades. I can see the possibility of some people very sympathetic to Ukraine purposefully omitting or scrubbing the terms "suicide attack" or "suicide bombing" from this entry, in order to avoid off-putting American citizens trying to research more about the Ukrainian conflict, considering the general opinions of Americans on suicide bombings after 9/11, and the fact that so much financial and material support to Ukraine comes from America. I myself support Ukraine, but if there was a possibility this was a suicide attack, I believe that a nonpartisan and objective Wikipedia should include that possibility. And I still hold out hope for a nonpartisan and objective Wikipedia.

Relevant links:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/10/europe/russia-ukraine-strikes-crimea-bridge-analysis-cmd-intl/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/17/world/europe/crimea-bridge-collapse.html https://worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/kerch-bridge-suicide-attack 2603:8081:4401:8F93:514C:83D4:7EC8:7041 (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of geopolitical motives in editing this article is a serious accusation that one should not make without actual evidence. Wikipedia does not claim to be "nonpartisan" and "objective"- we claim to have a neutral point of view, which is different. All sources have biases, this is why sources are presented to readers, so they can evaluate them and judge them for themselves as to bias. It is best to just stick to discussing the content of this article without speculating as to motives of editors.

I don't see any evidence of a deliberate effort to exclude discussion of the possibility of a suicide attack, and am not aware of a reason not to include such information. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding 2023 Crimean Bridge explosion

Hi, Can we add 2023 Crimean Bridge explosion in the "see also" section at the end ? It's the case the other way around.

Article is protected, can't add that as a IP user. I'm also not sur article still need to be protected though. 178.23.152.132 (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone did. Thanks 178.23.152.132 (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)