Talk:Volnovakha bus attack

Scrin of rebels groupe

It is not relevant information, date on screen - 12 January, while the event took place in the evening of the 13th. Regardless of the motives, it does not matter, this screenshot does not apply to an event, not to mention the fact that such groups are administrated by fans, and not official. Mistery Spectre (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no rebels. Those are Russian operatives. The Nile is not only a river in Africa. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's do without the propaganda and accusations by biased members with conflicts of interest, ok? Дякую. Mistery Spectre (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

However, it is true that the news on the DPR's site was published 12.01, but not 13.01 around 17:00 [1] Perfect Reason (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Some news from OSCE SMM

"The investigation included comprehensive crater analysis of two specific blast craters, including the crater located 10 metres from the side of the passenger bus. In the SMM’s assessment all craters examined were caused by rockets fired from a north-north-eastern direction."[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.223.14.167 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Buhas bus attack as a terrorist incident (or about edits made by Mr. Leftcry)

I see, Mr. Leftcry does not used to use discussion pages for solving disputable issues. However, I try again explain all my reasons on disputable issue for a possible consensus. My first collision with Mr. Leftcry took place in that article - List of terrorist incidents, 2015 - on the same issue that above. However, Mr. Leftcry neither answer on my reasons nor present his own, but simply denied my version with similar edit summary as it was in the first case. So there weren't any discussion of disputable issues, and because of that I have to undo the edits made by Mr. Leftcry. Hope that this time Mr. Leftcry will visit this page because that will be better to solve issues here than starting edit holywar in the article.

Repeating my reasons from that article's discussion page here to display the full picture:

"Removing incident in Ukraine as categorizing it as a terrorist incident is POV pushing since this event is a part of the war in Ukraine and labeling either of the sides of that war as "terrorists" is not neutral" – Leftcry

Returning incident in Ukraine, according to the following.

Firstly, by definition of terrorism, which we can find in the UK's Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism is an action, that involves:
1a) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public and
1b) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause;
2) serious violence against a person;
3) serious damage to property;
4) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action;
5) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.

In case of the bus attack, what we have is that:
1a-b) we don't know, if that action was designed to intimidate public with some special motives like political or ideological ones, however, this action intimidates public as a consequence;
2) serious violence against persons occurred as a consequence;
3) serious damage to property occurred as a consequence;
4) this action not only endangered persons' lifes, but
5) had a real damage to the health and safety of persons.

In this way, the incident is a terrorist one by definition.

Secondly, all the sides of War in Donbass - and Ukraine, and DPR - recognised this incident as a terrorist one:
Ukraine's Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal proceedings under Article 258 (terrorist act)
as well as DPR's Prosecutor's Office opened criminal proceedings on the fact of a terrorist attack by unidentified persons

So, terror is terror. Regardless of who committed this action, that is a terrorist action and side of the war, which is guilty, partly or entirely, but is a terrorist one. Naming guilty side in this way is neutral if that will be proved. But for now we can leave as it is: "suspected" or "suspected by Ukraine" for more precision.

Perfect Reason (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Now, new edit summaries of Mr. Leftcry are these:

"Undid revision 642907982 by Perfect Reason (talk) Again, labeling either of the sides of the war in Ukraine as "terrorists" is POV pushing. This incident resulted because of war" – in List of terrorist incidents, 2015

"Calling either of the sides "terrorists" is POV pushing, this is an event that resulted because of war and it should be left at that"- the next summaries is from this article

Answering, by only noting that the action is a terrorist we can't label anybody with term "terrorists" because we only have deal with definition of the action's character. When we mention any possible assailants, we underline its possibility because the investigation is ongoing. It is not a POV pushing. The other case is if we wrote straightforward in the article who committed it, but we wouldn't do that. Next, about "resulted because of war". That can not prevent the action from being an act of terrorism. Otherwise, terrorism actions, committed during war in Iraq and Syria, couldn't be terrorism actions too. But they are, because, despite the fact that many of them were committed with military tools and by them, they led to civilians' death and intimidation. Just as with the incident, we discussing now.

"It's known as such in other parts of ukraine,"

False. I marked it before and repeat here that Ukrainian and DPR's Goverments both recognised the terrorist characted of the incident [3][4].

"The fact is that it was an attack by either Novorossiya or Ukraine, however labeling either of those side as "terrorists" is POV pushing, therefor this is labelled as an event of the war in Donbass"

I underline that that noting the terrorist character of the action can't at all led to indisputable label each of sides as "terrorists".

"Locally in the Donetsk Oblast (almost half of which is controlled by Novorossiya) the title for this incident is disputed. "Terrorist act" is what it was labeled by the Ukrainian Government."

False again, DPR's Goverment labeled it in this way too [5].
Perfect Reason (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a big issue with calling it a terrorist incident not because I don't think it isn't one but because whenever such allegation are made on Wikipedia, the page right away starts to lean towards one side which results in major POV pushing. This has occurred before with other incidents in the Donbass war and the resulting consensus was not to label it as a terrorist act. I guess if this page keeps up it NPOV state and mentions both suspected perpetrators then this won't be an issue. As for your comment "Suspected sounds better than alleged though" it isn't about what sounds better, it's about choosing the appropriate word and since Ukraine's government didn't just "suspect" Novorossiya to be the reason of the attack but put out actual allegations, alleged should be used. --Leftcry (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I accepted your reasons and happy that we find solution. Perfect Reason (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I delete my message on that page because it is here already. Perfect Reason (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Buhas bus attack → Volnovakha bus attack – More common name. 95.132.175.249 (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - based on Google news search. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The attack doesn't appear to have taken place in Volnovakha. It took place at Buhas, near Volnovakha. Therefore, the proposed title is incorrect, and cannot be endorsed. I express my opposition. RGloucester — ☎ 04:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it did not happen in Volhovakha, but only near Volkhovakha. However, it was called more often as "Volnovakha bus attack", and only this matters per WP:Common name. My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a WP:NDESC title, so WP:UCN does not apply. It is not commonly called "Volnovakha bus attack" as a proper noun, and hence we use WP:NDESC. The attack was in Buhas. It was not in Volnovakha. Such a title fails WP:PRECISE. RGloucester — ☎ 05:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a map of the exact location? It's even closer to Volnovakha than Buhas. See [6]. So it's quite a weird remark to say that "Volnovakha bus attack" is wrong.--Wester (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Support No wonder I haven't come across this article until now. What an obscure name. This makes it nearly impossible to find the article. The Ukrainian media has constantly referred to this only under the title "Volonovakha terrorist attack", or something to that effect. The Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedia articles also have a similar title. --BoguSlav 07:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - We're representing the English language RS here, folks. What is written in Ukrainian and Russian articles is of no consequence. Per RGloucester's objection, the English speaking world's media has referred to it as a bus attack, but has not referred to it in the article titles as being 'the Volnovakha bus attack' or 'the Buhas bus attack'. The names have merely appeared in the body of articles to pinpoint where it occurred, being in Buhas just outside of Volnovakha. Most of the BBC reportage, which has then been carried by Australian and other media, cites Buhas as the checkpoint where it occurred. Please, we've had more than enough premature moves surrounding events in Ukraine over the last year which have created headaches we'll be a long time in cleaning up as it is. Let's just stick to WP:NDESC and leave it at that unless another COMMONNAME emerges. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Most English media referred as "Volnovakha bus attack": Ukraine Today, Interfax, UNIAN, STN, KyivPost, FrontNews, SputnikNews etc. No refers to this event as "Buhas bus attack". Note, solidarity marches named "Je Suis Volnovakha" ("I am Volnovakha", not "I am Buhas"). 217.30.193.221 (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Absurd, someone's moved the page with discussion ongoing. Nonsense about "English language media" is uncalled for, given that none of those are based in the Anglophone world. If I provide truly "English media", one will see "BUHAS". As examples, we have BBC, Euronews, &c. The attack was NOT IN VOLNOVAKHA, and no common name has arisen in English language media, hence we use NDESC. This title fails, as it simply isn't WP:PRECISE, and is incorrect. RGloucester — ☎ 19:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Volnovakha bus attack is the common name. I see sign's everywhere with "Je suis Volnovakha". That is how it called. Wikipedia is again hypercorrect by naming things itself. Actually this is a case of both WP:NOR and WP:Common name. Who are we to say that that a common name is wrong? Especially since the attack occurred at a location closer to Volnovakha than Volnovakha . See this map. So it's quite a weird remark to say that "Volnovakha bus attack" is wrong.--Wester (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

See also [7] Twitter hashtag Volnovakha. --Wester (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You've not demonstrated a common name in English. There isn't one. Therefore, we use a WP:NDESC title that must be WP:PRECISE. Twitter is not a reliable source. BBC, on the other hand, is. RGloucester — ☎ 16:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The bus attack is commonly situated in Volnovakha and is better known by that name. And as you can see on the map Volnovakha is probably more precise than Buhas. --Wester (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per above. Volnovakha is the common name used to refer to the attack, let's stick to WP:COMMONNAME. § DDima 19:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is it the COMMONNAME per RS? Certainly not in the Anglophone media. Sorry, but my google searches reveal that the Anglophone media is using Buhas (with allusions to 'near Volnovakha') as the descriptor... and it's now been several days since the incident and the only sources still discussing this incident are blogs, forums, and other forms of social sites. To be honest, as tragic as it may be, we're creating yet another article of the calibre of 2014 Simferopol incident which has died due to lack of any new information since that time. It's now hanging around being refused merging or deletion. Given that most of these articles are being developed by contributors living in and around the regions, they may all strike you as being WP:ITSIMPORTANT, but detailed articles are bound to become millstones around English Wikipedia's neck simply because contributors are pouncing on everything of regional interest and overlooking WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. The articles being kept 'alive' have been taken over by interest groups and are being expanded into even more WP:BOLLOCKS.

I understand that this is genuinely all being done in good faith but, sadly, this is not likely to be the last terrible event. Tomorrow something else will usurp it and, by the time any proper investigations are carried out (if they can/will be carried out) you won't be able to find any conclusions for love nor money. Read this as meaning WP:NOTTEMPORARY.

Please understand that we are now drowning in articles about political parties that don't exist, POV pushers writing their own version of events using minor changes to the WP:TITLEs of articles (AKA duplicating pre-existing article content at least somewhere in the body of their articles, but simply giving it their own spin). We have so much in the way of unsourced and badly sourced content that I can't keep up with the overlaps, original research and biased sources (the majority of which are not in English, and some of which I ran cite checks on today only to discover that those Russian and Ukrainian sources simply don't actually say what it's claimed they say).

Could we please stay focussed on fewer articles which are of a genuinely encyclopaedic nature? Again, I'm invoking fundamental policies of WP:NOTNEWS, staying clear of WP:RECENTISM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Iryna, sorry, but this is all wrong. To put this simple, "Buhas bus attack" [8] returns zero hits in Google news, but "Volnovakha bus attack" returns 74 hits [9]. Moreover, the argument by Glouster about poor descriptive title is also wrong because the place of the incident is situated near Volnovakha (as RGlouster admits himself). There is no any logic in calling this "Buhas bus attack". My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Near it, but not in it. Given that English language sources are mixed in their references to the incident, and given that no common name exists, we default to a WP:PRECISE WP:NDESC title. RGloucester — ☎ 14:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, telling "Volnovakha bus attack" does not mean that it mist be in Volnovakha. It can be near Volnovakha, or even somehow associated with Volnovakha. It is associated with Volnovakha, rather than with Bukhus in vast majority of sources. Hence we have Je suis Vlonovakha. My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per, and I never thought I'd say this, the IP's argument. Over and above that, RGloucester's claim that there is no common name in English media is wrong. In my own search, in the first 5 proper English language sources I found mentioned one place or the other, there was uniformity on picking Volnovakha and not Buhas: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Or is RGloucester going to claim that Reuters, the Telegraph, Bloomberg and the Associated Press are not English language sources, or Iryna Harpy that they are not reliable sources? Oreo Priest ^talk 09:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not what a "proper name" is. A proper name is something like "Volnovakha bus attack", used by the RS. English-language RS do not use a proper name to refer to this incident, i.e. they do not reference either "Volnovakha bus attack" or "Buhas bus attack" as a title for these events. Therefore, we are forced to use WP:NDESC, and the only way to neutrally describe an event is by using the most WP:PRECISE descriptor. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

So because they don't use the exact string of words, then what English-language sources call it just doesn't matter? You're grasping at straws. Besides, as Wester pointed out repeatedly, and you've repeatedly ignored, the attack was closer to Volnovakha than Buhas, so Volnovakha is also the more precise option. Oreo Priest ^talk 08:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't "closer". It was "in Buhas", and "near Volnovakha". See the BBC article. That's correct, because if they don't give an incident a specific proper name, we use WP:NDESC titles. RGloucester — ☎ 14:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support this is a BBC report too thousands gather in kiev je suis volnovakha -- whatever rules PRECISE, NDESC - yu are clearly cherry picking your bbc news reports - - - bbc reports clearly mention Volnovakha, the people in Ukraine speak of Volnovakha - so should wp - so does OSCE say volnovakho special monitoring mission volnovakho 15:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk)
• The root of my opposition is that "Buhas bus attack" was the original name of the article, and that "Buhas" was sourced. It continues to be sourced. It is also the most WP:PRECISE. No one here is claiming that the attack wasn't in Buhas, I hope. Perhaps a common name in English will develop in the coming months, but it is too early to tell. Given this, WP:TITLECHANGES demands we keep the present title until this event is commonly referred to as the "Volnovakha bus attack" in English. RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you ever agree with others? All five wikipedia pages on other languages and infamous "Russia Today" call this incident "Volnovakha bus attack" [15]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with a person when I believe that such a person is right. I don't think Russia Today is a good source for English-language naming, nor do other Wikipedia pages matter. I've stated my opinion, for the record. It is obvious what will happen here, but that doesn't mean it is what should happen. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It is already commonly referred as "Volnovakha bus attack" in English, as follows from links provided by Sayerslle and others (see above). I only made a point that it is also referred this way on all other languages. My very best wishes (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Has no one even noticed that the BBC article Sayerslle is pointing out is called "Thousands at Kiev rally to remember rocket attack victims", and that below it in the 'Read more' section "Ukraine conflict: Shell hits bus 'killing 12' in Buhas" features? "Je suis Volnovakha" can be understood as a 'proper name' as it's the name of a social media campaign that's been launched in order to re-establish global interest which has now dwindled in the face of events in Syria, etc. My very best wishes, the RT article you are pointing out is entitled "'Je suis Volnovakha': Charlie-copycat slogan at pro-govt rally as Kiev shells E. Ukraine". Nowhere is it called the "Volnovakha bus attack" as a proper name. The OSCE article is not entitle "Special monotoring mission Volnovaka", it's entitled "Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine based on information received as of 18:00 (Kyiv time), 16 January 2015". Again, you're all jumping on the WP:RECENTISM wagon. Remember that, as a consequence, the almost instantaneous change of the article about "New Russia" to "Novorossiya" to "The Federal Republic of Novorossiya" to "Novorossiya (confederacy}" has left us with an article which presents Novorossiya as being a real boy, Geppetto.

• What matters is this: all these sources link this bus attack to Volnovakha (as the closest relatively big city), not Buhas. Hence the proper descriptive title (one that RGloucester talks about) must be "Volnovakha bus attack". My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I could say that I despair, but I know what's going to happen. Change the name and continue trying to control the edit warring over whether this should be presented as 'terrorism' or not until you move onto the next incident. Go back to some of the articles about events in Ukraine you've worked on and read them now that other POV interest groups have rewritten them after all the edit warring you went through there. Recognise them as the same content you worked hard on? I doubt it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter because with proper WP:Redirects people will be able find either variant in search engines. This article just needs to be linked from other articles as Buhas (Volnovakha) bus attack and that will do the job. Buhas is geographically more correct but Volnohakha was IMHO more widely used in media, so there are arguments to have both names really. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, at this point we don't know whether the social media campaign 'Je suis Volnovakha' will become more notable than the incident and the poor people who died or where injured simply because we don't have a WP:CRYSTAL ball. I certainly don't know whether this incident will stand out as being of great significance, whether it should be relegated to the timeline, merged into another main article, or whether it will become some sort of turning point (although I doubt it). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

My final comment. Well, here we are less than a fortnight later and, within the context of the incident (being an ongoing war), it's been all but forgotten: usurped by the change of status in the battle over Donetsk airport. There's still nothing that sways the WP:TITLE of the article one way or the other (unless you count WP:BIASED blogs, forums and other forms of self-published media). We're now the proud owners of an opportunistic article which makes mockery of the idea of Wikipedia as being an encyclopaedic resource and WP:NOTNEWS. This is a protracted exercise in WP:RECENTISM which should be merged into the timeline or, at the least, parred down to just enough to make it more than a stub. Personally, I don't care what it's called anymore (other than a waste of time and an energy sinkhole). I'm going to be acting on WP:NEWSEVENT in order to merge it ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Initially separatists took responsibility for this incident

No where in the source is there any proof of the separatist taking responsiblity for this https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Volnovakha_bus_attack#cite_note-5

This article is not complete without Ukraine staged interview [eng subs] Ukrainian media about Volnovakha tragedy: what was shown on TV and how it was filmed [private YouTube channel link removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigipoika (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, this is a talk page, not your personal WP:SOAPBOX. Secondly, you've obviously not read the citation properly. Thirdly, I've removed your link to someone's personal YouTube channel as WP:SPAM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Volnovakha bus attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150118005628/http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/135211 to http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/135211

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations for claim of responsibility

"At the same time, NewsFront published a video of some militant leader boasting about a successful attack on Hranitne from Telmanove." I have no ability to check the reliability of the sources given, nor that these sources support the text in the article. I have added citation needed/failed verification tags, and would like someone with knowledge of Russian to help.Anon423 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anon423: Firstly, I don't know what the settings on your browser are (i.e., whether it blocks sites and you are unaware of it), but both citations are from active urls and are written in English. I've removed the 'failed verification' tag as the articles say exactly what they are represented as saying. If you can't access articles, you should assume good faith that they were verified ages ago, as they've been in place for a couple of years. Secondly, check the Wayback Machine for archived captures (here and here). Thirdly, please don't use Template:Failed verification unless you have checked thoroughly (per the documentation) and are absolutely certain that the refs you're querying have failed verification. Using tags inappropriately is misleading to the reader. I have removed the tag, and would ask that you take queries to the talk page of an article before simply tagging anything without having even investigated any references thoroughly. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)