Talk:2022 missile explosion in Poland

Already?

Godd#mn you're fast. 5.173.97.59 (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I gotta give it to y'all over here you really are fast. Unlike us Wikivoyagers I sell eggs (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't sleep RPI2026F1 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

LOL😂 Txkk (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Against the rules of Wiki

This is news, not confirmed information. Wikipedia is not about news and current events, there is a special place for it 62.4.41.82 (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Creating this article a mere hour after the news broke might or might not have been jumping the gun. The advice on that page leads me to believe that what's done is done and we should just wait and see. Frogging101 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We could propose a title change to "explosion" rather than "missile strike". At least in the summary of this article by OKO.press, the Polish security committee is not yet willing to say what caused the explosion - and the security services will work overnight (PL time) to try to determine what happened. Informally, are there any objections to changing from 2022 missile strike on Poland to 2022 explosion in south-east Poland? or better proposals? (If rough consensus can be reached, we can leave a more formal title change to later.) Boud (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Further name discussion should go in the section above. 89.8.70.65 (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a WP:NOTTHENEWS/WP:BREAKING criticism is fair to say. That being said, it's probably for the best that this page was made. 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is a beast of an article already (~360k bytes). Etrius ( Us) 22:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Name

The name of the article at the time this thread started was 2022 Russian missile strike on Poland (logs). It has since been moved to 2022 missile strike on Poland, and then 2022 missile explosion in Poland.

2022 missile explosion in Poland → ? - Template added to existing discussion; see discussion below Frogging101 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

RM template removed - this is not an RM. It's a valid consensus-building exercise, but you might be better off starting again as the circumstances have changed and are changing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the conversation is very divergent at this point. Not in a bad way, mind. Frogging101 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that Przewodów incident/Przewodów explosion/Przewodów disaster or something along those lines would likely be the ideal title. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a bit presumptuous. See for example reports from Poland that it may have not been a strike on Poland but rather the remnants of a shot down missile shot at Ukraine. nableezy - 19:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

If this bears out, then it should be moved. Frogging101 (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, the current name may be technically accurate, but it implies that it was definitely purposeful. Until proven otherwise, it should be assumed to be an accident due to poor aiming, or the result of an unguided missile having been used too close to the border. GMRE (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it should move to 2022 Russian missile incursion into Poland. Frogging101 (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Or 2022 Two Russian missiles striking Poland incident. 89.8.70.65 (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Or, 2022 Russian missiles that struck Poland. The missile landed in Poland, but it was not necessarily a strike (aimed) at Poland.--On the other hand, a missile strike in Poland, conjures up a number of ideas. 89.8.70.65 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I dont even know why this needs an article yet tbh. Which would obviate the need for a title. nableezy - 20:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but we've got one anyway. Frogging101 (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

So merge it ;) nableezy - 20:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's wait for the bot to place the notice on the article and see if there are any objections. Frogging101 (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with it. Super Ψ Dro 21:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Someone did a bold move to 2022 missile strike on Poland. I think that's a better name. Still not sure if "strike" is appropriate since it seems unlikely that it was intentional, but I'm not going to push to change it. Frogging101 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's bureaucratic processes are not efficient for recent events. This is something that happened a few hours ago and information changes by the minute. What do we expect to do with a 7-day long process? Having an informal talk page discussion would have been much better. Super Ψ Dro 21:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I just added the template because it seemed appropriate. I didn't realize it had to stay for 7 days. Frogging101 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

If you made a "mistake", then you can (try) to remove your "mistake". 89.8.70.65 (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I will avoid making any more "mistakes". Frogging101 (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Are there any objections to 2022 explosion in south-east Poland as the new name (at least until/if the Polish security services declare that it was from a missile)? We only seem to have Associated Press making a direct claim of missiles (apart from unreliable sources like Twitter/Fediverse). 2022 explosion in Przewodów would be more accurate, but many readers would think of "Poland" rather than the name of the village. Boud (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are objections. Weaselly non informative title. Volunteer Marek 22:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. It is some kind of "missile incident": 2022 Missile incident in Poland. 89.8.70.65 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

At the moment sources are calling this event a "strike" so that's what we'll be calling it too. If sources report it differently we'll change the name then. Volunteer Marek 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 missile explosion in Poland, is okay for now, in my opinion. 89.8.70.65 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur. The U.S. State Department has said that establishing intent is very important. These are early days.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-asia-63593855?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=63740a26f15ea55905e4238a%26US%20responds%20with%20caution%262022-11-15T21%3A55%3A20.071Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:37377b20-5896-4ea2-8dfc-2798c0956cdd&pinned_post_asset_id=63740a26f15ea55905e4238a&pinned_post_type=share

kencf0618 (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I find that misleading because it makes it sound like Poland launched some missiles which exploded. There is a reason why no source is describing it that way. It's simply bad writing that misinforms. Volunteer Marek 22:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

By that reasoning, one might arrive at 2022 missile incident in Poland. 89.8.70.65 (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 Polish missile incident might work better. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

But then THAT makes it sound like it was "an incident with a Polish missile". Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

obsolete Adoring nanny (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait. Let's try not to change the title again until information becomes more clear. Hopefully within a day or so, it will become clear what actually happened. At that point, we can have a longer-term title. For the moment, the present title has the advantage of making a statement that no country seems to be disputing, regardless of what more specific statement we are able to make when the information becomes more clear. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC) No, because this appears to be an accident. Independent analysts are saying that the wreckage belongs to S-300, i.e. an [Ukrainian] air defense missile. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC) S-300 is literally Russian. 64.82.204.2 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC) The article says that S-300s were used by both combatants during the invasion both as surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles, primarily by Ukraine and Russia respectively Frogging101 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC) In lieu of this being an accident, I think the current article name is fine for now. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) My "wait" content was intended to mean that we should wait until we understood what actually happened. I think the events are sufficiently clear now, so the reason for my "wait" comment no longer applies. I have therefore struck it. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don't invent stuff

What the hey is a "missile trespass"? Is there ANY source which uses this ridiculous language? Please don't just make stuff up. Volunteer Marek 22:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Merangs: please stop substituting your own personal made up original research for reliable sources. Sources are NOT calling this "missile trespassing". They're not calling these "missile explosions". They are calling it a STRIKE. Here is the original AP story: AP source: Russian missiles cross into Poland during strike. The title should reflect reliable sources not inventions of individual Wikipedia editors. Volunteer Marek 22:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: - Show me a reliable, backed-by-experts source saying it was a direct attack against Poland, thanks. Otherwise, it sounds like warmongering to me. Highly unprofessional. Merangs (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

First, we're not calling the article "Missile ATTACK against Poland" so don't even try it with the irrelevant strawman. Second, I ALREADY showed you a reliable source - AP - which calls it a strike. You have yet to produce a single source which calls this a "trespass". And cut it out with the personal attacks. Volunteer Marek 22:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

What personal attacks? Calm down please. All I did is suggest that the word choice here is improper, from a personal point of view. Also, I am not the one who gets blocked for edit warring and wrong conduct here. Merangs (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Calling my comments "warmongering" and referring to them as "unprofessional" are personal attacks. Telling other editors to "calm down" is also WP:INCIVIL as it is a form of passive aggressive insult and provocation (what in the world makes you think I'm not calm). Discuss content not editors. And on that note, please address the fact that reliable sources are calling this a "strike". Volunteer Marek 22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Your tone and use of random upper case is not helpful either. Super Ψ Dro 23:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

My tone is fine and upper case has been used for emphasis before you were born. Not the same as typing EVERYTHING in all caps so don't even try. Volunteer Marek 00:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, missile trespass sounds absolutely ridiculous and I've never heard any terminology like that used to describe similar events. PaulRKil (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

and the lead (per RS’s) says ..reported that two missiles had struck the territory of Poland- GizzyCatBella🍁 22:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The article needs to be moved back to it’s original title - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I am in favor of using "strike" too. Super Ψ Dro 23:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Any objections to 2022 missile strike on Poland ? There seems to be an emerging consensus. (I personally don't see any RS pointing to evidence that the explosion was from missiles, but the rumours on Twitter certainly point that way.) Boud (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. It is either a "missile incident" or "missile explosion". 89.8.70.65 (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This article should absolutely not be moved to the original title, which was 2022 Russian missile strike on Poland. When this comment was made it was very unclear who had fired the missile, and now US Intel assessments, as noted in the article, state that the missile was likely fired by Ukrainian forces.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-officials-initial-findings-suggest-missile-hit-poland-93382667 Serafart (talk) (contributions) 05:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

“Russian” missiles

Not confirmed to have been Russian, yet the title and description make it sound like it despite contradicting it lower in the article by saying Russia is “alleged” to have been responsible. Wikipedia is not the place for rumors or unconfirmed reports. Tankpiggy18 (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll make a bold move to 2022 missile strike on Poland. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Further name discussion should go in the section above. Frogging101 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tankpiggy18: The section Talk:2022 missile explosion in Poland#Move back to 2022 Russian missile strike on Poland/Sources for 'Russian'? analyses what sources we have for the claim that the missile was Russian: AP and The Hill make that claim without saying what their source is; prime minister Morawiecki stated half an hour ago that the reason for the explosion is being investigated, with the implication that there's no point speculating. Boud (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a fact that the missile is Russian. Euglenos sandara (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong! It was a lie! 93.87.23.96 (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-Protection request

This article is getting swamped by users with IPs based in Russia trying to accuse Ukraine of this event. PaulRKil (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Use only verified information that is not subject to propaganda by one of the parties, the heading "2022 missile strike on Poland" is much fairer, the wiki is not about Ukrainian propaganda news, but about proven facts, for example, the Pentagon and the US government cannot confirm the origin of missiles 188.243.183.111 (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

+1 Frogging101 (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The only person doing propaganda here is you, you made two deliberate edit attempts where you explicitly blamed Ukraine and said the explosion was caused by Ukrainian air defense missiles. PaulRKil (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/explosion-kills-two-poland-near-ukraine-border-2022-11-15/ 188.243.183.111 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, they were right all along. Ukraine was responsible for it! 93.87.23.96 (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Move back to 2022 Russian missile strike on Poland/Sources for 'Russian'?

We should begin a requested move back to the original title of 2022 Russian missile strike on Poland, now that it has been confirmed to have been two Russian missiles. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed by which source(s)? Boud (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Further name discussion should go in the section above. 89.8.70.65 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but if there are any sources that Elijahandskip can point us to to support the claim that the explosion(s) are (were) caused by two Russian missiles, then this would be a good section to provide them, independently of the title debate. I can't see any RS for that. Boud (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

BNO News (“Russian-made missile”), AP News (“Russian made missile”), The Hill (“Russia missile strike”). I think that is enough international RS to support the move back. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The BNO News toot is just one sentence, without even a hint of where the info is from.

The AP news item appears to be the original "direct claim" that was made earlier than statements by Polish (and US) authorities; I think that this has to be attributed to AP - not enough to be stated as a fact without attribution.

The Hill doesn't say to what source it attributes Russian responsibility - again we would have to attribute the info to The Hill (newspaper).

OK to put this in the text, but with attribution to AP and The Hill (and possibly BNO, though there's not much point in attributing to a toot/tweet). Boud (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

OKO.press at around 00:40 CET 16 Nov = 23:40 UTC 15 Nov quotes prime minister Morawiecki saying Pracujemy nad ustaleniem przyczyn tego zdarzenia = We're working on determining the reason for the event. Unless we have something like a Bellingcat analysis, the official governmental statement is about the best source we have so far. Boud (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comfirmed that the missiles were Ukrainian! 18:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 93.87.23.96 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Poland president says no evidence of who fired the missiles, so we wait RandomPotato123 (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's the 2022-11-16 00:13 (UTC) archived reference with Duda's statement. Boud (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Elijahandskip Unfortuanately reports it was ‘Russian-made’ is not sufficient evidence it was fired by Russia. Both Russia and Ukraine inherited plenty of Soviet weaponry commonly called ‘Russian’ and NATO’s and the US government’s initial conclusion is that it was in fact a Ukrainian missile fired in defence at a Russian one. Harsimaja (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"Przewodów explosion", the name used by Polish-language Wikipedia

What do you think about the name "Przewodów explosion" which is how Polish-language Wikipedia currently calls the article? Artemis Andromeda (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Best option so far, or at least "Przewodów incident" or "Przewodów disaster" Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait and see what RS continue to refer to it as? Frogging101 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. I have not seen English sources, to any significant degree, calling it "Pretzel-wood-wow" or Przewodów incident" or "Przewodów disaster" or "Przewodów explosion". 46.15.31.185 (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Here. Shockingly, something that happened in non-English speaking country, is covered more in non-English media. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 Lublin area explosion, 2022 Lublin explosion, or 2022 Lublin Vojvodship explosion. 46.15.24.77 (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Poland is part of EU

I added mention on EU territory, but it was removed. Isn't it noteworthy?🤔 Solarius (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on the edit summary it looks like it was an accident. Frogging101 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Solarius: I had an edit conflict with your addition, but decided to keep to mentioning NATO only, since NATO is the relevant intergovernmental body in the context of a military conflict. ‒overthrows 20:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, going to re-add it then 👍 Solarius (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, okay @overthrows! I am thinking that attack on EU is also important 😊 I try to think some other way to phrase it Solarius (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone from the EU leadership will comment on the incident. We could simply wait for that comment. 89.8.70.65 (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. 46.15.110.253 (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

European Union (sub-section)

European Union (section) says: "President of the European Council, Charles Michel, stated that he was "shocked" by reports of the incident, adding that "we stand with Poland."

Please add: "(Poland is a member state of the European Union.)" 89.8.70.65 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Where should the editors put "Poland is a member state of the European Union." ? Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

At the end of the European Union (sub-section). Regards! 89.8.70.65 (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Done! Let's wait for response of editors. Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. 46.15.110.253 (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Not the first strike

Technically the first strike was the on the German embassy as embassies are treated like a territory of their country. 87.205.228.216 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

According to the live updated article on BBC News site, Russia denies any involvement with the strike and calls the early reports a "deliberate provocation".

But let's wait a bit for more official info 83.8.115.64 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It isnt true about the German embassy being treated like German territory, thats a convention on jurisdiction, not sovereignty. See Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality nableezy - 20:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Nice way of summarising the difference. I vaguely knew that there was a nuance there, but not quite exactly what it was. Boud (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

“…missiles deliberately struck Polish territory “by means of destruction.”

This is included in the reference. There was an edit made claiming it was not in the reference.

“Russia's defence ministry on Tuesday denied reports that Russian missiles had hit Polish territory, describing them as "a deliberate provocation aimed at escalating the situation".

It added in a statement: "No strikes on targets near the Ukrainian-Polish state border were made by Russian means of destruction."” 2600:1000:B057:526A:6080:2111:79AF:365F (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The "means of destruction" they are referring to are the missiles, by the way. "Russian means of destruction" means Russian weapons or Russian missiles. Frogging101 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

They denied any kind of strikes in Poland by them in reference, calling it provocation. Your sentence implies that they may allow a chance it was their missile, although they are clear it wasn't. Maybe just don't use word deliberately. --GreenZeb (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

"Nato" (sub-title) in Reactions (section)

Please consider removing that subtitle for now. Belgium does not speak on behalf of NATO - only NATO speaks on behalf of NATO. 89.8.70.65 (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

NATO countries, should be the name of that sub-section (not merely NATO). 89.8.70.65 (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've renamed the subtitle to 'NATO countries', thanks. --Peralien (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. 46.15.110.253 (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible Ukrainian S-300 involvement

There are already some evidences the missiles might actually belonged to the Ukrainian military as fragments found on the crash site indicates, it is the 5V55K, part of the S-300P missile system, employed also by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. It is very likely the missiles could have failed during interception of Russian cruise missiles targeting Western Ukraine infrastructure during the November 2022 nationwide missile strikes on Ukraine as pointed out by "The Drive" in their article.

I tried to mention this in the article however, my edits are being deleted by the user Volunteer Marek without any valid reason. The user claims its due to "The Drive" is an automotive publication, what is not true. The website is related also to defense, military technology and OSINT as seen in their "The War Zone" publication that is run by experienced editors, and thus does not conflict the WP:RS, what Volunteer Marek is obviously not aware of at all.

So if someone has any additional informations from reliable sources indicating this possible involvement from Ukrainian side, share it here so we can add it later into the article in correct and unbiased form. Thanks. BlackFlanker (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The OKO.press reference with ref name="OKOpress_Przewodow_15Oct2022_2230" states that the hypothesis of the explosions being from a Ukrainian anti-missile defence rocket "is not excluded" (i.e. is one of the viable hypotheses). Boud (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources or it goes. Policy. Volunteer Marek 23:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK "The Drive" is a well known reliable source used over the Wikipedia for quite a time when it comes to military related stuffs. I had never a problem when citing anything from that website. Also you are not the one who decides what is a reliable source or what isn't based just on your own assumptions, as well as you have no right at all to remove a well cited content without a valid reason for it. Give other people a chance to express their opinion too if there is a dispute about anything in some article and stick to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the right way next time. Anyway, the article already mentions the possible S-300 involvement so you can consider this dispute as resolved. BlackFlanker (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

2A01:E11:2003:8230:864:C0B0:1F0C:CD5F (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In the Page talk about Russian Missiles refering to a Twitter Page. In the same Twitter Page there is a link to a News that the Missiles are not Russian but Ukranian !

Ref: https://mobile.twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1592629251161075712

That's not a reliable source. Volunteer Marek 23:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Linked on r/UkrainainConflict

This is just a heads up that this article was linked to by some reddit user on r/UkrainainConflict, which tends to be a very pro-UA biased community. We may want to temporarily EC protect it or something similar if suspicious heavily POV edits start coming in.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/ywc23b/2022_missile_explosion_in_poland_as_of_2245_utc/ Serafart (talk) (contributions) 00:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting background information

Interesting background information (June 14, 2022): "Biden: U.S. to build silos on Poland border to export Ukrainian grain / U.S. and Western officials have been exploring efforts to build temporary silos in Ukraine and other nations as a means to quickly scale up grain storage capacity in Ukraine." Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/14/biden-u-s-to-build-silos-on-poland-border-to-export-ukrainian-grain-00039455 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems like SYNTH. --Calthinus (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

…first incident within NATO territory…

How about 2022 Zagreb Tu-141 crash from 'See also' section? Also, that page contains some information about drone crash in Romania. Judging by this, Poland missile explosion is at least the third incident in NATO during the Russian invasion. Semyon 'dicto' Fedotov (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I've shoehorned in ...(vis-a-vis prior UAV incursions)... If people don't know what a UAV is at this stage in the game, tough. kencf0618 (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

it was the “first instance of NATO citizens dying on NATO territory” --Joaziela (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"NATO citizens" should be avoided. If the source says that at least one of the dead persons was Polish, then it would be something like "a citizen of a NATO member state". 89.8.9.93 (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Latitude of Kyiv, longitude of Lviv

It's been noted that the impact is at the longitude of Lviv and the latitude of Kyiv. The speculation is that someone swapped targeting coordinates. This is an easily verifiable fact, but it's not yet been reported in the media, so at the moment it can't go into the article: it's WP:SYNT until it is picked up and discussed in a reliable source. Still, interesting! --Slashme (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I would argue this is very relevant and undeniable fact, and that it should be mentioned in the article without delay. (The latter is a subjective assesment, but - if there is policy requiring some media to publish it first, there be still has to be somebody's subjective choice about which sources are noteworthy.) --FDominec (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The speculation (that someone swapped coordinates) would have to be done by a notable expert about military matters. (If Nostradamus wrote about mistakes being made in the realm between the realm of the bear and the realm of the eagle, then I think that we should still look for another military expert.) 89.8.27.137 (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

In the light of the fact that it was a Ukrainian missile, it's obviously just a coincidence, and therefore irrelevant unless it gets discussed to a notable extent. --Slashme (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In other coincidences, if it was Ukr AA 1. It was released very late and should of been aborted pre-launch, 2. It missed and overshot the target, 3. It turned around and chased the target it was never going to catch, 4. It then headed direct to Lviv, veered off at the last minute, headed toward Poland, 5. Self destruct system failed. all seems a bit much. Further, we know Russian missiles were attacking Lviv, some S-300 have a much longer range nearer 200km, depending on several factors, we also know Russian motors and parts have been exported to both N Korea and Iran + others, both during and post sanctions, and some of their modifications added range and reduced payload, some of their local designs cannibalised components, the size of the crater compared to the damage at Freedom bridge or the children's playground in Kyiv does "seem" smaller in comparison, both N Korea and Iran have supplied Russia missiles, so I rate it 20% Ukr AA - 80% Rus modified S-300, from Blr, with co-ord errors, targetting the power station ~10km away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:638C:5E00:55E2:C72C:5D7A:1B48 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the coordinates of the hit mentioned in Wikipedia, when switched as it was mentioned, give the coordinates of the LVIV Airport (49.818, 23.921944), and the Antonov factory and its associated airfield (50.474444, 30.392). Do we need a military expert willing to mention that, given the fact that it is a geographical fact?186.122.216.53 (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If a claim is notable, then that is a major part in having something stay in a wiki-article. (And a relevant, notable expert has to comment the theory/ claim/ hypothesis.)--Your explanation above (with coordinates), would be Greek, to many persons.--There is a fair chance that an okay expert, will have something relevant to say (even if it was nothing more than s/he calling allegations of coordinate-switching - a "plausible conspiracy-theory etc."). 46.15.26.64 (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This claim was dismissed by the Polish Ambassador to NATO[1] (in Polish):
"Dziennikarz zapytał również o teorię głoszącą, że Rosjanie pomylili koordynaty ataku, łącząc dane dla dwóch celów w Ukrainie. Przewodów ma taką szerokość geograficzną jak Kijów i długość geograficzną jak Lwów.
- Dane, którymi dysponuje NATO, nie wskazują na to - odparł Szatkowski. Powiadomił, że przeanalizowano kwestie związane z trajektorią lotu, zasięgiem pocisków i zbadano szczątki w miejscu tragedii."
Google translation (with one correction):
"The journalist also asked about the theory that the Russians mixed up the coordinates of the attack by combining data for two targets in Ukraine. Przewodów has such latitude as Kyiv and longitude as Lviv.
- The data available to NATO does not indicate that - replied Szatkowski. He reported that issues related to the trajectory of the flight, the range of the missiles had been analyzed and the debris at the site of the tragedy had been examined." MarMi wiki (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Surprised it hasn't been mentioned this would imply a high likelihood of it being a false flag by Ukraine, purposely setting those coordinates so they can say Russia accidentally put them in wrong; then foiled by it being able to be recognized as an S300 missile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.118.148 (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Mention of the Gleiwitz incident

False-flag attack: notable accusations thereof? If any government claims that, then perhaps the article should say that. (Regarding "See also: Gleiwitz incident" - please have that removed. Relevance is not obvious.) 89.8.9.93 (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.8.109.60 (talk)

If any government claims that, then perhaps the article should say that. (Regarding "See also: Gleiwitz incident" - please have that removed. Relevance is not obvious.) 89.8.9.93 (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

In the related articles section is currently linked the Gleiwitz incident page. This has to do with a false provocation Nazi Germany used as an excuse to invade Poland at the onset of WWII.

This relation is based purely off of speculation. The origins of the projectile are still unresolved. Therefore, it is wrong to link it with a factually established deliberate false flag.

My resolution? Remove the link until we know more and all immediate investigations are completed.

Are others in agreement with me? Trad Cat123 (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Claiming that the see also must be removed on the basis of what you think is violation of assuming good faith. I oppose this change. Temp0000002 (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Temp0000002 is the only one who has mentioned good faith, and since the user is not a notable mind-reader, one should not add merit to that comment.--I have good faith in that the community will tar and feather the Gleiwitz incident and roll it out of "missile explosion" article. 89.8.109.60 (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Pretending to know what a user implied is highly offensive and it's certainly not assuming good faith. I have faith that my opinion will be respected because I don't care about the incident in itself whether it will stay on the page or not. Temp0000002 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Temp0000002 said "what you think is violation of assuming good faith".--I do not respect that opinion of yours, which you leveled at a third-party wikipedian. 89.8.109.60 (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I am in agreement with user:Trad Cat123. Please be bold and remove that piece of innuendo. The sooner it's gone from the wiki-article, the better. 89.8.109.60 (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Third-party Wikipedian equals more likely to be treated differently? You can disagree with my opinion but there is nothing to disagree in facts because it's not the mention I'm defending but the user you're assuming bad. This is my last comment on the topic. Temp0000002 (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done - the contested stuff, is gone from the article. 89.8.109.60 (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

False blame on Russia

Is the statement false blame acceptable?

A user recently added the word "falsely" in President Zelensky's original statement about the explosion and explained their edit request with I added the fact that Ukraine falsely blamed Russia for the missiles, since they werent russian missiles at all.

I think "falsely" is a loaded term for this article and implies he did this deliberately and that it wasn't the result of unclear information in the fog of war. I believe we should either replace the word "falsely" with "initially" or just delete it altogether. PaulRKil (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I want to say is that "falsely" doesn't mean lie, it means failing to be true in facts, including doing so by mistake. Temp0000002 (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. "falsely" has lots of connotations. It is more neutral without the word.

According to reliable sources, statement of president Zelensky that Russia is to blame for the missiles is factually incorrect and wikipedia should reflect that. Wikipedia doesn't care about your feelings but it reflects what reliable sources say.

Also it's common practise to assess if statement made by head of state is false. Examples from other pages:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

Putin espoused irredentist views, challenged Ukraine's right to statehood, and falsely claimed Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis who persecuted the ethnic Russian minority.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Donald_Trump

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden but refused to concede defeat, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't state FACT that Zelensky made false claims. This is common practise on wikipedia, this is important and relevant information in this topic and is factually accurate. Removing word "falsely" will only mislead readers and further spread misinformation. Mintus590 (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Unlike Putin and Trump, Zelensky has not doubled down on his statement in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we should avoid using the term 'falsely' to describe an initial statement made in the fog of war, particularly when this war is incredibly politicized online. I already introduce a compromise which is to use the word "initially" in its place. PaulRKil (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree to use the term initially but just to make it clear, read the 1st and 4th definition of wiktionary about the word "false" and you'll see that there's no mistake. Temp0000002 (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not even initial but ongoing claim. Last tweet of Zelensky is still blaming Russians: https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa. Did Zelensky retract his claims on some other information channel? Mintus590 (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

His last tweet was 16 hours ago, new developments have occurred since then. Thank you for looking out for objectivity though. Frogging101 (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

His last tweet was around 16 hrs ago at a point where it was still widely believed that this was Russian in origin. I'm certain that he would react rationally to developments related to this event. It is very likely he will still blame Russia, but won't claim the weapons were of Russian origin. PaulRKil (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, "erroneously" might be better, after confirmation. Depends what RS say. Mellk (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Even though Ukraine fired the missile, it is still correct to blame Russia, because the entire situation is Russia's fault. We see this sort of thing in criminal law all the time. See Felony murder rule. Looking at Zelensky's actual statement in the source, he did not say that "Russia fired the missile" (which would have been false). What he said was Russian aggression claimed the lives of two citizens of Poland.[2] That's true, and it's the same theory that is routinely used in felony murder convictions in the US. Furthermore, I see that Jens Stoltenburg has made the same point.[3] "This is not Ukraine's fault," Mr. Stoltenberg said. "Russia bears ultimate responsibility" because it has attacked Ukraine, which was defending itself. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

You missed the part where he called it "Russian missile terror"[4] and said "I have no doubt that this is not our missile".[5] Mellk (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I was going by the source provided with the initial question. In that case, he got those statements wrong. Of those statements, "Russian missile terror" is still correct, while the other one was wrong. But unless he doubles down, we should say he "initially" said that. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

What RS say we should say. If they say "falsely" this should be reflected, though it is probably too early for something like that. But so far Ukraine has denied it was maybe caused by Ukrainian air defense and claimed it was a Russian missile. Mellk (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Going by your logic, virtually all the atrocities of WW2 should be blamed on Germany, just because it started the war. Correct?

No, that was a more complex situation. But in this case, Russia both launched the war and launched the attack that was the immediate cause. So not much question here. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

On one hand you try to convince us that Russia vs Ukraine war is not complex, on the other hand you failed to provide reason why this war is even happening. Mintus590 (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The war is happening because Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

However, I'd be cautious with asserting that the missile was fired by Ukraine. I find it plausible that it had indeed been fired by Russia and malfunctioned. Russia never explicitly denied it, however NATO decided not to escalate for obvious reasons. Hence the geographically implausible "Ukrainian air defence" version. Yet not only does Ukraine not have any air defences in that region, but firing a counter-missile westwards would make zero sense. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree on caution, because the international disagreement is not resolved and investigations are in progress. But the above argument is flawed and the scenario is plausible. We don’t know where Ukraine has any of its air defences, we don’t know exactly where Russian missiles are fired from at what targets (although they are launched from Belarus and at Lviv, for example), and we can’t know that the exact interception trajectory of a miss, failed self-destruction, and resulting overshoot wouldn’t end up six kilometres into Poland.  —Michael Z. 16:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I wonder: what had happen with 2nd [Russian] missile, one that this S-300 was supposed to target? What did it hit? My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox says "Motive: Very likely to be an incident made by Ukranian air defense"

Infobox says "Motive: Very likely to be an incident made by Ukranian air defense", possibly not good enough English.--Not obvious that any notable expert of military affairs, has stated such; only when one reaches that point, does it matter what Al Jazeera and The Guardian publishes in respect to the "missil explosion" topic. 89.8.109.60 (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine claims to have proof that Russia is behind the explosion. I want the article to be changed to say that. Temp0000002 (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Be bold - remove Motivation from the infobox, until the "he said, she said" gets cleared up, and in that case gets written in clear English. 89.8.109.60 (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I would have changed the article if it hadn't the extended protection. This only slows down the information and makes the article's information outdated. Temp0000002 (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The ECP is frustrating. Many of us who helped build the article aren't extended-confirmed, but now we can no longer edit it. Frogging101 (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

So true. It seems like the admins put it because they disagreed with my edits. Temp0000002 (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is a general sanction across the wiki to ECP all Russia/Ukraine war articles: WP:GS/RUSUKR. Frogging101 (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"Very likely to be an incident made by Ukranian air defense"... are there enough sources to make a consensus on this? 675930s (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Poland's Prime Minister said the missile could have been intentional. Temp0000002 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done - the contested stuff in infobox (about Motive), has been removed. 46.15.31.185 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

the PM of Poland is not a military expert, he's a politician - wait for the NATO investigation to finalize HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Removal of sourced content without explanation

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1122240530

not sure why it was removed RandomPotato123 (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Please make the following change to the article: diff Frogging101 (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The same content is in the article, just in far less words because the quote was summarised. It's better to leave things in summary form IMO so I think that bit of the article is fine as is. Endwise (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

location

the explosion occurred outside the corn drying facility of a local company "Agrocom" Sp. z o.o., located at 50.47462°N 23.92311°E / 50.47462; 23.92311 31.61.230.238 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

"claiming the missiles were the remains of a downed rocket"

Needs clarification (and I am not sure what needs clarifying first). Is this a claim that "the missiles" actually was an Anti-aircraft thingy which fell to the ground? 46.15.27.171 (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
An odd way of saying "a downed cruise-missile"? 46.15.27.171 (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox. Remove "Motive: Unknown"

Please be bold, and remove "Motive: Unknown", from infobox. (Even if one were to write "Motive: Disputed", then the encyclopedic value is still sucky.) 46.15.24.77 (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I replaced it by "presumably an accident", which seems to reflect what sources say at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes Should be capitalised I think. Frogging101 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done - the aftermath is that various okay solutions have been put in place. 46.15.24.77 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine reaction

The current[6] version of the Ukraine reaction section contains Zenskyy's Nov. 15 and 16 statements, while omitting his Nov. 17 statement. This is the wrong way to do it. But including all three statements would be a WP:UNDUE level of detail. Because the Nov. 15-16 statements were similar, while the Nov. 17 statement had evolved (Z said he did not know what had happened), it is more appropriate to include the Nov. 15 and 17 statements. Example here.[7] To avoid WP:EW, I am not going to revert again, but I request that someone else take a look. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The 16 November comments were made after the initial assessment by NATO unlike the one on 15 November, so this should be included.[8][9] But the 17 November ones are a bit softened. Mellk (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it's still WP:IMPERFECT. But it's definitely improved. Thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Another option might be something like: "On 17 November, Zelensky said ... . On the previous days, his statements were different"<referenceOne. QuoteOne= ... ><referenceTwo. QuoteTwo= ... >.--Comment: His latest view, should be quite valuable for this wiki-article (even if that view might have softened). 46.15.26.64 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

He is going to keep saying things. Mellk (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he is likely to keep on truckin'.--His views about the missile explosion, are important for the wiki-article. (At one extreme, one could choose to have one sub-section that has a chronology of his relevant statements.)--Looks like the wiki-article is going in a good direction. 46.15.26.64 (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

A Nato-secretary - a general by the name of ...

I suggest: "Secretary General of NATO, jens stoltenberg". (He is not a general of any armed forces, in case any one got that impression.) 46.15.26.64 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. 46.15.10.116 (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

See also (section): Remove "1989 Belgium MiG-23 crash"

That article is about an airplane crash. (The "See also" section, is not a place to link all articles which tells about airplane crashes which killed one person on the ground.) 46.15.26.64 (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Adoring nanny (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Adoring nanny In part, the lead it says "It was the first incident of a missile (vis-a-vis prior UAV incursions) landing and exploding within NATO territory during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" please amend to "It is the first known incident of a munition* landing and exploding within NATO territory during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine." and add somewhere, something like (not sure fit for lead) "Prior Russian incursions include unauthorized and notified UAV incursions into Poland and also incursions into a Non-NATO member Moldova of both UAV's and Missile trajectories launched from the Black Sea, also targeting Lviv.", and re above "1989 Belgium MiG-23 crash" again, not all reported by USSR is "fact", we do know it flew for another 90minutes, auto-pilot worked etc, it may of been a test, it certainly was an incursion, it landed on NATO territory, it killed a member states citizen, it may have some relevance and may/should be noted somewhere, I do realise other incursions from both USSR and Rus Fed have taken place, no deaths resulted though and they were "Navigation issues"/"BLATANT TESTS" depending on source/view. Note re* I prefer munition here to a missile as "type" is irrelevant. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:638C:5E00:61B0:7B09:F269:6729 (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Move "vis-a-vis prior UAV incursions", from lede to Background-section. (The background-section could also use other wording, such as "There had been prior UAV incursions into NATO countries during the invasion.")
• Oppose mention of "Munition", for now. (Yeah, I get it: missiles are a subset of munitions. But why go from simple idea ("first missile") to first grenade-or-missile-or-other-explosionThingy, also called munitions)? 46.15.110.253 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)/ 46.15.110.253 (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  My thoughts were along the lines of it was the first anything, so clarifying here it was probably a missile does not conclusively and categorically indicate it was the first incident of this type. For example, there may be a first Grenade in the future, which would be the second munition. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:147C:9916:3B1F:BEFF (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  Mentioning the Last "train" of this conflict, from Crimea to Russia, is a better idea. 46.15.26.134 (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  While I would love to see that report First shot memorial is still relevant. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:1854:A8BB:219A:48D7 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  "R passports will need visas to visit the 2014 monument and the 2022 monument. The visa-office will be east of Crimea, at 'the monument for the bridge that was'."--That is the mother of all reports. 46.15.10.181 (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose mention of 43-year old Soviet UAV-incursion that made it to Belgium. (Also oppose mention of Mathias Rust landing a half-ton non-munition in Russia's capital, some years ago.) 46.15.110.253 (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

See also (section): Remove "2022 Western Russia attacks"

This article is not about an Attack on Poland, or an attack on Eastern Nato-countries. (However, a link about Accident investigations, might be something to consider.) 46.15.110.253 (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove is  Done. No opinion on the accident investigations part. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

My edit request

I made a edit request a couple days ago to update that the Ukrainian investigators are now at the explosion site, but I haven't got any updates if it was approved and it isnt in the article. Yall got my request right? (Im new to Wikipedia)Yogurtslavia (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You might've hit "Show preview" instead of saving your edit. Prolog (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

Hi. I request an edit.

"Also on 17 November, Polish officials stated that Ukrainian investigators were likely to be granted access to the site of the explosion.[29]

On 21 November, it was reported that Ukrainian investigators will not be granted acess to the investigation by the Polish prosecutor's office.[30]"

As you can probably see, there is a spelling mistake. Ocemccool (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Damn, I forgot. the word in Bold letters should be replace to "access". Ocemccool (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Prolog (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

Reference [30] should link to https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art37450671-incydent-w-przewodowie-prokuratura-nie-zgodzi-sie-na-udzial-ukraincow-w-sledztwie instead of the entire war relation from 21 November. Noxian16 (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Prolog (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Russia ... another missile (but this time hitting Moldova)

"Russia launched another wave of targeted missile strikes against Ukraine, another missile fell within the territory of Moldova".--Please remove the insinuation that Russia launched the missile that landed in Poland (before another missile hit Moldova). 46.15.127.164 (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

source ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is just another example of what is wrong with Wikipedia

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/15/1136768133/kyiv-ukraine-missiles-russia 'False blame on Russia' talk thread was well known at the time. Biden even said as much. You all know this article intentionally misleads its readers, yet it remains factually incorrect. This is why I no longer donate. 101.53.218.247 (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the lede and in the article, what exactly do you suggest to change? Alaexis_¿question? 08:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is still categorized under **Russian_strikes_against_Ukrainian_infrastructure**. Akusso (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The Polish investigation

Poland says it was a Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile. Perhaps the article should be rewritten with this information.[10] Mhorg (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It was a stray Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile. Ukraine does not enable to self-destruct switch on the S-300 missiles when they miss the target. Akusso (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Very impressive passive voice

A missile struck Poland? Why would a missile choose to do such a thing? 72.218.62.58 (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

How would you re-write this sentence? Alaexis_¿question? 13:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)