Talk:Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam/Archive 2

Lack of seasonal variability of flow in lower Dnipro
According to Theia data, Dnipro downstream of Kakhovka Dam doesn't exibit seasonal variation. Seasonal variation is removed by Kremenchutska Dam. Therefore, the sentence(s) refering to seasonal variation need to be either removed or fixed in other ways. Theia data: https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/R_DNIEPR_DNIPRO_KM0089 In addition, notice the anomalous increase in water level (indicating an anomalous increase in water flow) after February 1st. This is consistent with the notion Ukraine flooded Lake Kakhovka with water from upstream and ultimately overflew Kakhovka Dam, destroying it in the process. Triklod (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The AJE source says "The Russians simply aren't actively managing and balancing the water flow," Helms said and David Helms, a retired meteorologist who has been monitoring the reservoir levels during the war. If you have sources for your hypothesis about Kremenchuk Hydroelectric Power Plant being the main factor in removing seasonal variation (rather than Kakhovka dam itself), and for the hypothesis that Ukrainian hydro authorities deliberately caused the increase in water height at Kakhovka, then please provide those sources. For the increase in water height to have been involved in triggering the explosions is a hypothesis that would need sources too. Boud (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The removal of seasonal variation is clear by comparing the timeseries of water levels downstream of Kremenchuk dam https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/R_DNIEPR_DNIPRO_KM0427 with water levels upstream of it https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/R_DNIEPR_DNIPRO_KM0735 No degree is required to understand the difference. As an addenum to the lack of seasonal variation in lower Dnipro, we should also compare the long timeseries of water levels in Lake Kakhovka: https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/L_kakhovka They do not exibit seasonality, as does not Dnipro downstream of Kakhovka dam. As for the secondary source synthesizing the hypothesis of deliberate flooding, you may take my blog post here: https://becomingbelte.rs/blog/10/overflowing-of-nova-kakhovka-dam Explosions are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things so I won't address them. Triklod (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLOGS are largely not acceptable as sources. Boud (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is still immaterial to the lack of seasonality in lower Dnipro. The lack is self-evident from the water level timeseries. Triklod (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As of 2023-06-09, Theia reports water levels in Lake Kakhovka to be 11.86 m above sea level, with error of 0.02 m. Most recently, Anton Gerashchenko, a Ukrainian government official, reported the water level as 10.07 meters, presumably above sea level. https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1667961642934583296 The only record on the height of the Kakhovka dam I've found states it as 12.5 m, presumably above sea level. I've not seen any images - satellite or otherwise - of Kakhovka dam on or after 2023-06-09. This creates an opportunity that I'll exploit. In order to increase my fame and gain reputation, I'll predict what will be on those images once they surface. The images will show an intact concrete main body of the dam, but it will show no waterflow over it. Instead, all of the waterflow will go through a new channel the water cut between the concrete main body and the ship locks on the left bank. There was previously an earthen dam there. Due to excessive water levels in Lake Kakhovka, water spilled over this earthen dam and started to erode it. Erosion is self-evident from videos filmed on the ground and also from satellite images. As fast water is good at erosion, it has by now cut a V-shaped groove in the earthen dam and is currently in the process of deepening and widening it. This will continue until Lake Kakhovka is completely drained of all water. I imagine the old river bed of Dnipro is by now covered in sediment, which means it's nonexistent which in turn means for a month or two Dnipro will flow in dispersed flow across the bed of Lake Kakhovka, until it finds and cuts a new river bed. At that point, Dnipro will revert to being a normal river, although flowing over a post-apocaliptic wasteland. This is all relevant because it solidifies the notion explosions were irrelevant to the breaching of the Kakhovka dam. It's obviously possible I have information from non-public sources (for the record: I don't) but that option doesn't really hinder my fame or reputation on the matters of Kakhovka dam. Because I can't edit the history of the talk page, this posting will be timestamped. Triklod (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

A secondary problem with the formulation "dam was not adjusted to match the seasonal increase in water flow" is that it implies the dam should have been opened, when in fact in peacetime dam operation, the dam is CLOSED (restricting water flow) when seasonal flood waters come in - exacerbatin an increase of the water level - and OPENED (releasing water flow) when they recede. As a source, here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mCJh5SJEis times 5:38 to 7:42 with special emphasis on explanation of water levels right after 7:00. In other words, if Russians were operating the dam according to normal peacetime protocols, they would be expected to close the dam as the flood water was getting in. Thus, "lack of adjustment" could only mean opening the dam during flood season which obviously couldn't lead to an increase of water in the reservoir. Therefore, the text is illogical and needs to be removed. Triklod (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is a more explicit source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdgV-lTkCNo around 1:20 they visualize the dam's response to flood waters. As is obvious, the dam closes when flood waters come - filling the reservoir - and opens after they're gone to slowly drain the added water. If the Russians were to manage waterflow, they would have closed Kakhovka dam during spring 2023 to retain the (nonexistent) seasonal flood waters and they would have opened it later. However, as ex hypothesi they didn't manage the water flow the dam was open all the time meaning their "lack of adjustment" couldn't have caused the filling of the reservoir. Thus the language should be removed. If one were to argue the language should stay because Russians closed the dam but afterwards failed to open it, I'll have the following objections: (1) if the Russians closed the dam they clearly were managing the flow so the language of the article is to be completely reworked, (2) there is no evidence Russians closed the dam and (3) there is evidence Russians opened the dam - the water level in Dniepro downstream of Kakhovka dam. Triklod (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh no, it is the last dam in the Kakhovka Reservoir. Yes, Russian forces filled the reservoir to capacity - and yes, a 30-year high so that water washed over the top of the dam. Why they did it? The commenters provided two probable explanations. First, they wanted to push as much water as possible through the North Crimean Canal to fill all Crimean water storages prior to destroying the dam (the water goes passively through the channel, it is not pumped, probably zero is coming right now ). Secondly, they simply wanted to maximize the effect from destroying the dam. Some say they did not want to destroy it completely, just to increase the flow of water below the dam and prevent the crossing of Dnieper by Ukrainian forces. But that was mostly a commentary on YouTube, although by well known experts. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Kakhovka Reservoir has only one dam. Well, one only one major dam that can meaningfully affect the water level in it. Regardin Russian forces filling the reservoir to capacity, I'd humbly suggest that is sufficiently notable to be added to the article. It should be stated explicitly that Russian forces filled the reservoir and sources or evidence should be quoted. However the problem is there is no public (at least not widely known and disseminated) evidence of such, and there is evidence to the contrary. First, the article already quotes a source claiming Russian forces didn't manage the flow of water at all - therefore they couldn't have filled the reservoir (remember that the reservoir was emptied in Autumn 2023 and was functionally empty on January 1st 2023). But second, scientific observations show Dnipro just downstream of Kakhovka dam was fuller than it ever was since October 2018: https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/R_DNIEPR_DNIPRO_KM0089 You can tell the data is scientific because it has error bars. IF the Russians were deliberately filling Kakhovka reservoir, they would have had to close the dam which would NOT lead to an increase in water level of Dnipro downstream. Dnipro would have either stayed within previous levels or decreased. Yet Dnipro increased, which proves beyond any doubt the dam was open. Therefore - circling back to the topic - Russians didn't fail to "adjust" the dam "to match seasonal increase in water flow". The dam was open... which OK, TECHNICALLY means it wasn't "adjusted" because TECHNICALLY "adjusting" the dam to "match" seasonal increases in flow means closing the dam. So since the dam was open, then OK, TECHNICALLY it wasn't "adjusted". But including that language in this article is beneath Wikipedia's dignity and the language should be removed on the grounds of being misinformation. Triklod (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's the quote from the AP source: "Now, either deliberately or through neglect, the flow through the dam is not adjusting to the river’s seasonal flow." Do you have a source saying that the river does not have a seasonal flow or that the Russians did not fail to adjust the dam? Swood100 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The lack of seasonality is readily apparent from both water levels of Lake Kakhovka: https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/L_kakhovka and also from water levels of Dnipro downstream of Lake Kremenchutska: https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/R_DNIEPR_DNIPRO_KM0427 Compare both with obvious seasonality of Lake Kremenchutska: https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/L_kremenchutska Unless somebody can point out the seasonality in levels of Lake Kakhovka, the simplest interpretation is that there is no seasonality. Yes, I have synthesized these views and as here presented and I have myself judged there is no seasonality in Lake Kakhovka water levels. They all rely on obvious measurements, as you can see. We can of course sit here until some credentialed person points out the obvious as I have. That is a course of action we can take. Triklod (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * How can one determine seasonality from water levels? If the operators of a dam let more water through during the spring flooding season the water level will stay the same but that does not negate seasonality. Take this statement from the AP:
 * Most of Ukraine’s snowmelt and the runoff from rainy spring days winds up here, in the Kakhovka Reservoir, said David Helms, a retired meteorologist who has been monitoring the reservoir levels during the war.


 * Are you denying that there is snowmelt and runoff from rainy spring days that produces more water in the spring, and hence seasonality? Swood100 (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your statement that operators of a dam basically dictate the behavior of water is correct. I've come up with good ideas for sources in that direction. I will do research and hopefully find good sources in a few days. As for "winds up here", the statement is technically correct however immaterial. All water from the catchment of Kakhovka dam eventually finds it's way to the dam, the real question is how pulsed is the arrival of that water at the dam itself (is it spread out over the year or concentrated in spring). Triklod (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, as I'm searching it's important to point out that in rivers and canals, speed of flow is related to water levels. And volume of flow is dependent on both. Meaning that in rivers and canals you can estimate or even precisely determine the volume of flow merely by looking at the water level. More information: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/how-streamflow-measured Therefore, water levels in rivers (such as Dnipro) are SUFFICIENT to test for seasonality. Triklod (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The Kakhovka Reservoir data, https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/L_kakhovka, shows a drop in water level in the early part of 2023. This was when Ukraine was complaining that the Russians were letting too much water through, hinting at illegitimate purposes, and so they began to release more water from the reservoirs upstream to keep Kakhovka high enough. Then they said that with the spring flooding season the Russians were not letting enough water through, with the result that there was flooding in the Kakhovka Reservoir and water was flowing over the top of the dam. It appears that the operators of the Kakhovka dam were derelict in their operation of the dam, in that they should have regulated the amount of water going through in order to maintain the normal water level in the reservoir.  Is this what you are disputing? Swood100 (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, so FINALLY a consistent counter to my position is forming! This is the first time I have seen this argument so I couldn't have disputed it before. I will dispute the following fulcrum of the counter you offer: "with the spring flooding season the Russians were not letting enough water through" by referring to water levels of Dnipro just downstream: https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/R_DNIEPR_DNIPRO_KM0089 As is obvious, the water level is higher than it has ever been on the record. Kakhovka dam is the only major source of the water reaching that point in the river. As the water is as high as it has ever been, the amount of water flowing out of Kakhovka must have been as high as it has ever been. This puts severe doubt on the notion the Russians were not letting enough water through. After all if "more than ever" is not "enough", what IS enough? As for ultimate purposes of people's actions, I'll either not debate that - since that is immaterial to the facts of people's actions - or only debate that after the measurements, facts and events have been determined. Re/ "keep Kakhovka high enough", I'd like to see argumentation what is "high enough", and why is that the necessary level. This is especially considering that apparently Ukraine was willing to risk destruction of the dam for the purpose of keeping Lake Kakhovka "full enough". Triklod (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The sensors of the reservoir, https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/L_kakhovka, show a sharp drop beginning 12/2/2022 and reaching an unusually low level on 2/10/2023, followed by a steep rise peaking on 5/21/2023, then falling until 6/4/2023 and crashing on 6/8. Wasn’t it within the control of the operators of the dam, prior to 6/8, to adjust the amount of water going through the dam in order to keep the water level in the reservoir constant?
 * You said, "As the water is as high as it has ever been, the amount of water flowing out of Kakhovka must have been as high as it has ever been. This puts severe doubt on the notion the Russians were not letting enough water through. After all if "more than ever" is not "enough", what IS enough?" What is enough is the amount necessary to keep the water level constant. Swood100 (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the scientific literature on Dnipro is rather voluminous and sifting through it all looking for a single sentence (!) is rather time-consuming. Some of it is not publicly accessible: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925857400001038 and others. There is the already cited statement on Kaniv dam, as well as the obvious difference in water level behaviour around Kremenchutska dam. No matter, we can wrap this up even with what we have. It appears we've developed a concord on the following sentence: "For months prior to breaching of the dam, the water level both upstream and downstream reached record highs, implying the sluice gates of the dam were opened and not adjusted to the flow." Correct? If correct, I believe that should be added to the summary and main body of the article on grounds of being notable. Theia data is sufficient as a source for high levels, although everything following "implying" probably won't survive "No original research". No matter, thinking people will connect the dots. And I'd think that within three years some credentialed expert will also finally figure it out and say so out loud. Then we'll add the part after "implying" and cite the expert as a source. Originally I stated Ukraine overflew the dam as I couldn't imagine any scenario other than deliberate action. However, you seem to orbit an alternative explanation, which I interpret as "industrial accident". I don't believe they had an accident but proving that would take too long - and isn't relevant to the facts of the matter anyway. Triklod (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's what the article currently says:

I substituted the text about April rainfall for the text about seasonal variability. Do you find fault with the above text? Is it incomplete? If so, please explain. What does your proposed text add? Also, the explanation that I personally find to be the most reasonable one is that the Russians set explosives down inside the dam in strategic locations and blew the thing up. Swood100 (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm starting to zero in on it. Consider: "Generally, the Kaniv Reservoir stabilizes the flow regime of the Dnieper downstream." https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/4/1104 Section 2.1, paragraph 4. Kaniv is fifth in the cascade, counting from the mouth of Dnipro upstream. It's upstream of Lake Kremenchutska. I'll answer your latest comment tomorrow, it's late in my timezone. Triklod (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, check out this article, which says, "Inna Rybalko, an official from Ukraine's state waterways agency, said this spring had seen an unusually high amount of rain, with 3.5 times the regular amount of monthly rainfall recorded nationwide in April." Upstream reservoirs have a finite capacity when it comes to how much of the deluge they can hold on to. Swood100 (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's the quote from the Aljazeera source:
 * All of Ukraine’s snowmelt and the runoff from rainy spring days winds up here, in the Kakhovka Reservoir, said David Helms, a retired meteorologist who has been monitoring the reservoir levels during the war. Russian forces detonated the sluice gates of the Nova Kakhovka Dam last November during the Ukrainian counteroffensive, although they ended up keeping control of that sliver of the Kherson region.


 * Now, either deliberately or through neglect, the gates remain closed.
 * This also faults the Russians for their handling of the dam's gates. Are you trying to synthesize a contrary view? Swood100 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The words "dam was not adjusted to match the increased water flow" are ambiguous and misleading. First, they are ambiguous because they don't specify what does "adjust" mean. Was the dam supposed to be more closed than it was, or more open than it was? In addition, they are misleading because the text implies the dam didn't let enough water out, whereas from the water level of Dnipro downstream we know it let out more water than it has on the record. So the first fix that needs to be done is that it has to be stated the level of water downstream was the highest on record, in lieu of stating the dam was more open then it was on record. This is the source: https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/R_DNIEPR_DNIPRO_KM0089 The second fix is resolving the ambiguity of "not adjusted". And a third fix is a quote stating (1) there was an increased water flow INTO Lake Kakhovka (not OUT of!) and (2) this increase was due to increased precipitation in April (one full month before the dam breach). Triklod (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Was the dam supposed to be more closed than it was, or more open than it was?
 * If the problem is "increased water flow" then obviously the dam should have been more open than it was.


 * In addition, they are misleading because the text implies the dam didn't let enough water out, whereas from the water level of Dnipro downstream we know it let out more water than it has on the record.


 * The amount of water in the Dnipro downstream of the dam is not the measure of whether the dam was letting enough water through. It is the amount of water in the reservoir that determines that.


 * So the first fix that needs to be done is that it has to be stated the level of water downstream was the highest on record, in lieu of stating the dam was more open then it was on record.


 * The level of water downstream is irrelevant to the determination as to whether they were letting enough water through the dam.


 * And a third fix is a quote stating (1) there was an increased water flow INTO Lake Kakhovka (not OUT of!) and (2) this increase was due to increased precipitation in April (one full month before the dam breach).


 * We say that there was an unusually high amount of rain and an increased water flow and the Kakhovka dam was not adjusted to meet this flow so that water washed over the top of the dam and land upstream was flooded. I don’t know how we could say more clearly that there was increased water flow into the Kakhovka reservoir.


 * Your objections are very puzzling. Are you saying that the amount of water that should be let through the dam should not be determined by whether the water level in the Kakhovka is too high, but rather by whether the amount being let though is greater than what was let through in the past? Swood100 (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well, have it your way. Ultimately, the talk of seasonality has been rectified with appeal to April rains. Seasonality is what this topic is about. And for the record: the amount of water let was NOT enough, as is obvious from the consequences. The argument that water upstream of the dam is determinative of sufficiency is apropriate. Triklod (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Very well, have it your way.


 * My way is only to deny that the water level downstream of the dam has any relevance calling for it to be mentioned in the article.


 * And for the record: the amount of water let was NOT enough


 * I’m glad we agree on this. We are not saying that the sluice gates were entirely shut, but rather that they weren’t opened as much as was demanded by the rainy spring.


 * as is obvious from the consequences


 * The consequences of this were (a) water overtopping the dam, (b) flooding upstream of the dam, (c) possibly a greater calamity downstream when the dam was destroyed. We are not saying that this caused the destruction of the dam, but that the Russians, at a minimum, are guilty of poor dam management. Swood100 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "We are not saying that this caused the destruction of the dam" - too early to tell. In addition, a serious structural and hydrological examination is required. Eventually, the truth will find it's way to the surface. Whatever it is, it will be based on objective evidence and objective analysis of all relevant datapoints including those we here and now don't know about. For example, what was happening with the turbines? THEORETICALLY - I'm not arguing this is what happened, I'm just proposing an option - turbines could have torn apart the HPP and caused a catastrophic cascade, perhaps like Sayano-Shushenskaya power station accident from 2009. After all, Kakhovka HPP had rated power of ~400 MW. That's a lot of energy. Well, I'd guess turbines had nothing to do with the breaching of the dam but I can't prove it with evidence I have available. Time will tell. Triklod (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Isn't the part preceding this 'the damaged dam' is also misleading. I haven't seen a source that claimed that there was any significant structural damage to the dam. There is only a vague claim of limited damage to some sluice gates, evidently this didn't prevent Russia operating the dam, who was able to empty and then fill the reservoir to 30 years low/high.--Nilsol2 (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the recent history of the dam. It had been damaged, but retained structural integrity prior to the current event. Swood100 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, true. However, on a related issue, given that Crimean canal is currently dry, perhaps first para of this section should be fixed by removing the claim by Peskov and false claims that it will never dry? My very best wishes (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The statement that there is no threat of the canal losing water, when there clearly was such a threat, demonstrated by a dry canal days later, points to the unbelievability of some of the Russian pronouncements, and perhaps the Marx-brothers nature of their management of this facility. They are concerned about water-panic in Crimea but non-credible pronouncements can only exacerbate the problem. I think that this aspect of it is relevant and should be reported. It could relate to which side the Crimean people support when Ukrainian troops get to Crimea.
 * I personally don't see why pumping water into the North Crimean Canal, and into the irrigation canals as well, will not solve the water problems. The North Crimean Canal flows by gravity to Dzhankoi but thereafter has to be pumped over 100 m up. Why, then, the impossibility of pumping from the lowered level of the Kakhovka Reservoir into the canal? There is still the same water flow coming down the Dnieper river that there always has been. Maybe it's something that will take months to do. Swood100 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Exactly. If I scratch my car, it is "damaged", but to say so in the context of my car engine caching on fire would be misleading. Here the damage is already noted in previous paragraph, so unless there is any source stating that the "damage" prevented the operation of the dam it shouldn't be mentioned in the context of water rising, furthermore it plays into the newest claim from Russia that Dam collapsed due to being "damaged" + water pressure though you agree we have no indication of structural damage --Nilsol2 (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that the jury is still out on the nature and effect of the previous damage. How much did it affect the amount of water that was being let though the dam? Did the damage prevent the Russians from adjusting to the increased water flow? Also, there are people who suggest that this earlier damage may have significantly influenced the ultimate breakup of the dam. Swood100 (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * See also the topic below: NYT and others had warned about the risk of dam collapse. Swood100 (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Swood100 (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Russia's 205th SMRB expresses regret for the "miscalculation" in destroying the Karkovka dam.
On June 14th 2023, the Telegram Channel for the 205 Separate Motor Rifle Brigade posted what appeared to be admission for destroying the Karkhovka dam expressing regret for the environmental catastrophe and the likely loss of occupied terrify because of the "miscalculation". https://t.me/mototroopers_205/1033

https://imgur.com/a/FoGoBdh

I don't have the experience to do edits and this article is probably locked but it seems important and relevant. Quant0110 (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds relevant! We probably need an independent reference, rather than just the primary one. https://censor.net/en/news/3424624/205th_brigade_of_russian_federation_admitted_to_blowing_up_kakhovka_hpp_they_miscalculated_little covers the story, but is that reliable? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * According to this source, the charge was referenced by Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to Ukraine's Interior Minister. On his Twitter account Gerashchenko said:




 * He mentioned it once in this lukewarm way and not again. One would think that if he thought it was real he would have become very exercised and wouldn’t have stopped mentioning it. How hard would it be for a determined hacker to hack into the Telegram account of the 205th Motorized Rifle Brigade and write something incriminating? We already reference that accusation in the article. I think that as far as this development is concerned we should wait until a reliable source sees it as something other than a joke and references it. Currently, none has. I know we report uncorroborated accusations that Ukraine has made but this one just seems to lack basic indications of reliability.


 * Then there’s this report.  Maybe they’ll convene an international tribunal that will have the authority to send experts in to investigate and interview people. Swood100 (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia can use anonymous Telegram channel posts as a source for anything except for situations when the article is about a specific anonymous Telegram channel and there is a quote requiring a source. Vgbyp (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Scrolling through the posts, the channel does not seem to be an officially affiliated source. I'm not sure how legit it even is to be honest because something about it seems off.
 * However, I'm sure if you message them, they will explain whether they are an official source. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2023
The opening sentence on this subject is factually incorrect. It states "The Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine was destroyed in the early hours of 6 June 2023". This leaves the incorrect impression that the dam was destroyed with malintent on that date. It was not. The opening sentence should read "The Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine failed in the early hours of 6 June 2023, likely as a result of damage sustained during explosions that took place in early November 2022". See this Reuters FactCheck article https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-novakakhovka-breached-idUSL1N37Z194 I know that facts do not seem to matter in this conflict but reality should be reflected in material appearing on Wikipedia. Factscount46 (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't confirm that the dam failed due to explosions that took place in November 2022. The source only concerns the video of those explosions circulating and cited by some as being June 2023 explosions. The article's opening sentence is factually correct. It doesn't state the cause of the destruction. Vgbyp (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * What is your source for saying that the dam “likely” failed as a result of the explosions that occurred in November, 2022? Read the section on the  destruction of the dam. It is very unlikely that any of these earlier dam strikes could have produced the kind of damage to the massive foundation of the dam that it clearly experienced. Swood100 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead
The lead plops the he-said, she-said accusations of Russia and Ukraine without any context. This makes them look equally valid, and is extremely non-WP:NPOV.


 * The Kremlin has lied consistently, about its forces invading Crimea in February 2014, about its agents and soldiers in Ukraine, about its forces invading the Donbas in August 2014 through February 2015, about not planning an all-out invasion, about not committing war crimes in plain sight, ad nauseam.
 * While the Kremlin spokesman is making denials, Russian propaganda has been advocating destroying infrastructure including dams for months, and other Russian figures are celebrating the destruction of the dam.

Without this context, the equal placement of the counter-accusations is misleading. —Michael Z. 23:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't mentioning both accusations the most NPOV? It seems like your "context" is advocating the POV that Russia destroyed the dam, which is not clearly known to be true. Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No it is not NPOV, please see WP:GEVAL. Saying that, I think this can be fixed simply by rephrasing, as I just did. My very best wishes (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is an improvement. Thanks. —Michael Z. 03:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * did u made the same work on the Crimea dam closure? 186.28.107.91 (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As about equal weights, here are the facts we know: (a) the dam was under control by Russian forces, (b) Russian forces did place charges under the water gates of the dam some time ago, (c) Russian forces have a lot to win from this by blocking one of possible directions of Ukrainian offensive, while Ukraine has a lot to lose from the disaster, and (d) the dam could not be damaged so much just by shelling (all experts agree about it), as was claimed by Peskov, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is currently giving WP:FALSEBALANCE to Russian claims. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * +1 WP:FALSEBALANCE to the benefice of the military aggressor, Russia. Including in the reaction section.
 * Russia have full material access to the crime scene but only claiming Ukraine responsibility without providing material evidence, is a serious sign of scamming and gas-lighting. It defies criminal investigations logic. Russia has been dedicated to the 2022–2023 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure all across Ukraine, a war crime, to gain military upper hand. With hundred references.
 * So no, we should not let a false balance set in, neither present Russia reaction first. Yug (talk)  🐲 16:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead had problems of not being a good summary of the article, and of mixing what, when, who and why. As per my suggestions for the body (subsection below), I don't think that the official UA and RU points of view on what happened are high priority for the lead. Removing both avoids the FALSEBALANCE problem, at least for the lead. If we have a Russia-based research group that has a reputation for fact-checking and that reports on this topic, then we could use that info too, but probably first in the body, and then briefly in the lead if needed.

For the moment it seems that the blabla from governmental spokespeople makes most sense in the Reactions section, and doesn't need to go in the lead. Boud (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I reverted by  since it didn't appear to follow the rough consensus here. Info based on the best independent WP:RS is more reliable and more notable than claims by government authorities. Boud (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've already reverted once. Someone else will have to edit the lead and/or summarise consensus here if they're unhappy with someone's recent addition of the sentence Russian forces are accused of blowing up the dam to hinder the planned Ukrainian counter-offensive, but this was denied by Russian authorities in the lead (which literally says that the Russian authorities denied that they have been accused, which is false and beside the point). We don't have a section about motivations for the destruction of the dam (some hypotheses are scattered in random places), so having this in the lead seems to me currently unjustified. Boud (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * pozzyana251@gmail
 * .com 122.155.5.81 (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yug 122.155.5.81 (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Body
I think we should first sort out sourcing in the body, and afterwards revise the summary in the lead. The questions we need to answer on sources are what sources we have: It's uncontroversial that RU and UA govt sources make counterclaims. But it's more relevant to the article about what happened, rather than what govt sources claim what happened. Boud (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * unreliable sources, except for the POV, or if they are used for factual type specific events that are undisputed (e.g. Putin is the president of the RF):
 * RU govt sources (well-known to lie quite outrageously)
 * UA govt sources (tend to be honest, but do make at least some false statements)
 * research groups such as ISW, which are not fully neutral, but tend to be seen as doing fact-checking and careful description of their conclusions

Reactions
The #Reactions section shows the voice of Russia first. I never seen such practices before on wikipedia. 2022–2023 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure contains hundred references that Russia is willing to destroy critical civilian infrastructures. There is a consensus above that such WP:FALSEBALANCE should not be accepted. Yug (talk)  🐲 17:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Can I also suggest trimming the quotes from Russian officials - full quotes of what Putin, Zakharova or Peskov said don't really add any informative value as they just essentially said the same, and there was nothing exceptionally valuable in the wording they used. These three should be probably just summarized with "called the damage a sabotage that they blamed on Ukraine". The other statements should be kept as they demonstrate the inconsistency of Russian narrative. Cloud200 (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Earlier discussion
See also: earlier discussion above: Talk:Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam Boud (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

satellite images
Sentinel-2 passed over it this morning. Here is the satellite image if anyone wants to use it.

PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 22:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

New info from NYT/AP
According to the NYT:


 * The dam was built with an enormous concrete block at its base. A small passageway runs through it, reachable from the dam's machine room. It was in this passageway, the evidence suggests, that an explosive charge detonated and destroyed the dam.
 * At 2:35 a.m and 2:54 a.m. on June 6, seismic sensors in Ukraine and Romania detected the telltale signs of large explosions. Witnesses in the area heard large blasts between roughly 2:15 a.m. and 3 a.m. And just before the dam gave way, American intelligence satellites captured infrared heat signals that also indicated an explosion.
 * As the water levels further dropped this week, they fell below the top of the concrete foundation. The section that collapsed was not visible above the water line — strong evidence that the foundation had suffered structural damage, engineers said.
 * In the chaotic aftermath, with each side blaming the other for the collapse, multiple explanations are theoretically possible. But the evidence clearly suggests the dam was crippled by an explosion set off by the side that controls it: Russia.

AP also made a review:

--Nilsol2 (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Saw the same. Nilsol2, could you allow me to edit-expand your points above ? Yug (talk)  🐲 20:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free todo as you please.--Nilsol2 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good source after quoted exclamations. Scroll down little bit more. Halfcookie (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Relief effort update

 * UN Says Russia Still Blocking Aid to Dam Breach Victims (19/06/2023) --Nilsol2 (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been added as the last line in the article. It's like Olenivka where the Russians didn't allow the UN to interview the remaining prisoners. This is why Ukraine reacted negatively to Turkey's proposal of an international commission. They think that Russia is going to resist allowing investigators complete access to the destroyed dam. In some cases they seem to accomplish this by refusing to guarantee the safety of the investigators. 14:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Swood100 (talk)

Why add Sputnik as a source?
It is a Russian state-owned news agency, its report is completely biased and has no real weight. You may argue that the official Russian state position is worth including in the article, but adding a report by a news agency that doesn't even have a hint of independence just seems preposterous. Kionen (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Sometimes these state-controlled media are the only sources for some of the most outrageous statements, and I believe it's worth to have some of them confronted in one section in order to demonstrate how they change and how mutually contradictory they are. But in this case I indeed don't see any reason to quote Sputnik specifically, so if any better source is found you should replace it. Cloud200 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It's true that Russian state-owned news agencies cannot be trusted to accurately report the news, but they can be trusted to accurately report the statements of Russian leaders and other prominent people. Their general unreliability to report the objective truth does not mean that they are unreliable to report statements by Russian leaders.


 * If we are not going to report statements made by people who are pro-Russian then we need to delete all such statements from the article, and there are a number of them. If we are going to allow them, then it's absurd to say that we will accept a statement by Putin if it is reported by Reuters but not if it is reported by Tass. Quoting accurately what Russian leaders say is not the circumstance in which Tass has been deemed unreliable. Its bias does not cause it to alter or report falsely the statement that the leader made. Its bias causes it to accurately report the false statements of the leaders. Swood100 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should include comparison of versions of the events voiced by Putin, Shoigu and Peskov, they are terribly inconsistent, but in my opinion it is crucial to include them in the article as official positions of Russian state. Kionen (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * If you say that you'll only accept a statement by a Russian leader if it is reported by Reuters, is that because you believe that being reported by Reuters makes it more likely that the statement is factually true, or more likely that it is true that the leader really made that statement? Swood100 (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have probably been misunderstood, I was not against citing Sputnik as a source for some statement, it was the content of article that is rather useless to the article. I mean that, opinion of this person( Mark Sleboda) doesn't seem like something valuable enough to add to the article. Kionen (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're right. I'll delete it. Swood100 (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If "these state-controlled media are the only sources for some of the most outrageous statements" then coverage of those statements is WP:UNDUE and doesn't have a home on wikipedia. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In general I agree that these are WP:UNDUE for the main narrative of "what happened" but Russian mode of operation is to immediately cover each such event with a dozen of contradictory conspiracies, and having them exposed adds value on its own. Take section Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for an example. What we currently have in the Russian response section is entirely sufficient for now. Cloud200 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "and having them exposed adds value on its own" sure, but not on wikipedia. We don't do WP:OR, if you want to do that you can start a blog. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * So how about this situation. We report that Ukrhydroenergo says that they can start work on an “overlay” that will restore water levels, and that this will take about two months but they can’t start until Russian forces leave the east side of the Dnieper. Now it appears that Acting Kherson Governor Vladimir Saldo has stated that the restoration of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant can only start once Ukrainian troops are pushed away to a safe distance. In other words, we seem to be at an impass on who is going to do the repairs and who is going to step aside. But apparently we can’t report this because Saldo’s statement was made to Sputnik. There are other references to this here and here but they say that the source is Sputnik. Nowhere else. Skip it? 20:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Swood100 (talk)
 * And if we skip it, are we doing so because (a) it's not noteworthy, (b) it comes from a deprecated source so we doubt that Saldo actually said this, or (c) it comes from a deprecated source so we don't believe that what Saldo said is true? Swood100 (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We should not show that Russian propaganda is unreliable by amplifying it. Instead we should quote reliable sources that say Russian propaganda is unreliable.
 * Encyclopedia articles are written to present the verifiable results of research; they are not designed to be fodder for readers to “do their own research.” —Michael Z. 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah - we should definitely have an official Russian statement in, but the literal propaganda from Sputnik would need some notability to be WP:DUE. And even that would likely be from third-party RSes mentioning it - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

False balance, continued
Following up on, above. The lead seems to have got watered down again. Pieces of evidence are mentioned, but now the expert assessments found in reliable sources have been removed: “Experts consulted by The New York Times suggested that although still uncertain, the most likely cause was a deliberate internal blast.”

The reference cited in the text of that version:

Since then, further evidence has reinforced the assessment:

This is a Wikipedia article. It’s not a source for readers to “do their own research.” It should report what reliable sources say, in so many words. —Michael Z. 17:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * AP also on it therec (please add it to your liste above) Yug (talk)  🐲 19:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, Michael Weiss and James Rushton in New Lines Mag. —Michael Z. 19:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the AP article. The car is still on the dam intact: https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1670816258244083715 2A0B:6204:41D1:6800:DF35:FCA8:2EEF:F3EA (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. I think we should cut down on the individual assessments and start using the larger scale overviews of what experts agree on now that those are finally coming out. HappyWith (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We don't do our own research, but with multiple sources doing the research and coming to similar conclusions, we can say that. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like there's no opposition to this. I'm going to make the change and condense the material. HappyWith (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

CIT speculation about thermal signal
Just to clarify one part of (3 by me, 1 by, 1 by me): I removed the sentences about the CIT claim about how the US satellite detection might be interpreted: US officials claim that a satellite equipped with infrared sensors captured an image consistent with a large explosion just before the dam collapsed. However, no specific time is mentioned. If it implies 2:50 a.m. local time (the time of explosion stated by Zelenskyy), it contradicts the reports of local residents about explosions half an hour before that. Saying what CIT say based on what they say the US officials may have intended to say is getting into too much "iffy" speculation. Boud (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the news reports of the spy satellite gives a specific time, but they all say "just before" or "around the time of" the dam collapse. Therefore, CIT's criticism, which assumes they were talking about a time of around 2:50, can probably be ignored. Swood100 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. With CIT posting their fifth updates/corrections to their initial report I wish that secondary source be used to check those claims. ( Btw it should be noted that it takes time for Seismic wave to propagate. So there will be a time delay between the moment of explosion and the moment monitoring station 500-600 km will register it. What referenced in different report seem to account for most contradictions) --Nilsol2 (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The trouble with the satellite signal is that no time is given. But everybody assumes they are giving it roughly the same time as the seismic signals. I don't think that CIT can be faulted for making a statement that assumes this as well. If the satellite signal doesn't have a time, then what good is it to us?


 * If seismic waves travel at 6 km/sec then it takes 83 to 100 seconds to travel 500 to 600 km. This does not explain the half-hour discrepancy when comparing the 2:54 signal to the local reports of people hearing an explosion. Nor does it explain how the dam could already be destroyed at 2:46. Swood100 (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

News article on NORSAR registering a seismic event has been deleted
https://www.jordskjelv.no/meldinger/seismic-signals-recorded-from-an-explosion-at-the-kakhovka-dam-in-ukraine has been showing "404" since at least June 22 https://web.archive.org/web/20230622192322/https://www.jordskjelv.no/meldinger/seismic-signals-recorded-from-an-explosion-at-the-kakhovka-dam-in-ukraine 2A0B:6204:41D1:6800:B36C:6900:A13A:4EE8 (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

OSINT: CIT analysis
Shortly after the disaster, the Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT) published its analysis in two articles on June 7. Their thesis: The dam was destroyed by criminal negligence of the Russian armed forces. No controlled demolition.

CIT articles in English:

https://notes.citeam.org/dispatch-jun-5-6

https://notes.citeam.org/dispatch-jun-6-7

Summary (in Germann): FR.de. KurtR (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * From the cited articles:


 * the most realistic version: the damaged dam, constantly under immense water pressure, likely intensified by heavy rainfall last week, could not withstand the pressure and began to deteriorate more rapidly


 * This is contradicted by the engineers and dam experts interviewed by The New York Times. Read the section on the destruction of the dam. It is very unlikely that any of the minor damage suffered by the dam prior to 6 June, or the force generated by the high water level, could account for the kind of damage to the massive foundation of the dam that it clearly experienced. We’re talking about a colossal block of nearly solid concrete 20 m (66 ft) high and up to 40 m (130 ft) thick at the bottom. A few superficial injuries or a high water level does not do that, according to the dam and engineering experts.


 * Let us recall that there was no talk of fording the Dnipro and a subsequent offensive by either side.


 * But according to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) on June 6, the day the dam was destroyed, "Russian sources have expressed intense and explicit concern over the possibility that Ukraine has been preparing to cross the river and counterattack into east bank Kherson Oblast.”  And why wouldn’t they be worried about that?  As soon as that threat was removed  they could transfer their heavy defense to the east.


 * As for the claim that Russia wouldn’t have wanted to flood its own positions on the left bank, ISW also said that Russia had a "greater and clearer interest in flooding the lower Dnipro" as it would widen the Dnieper and hinder a Ukrainian crossing, at the cost of flooding some of its own positions. Swood100 (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * We should not do OR. But its worth mentioning that in this early assessment said "but there is currently no evidence to the contrary". Since then we had the sat and seismic data revealed as well. --Nilsol2 (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * An excerpt from a CIT report on June 18-19: https://notes.citeam.org/dispatch-jun-17-19
 * According to experts cited in the publication, the water pressure itself could only have destroyed the dam if it had been poorly designed or made of poor-quality concrete, but they consider such an event highly unlikely. The engineers we consulted believe that this conclusion does not take into account the fact that the dam had been operating in an abnormal mode for eight months before the accident. The velocity of the water flow pouring through several open sluice gates since November could have exceeded the non-eroding velocity (which varies depending on the type of soil), and this high-velocity flow could have eroded the foundation from the lower water side. Furthermore, the article includes high-resolution Maxar satellite images, which demonstrate the damages to structures around the dam that occurred in previous months: a road that was targeted by the Ukrainian HIMARS MLRS, spans of the road destroyed by the Russian troops during their retreat from the right bank, and a concrete wall separating the Kakhovka HPP and the dam, which collapsed on Apr. 23. The cause of the collapse of the wall is attributed to erosion due to water discharge near the dam. The article does not provide explanations as to why the erosion that caused the collapse in that particular location could not have led to the erosion of the dam's body, nor does it mention the reasons for the gradual collapse of the road near the main generator hall in the days leading up to the dam’s disintegration.
 * 2A0B:6204:41D1:6800:DF35:FCA8:2EEF:F3EA (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that CIT is a notable source and their conclusions should be added to the article (obviously mentioning that they are in minority currently). Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Concerning the last sentence: "The article does not provide explanations as to why the erosion that caused the collapse in that particular location could not have led to the erosion of the dam's body"
 * The assume that there was an erosion, which they infer from the collapse of the road. Though it could have been destroyed by an explosion for example by the car bomb we seen evidence of. Also I don't see them providing an explanations for the seismic and sat evidence.--Nilsol2 (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No, here they are talking about the collapse of a wall on 23 April (44 days before the dam failed). I just added that info to the article. What CIT says about the seismic evidence is that the data is not clear enough to even say that this was an explosion. Furthermore, the seismic signal happens half an hour after when the townspeople say that they heard explosions and eight minutes after timestamped video footage showing the dam already destroyed. Given that it does not clearly coincide with other evidence of the dam's destruction they probably feel that the case has not been made that it originated at the dam and it's not their burden to prove what those signals represented. Artillery and many other things create seismic signals and its very difficult to determine where they originated. Same for the satellite evidence, which also apparently didn't coincide with when people say they heard explosions. Swood100 (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Regardless, I'd like to see a secondary source quoting their analysis. Also I am not clear why there is point by point list and questions to NYT.. this isn't chatroom.--Nilsol2 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The format of that section has been changed. According to the CIT Wikipedia page, they’ve been referenced on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty here and here, by Deutsche Welle here and here, with DW doing a page on them here,  referred to as a “prominent Russian investigative website” by Reuters here, again referred to by Reuters here referred to by the BBC here, and they collaborate with major global media that publish their investigations, including the BBC, Reuters, Sky News and Der Spiegel according to their Wikipedia article.
 * Doing a Google search turns up many references, such as Forbes, The Kyiv Independent, Institute for the Study of War, CBS News, NYT, etc. Swood100 (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked if we have reliable third-party sources that quote CIT analysis on this topic (not what you posted). I have no idea what their credential might be on this topic, but i am getting suspicious that their daily "blog post" q&A receive undue weight. --Nilsol2 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, high reputation sources say that they are a high reputation source. Either they have a reputation for reliability or they don’t. But here are some sources referring specifically to their analysis of this event: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Swood100 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just removed one of the sources listed above because it was listed twice. Swood100 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I really don't think CIT deserves this much coverage in "Evaluations of the evidence". This is one OSINT group, and the article mostly cites their blog posts directly, so there's no clear indication that other sources consider their takes credible. Why are there three whole paragraphs dedicated to them?

Also, now that I think of it, what even is the "Evaluations of the evidence" section supposed to be? Seems like it just explains in more length what is already mentioned in the "Responsibility" section. HappyWith (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * there's no clear indication that other sources consider their takes credible
 * Look just above for some sources referring specifically to their analysis of this event.
 * what even is the "Evaluations of the evidence" section supposed to be?


 * I agree with you that it isn't much different from the previous section. I would support just joining it with that section. Swood100 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Experts opinions
The Destruction section contains a number of expert opinions, which seem to be at odds with everything else we know about the destruction of the dam: Cloud200 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Geoff Brumfiel: "road, which runs over the dam, was washed away" - the road was not "washed away". One earlier photo it's visible, on later photo part of road is disappeared. "Washed away" suggests the road was removed by the power of water flow, but it's not really a road laid on the ground or concrete structure, it was a bridge. How it disappeared is unknown, it could have been blown up or whatever. But the Brumfiel's statement is nothing but a speculation posted in his Twitter, while his article already uses different wording ("a road that traverses part of the dam seemingly failed"). I see no added value for the article in this whole paragraph.
 * Mark Mulligan, "Structural failure resulting from the impact of earlier damage associated with the war remains a possibility" - a single speculative statement cherry-picked from an article that presents a dozen of different other possible explanations. The article does present them in a balanced way, this single cherry-picked quote doesn't.
 * Mohammad Heidarzadeh: a long quote with the key part being "dam is basically made of gravel and rock with a clay core in the middle as its water-sealing element", which unfortunately indicates he has no clue about what he's talking about, and that the quote has been cherry-picked from the article with no regard for WP:NPOV. Of course it was not "gravel and rock", not only because you can see on the wealth of drone footage that the destroyed structure was reinforced concrete, but anyone actually reading the referenced article will in the first place find a paragraph by Dr Eldad Avital mentioning internal explosion, and then the next one by Dr Elisabeth Bowman that explains "the dam is partly an embankment dam made of compacted soil and rock at the sides with a reinforced concrete structure in the centre section", directly contradicting the prominent quote from Heidarzadeh about "gravel and rock". The referenced article is actually quite comprehensive summary of all options and why the most poorly informed quote was selected to be placed in this article in whole.


 * @Swood100 Sorry, but in this edit you made the section even worse than it was before:
 * Heidarzadeh is factually wrong in the part where he speaks of "dam is basically made of gravel and rock". This is false, and he's clearly poorly informed. You have restored this obvious misconception. What is even the point of having a long quote who is wrong at such a basic fact?
 * Construction of the dam is well-known and is not any subject of dispute. By adding Elisabeth Bowman quote after "However..." you made it sound like even the construction of the dam is being subject to expert disputes.
 * What part of the dam was destroyed is also not subject to dispute: it's the concrete part of the dam that was destroyed, not the embankment parts of the sides.
 * The only subject disputed by experts is what caused the destruction. I have summarised the opinions expressed in the linked article:
 * Prof Dragan Savic: correct description of dam structure, no opinion about cause
 * Dr Eldad Avital: mentions previous damage, possible structural failure, possible internal explosion
 * Dr Elisabeth Bowman: correct description of dam structure, no opinion about cause
 * Prof Chris Binnie: natural causes highly unlikely, shelling by Ukraine highly unlikely
 * Prof Roger Falconer: no opinion about cause
 * Dr Modupe Jimoh: explicitly mentions "bombing of the dam" as cause
 * Dr Malte Janssen: no opinion about cause
 * Prof Tom Scott: no opinion about cause
 * Dr Mohammad Heidarzadeh: wrong description of dam structure, suggests structural failure due to previous shelling
 * Prof Philip Thomas: no opinion about cause
 * Dr Mark Wenman: no opinion about cause
 * Mr Jeremy Benn: no opinion about cause
 * So, three of the experts mention bombing of the dam as the most likely cause, two allow structural failure as a possibility, out of which one due to being clearly wrong about the dam design. You are insisting on a long quote from the single expert that got even the basic facts wrong which to me is a clear WP:CHERRYPICK. I'm now going to remove your edit and if you disagree, feel free to discuss here but in the first place please provide arguments why Heidarzadeh should be the leading expert in this section. Cloud200 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The Dr. Mohammad Heidarzadeh obviously didn't get enough information about the entire structure when he trumpeted his hasty assessment to the world on June 6th. Schleimkopf (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, there are several hot take that are generic evaluations based on early headlines--Nilsol2 (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Geoff Brumfiel: The Brumfiel observation was that the road was washed away. This was reported by NPR, a reliable source. Is there a reliable source saying that "washed away” is not an accurate description? Evaluations by Wikipedia editors do not qualify. You say that
 * while his article already uses different wording ("a road that traverses part of the dam seemingly failed")


 * but you omit the final part of the sentence: "seemingly failed, indicating a potentially far-ranging structural problems." So this source clearly comes down on the "structural problems" side of the question, the one that you think should be excluded. But even a minority viewpoint is entitled to be mentioned if it is reported by a reliable source.


 * Mark Mulligan: You assert that the inclusion of Mark Mulligan from the BBC article was "cherrypicked," which refers to information that is included "without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." You say that the article includes "a dozen of different other possible explanations." But it only includes three other possible explanations: (1) the Ukraine military accused Russia of blowing it up, (2) a representative of the Ukrainian hydroelectric power company Ukrhydroenergo said that an explosion was the cause and it was mined from the inside, (3) Kremlin spokesperson Peskov blamed Ukraine, calling it an act of sabotage. The article has already included all three of these sources and explanations. Then the article included Mulligan, whose view was given the most space in the article by far (7 paragraphs vs. 2 for Ukrhydroenergo).  That’s it for the explanations. Where are the "dozen" other explanations? Where is the contradictory explanation that was excluded, resulting in the "cherrypicking" that you accused me of?


 * Mohammad Heidarzadeh: You claim that Mohammad Heidarzadeh is "poorly informed" and that "he has no clue about what he's talking about," and that he has a "wrong description of dam structure" and is "clearly wrong about the dam design" and got his "basic facts wrong." What expert are you relying on for these judgments?  Look at his qualifications. He is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the University of Bath. Look at his list of publications. I’m sorry, but when the opinion of an expert with credentials such as these is reported by a reliable source it is includable in a Wikipedia article, especially when his expertise (as opposed to his opinion) is not impeached by another expert.  Do you think that such people make haphazard and ill-considered public statements on issues of this magnitude? You say that he is "poorly informed" but what is your source for saying that? Is it simply because a different source disagrees with him? If you want to assert that he is "poorly informed" you need a reliable source saying that he is poorly informed, or that the opinion he gives is a poorly informed one. Furthermore, why would a reliable source include an opinion as deficient as you claim this one is?  Nor, in the absence of reliable sources on the subject, does it go to a vote of Wikipedia editors as to whether a particular qualified expert reported by a reliable source lacks credibility.


 * Why isn’t Heidarzadeh’s analysis consistent with that of CIT, which also deals with erosion? Where does the "earthfill" part meet the concrete part of the dam? Heidarzadeh didn’t deny that there was a concrete portion.
 * This article, which concludes that the Russians bombed it, also acknowledged that erosion could have exacerbated the destruction, and Heidarzadeh also attributes part of the cause to the previous shelling.


 * You would like to remove Heidarzadeh'a opinion and summarize the article as follows: "Majority of the experts consider self-destruction of the concrete structure (e.g. due to weakened structure) unlikely." You say that three of the experts mention bombing of the dam as the most likely cause, but Avital doesn’t give bombing as the most likely cause. He gave structural failure as a clear possibility: "the reservoir water already went over the top of the dam instead through the spillways as intended and thus weakening the dam." Then he says "If this was done by an explosion, it was probably done internally..." but this does not say that explosion was the "most likely cause." Binnie clearly thinks it was bombed from within. We report that already. Jimoh talks about the bombing of the dam but is he talking about the earlier bombing that Heidarzadeh and Mulligan referred to? Is he referring to the Russian claim that Ukraine bombed the dam the night it collapsed? So, only one of the experts mentioned clearly says that bombing from within is the most likely cause. But even if a majority of these experts had said that, you couldn't then make a general statement about what a majority of experts think. For that you need a reliable source telling us what a majority of experts think.


 * The Brumfiel and Mulligan observations were reported by reliable sources and are entitled to be reported. Heidarzadeh is a qualified expert (and was portrayed as such by a reliable source) and, unless he is impeached by a reliable source his opinion is entitled to be reported as well. Swood100 (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * On Heidarzadeh, this is literally what he said in a rather confident tone:
 * "From a structural point of view, the dam is an embankment (also known as earthfill) dam which means the dam is basically made of gravel and rock with a clay core in the middle as its water-sealing element."


 * Then he goes into risks of the embankment dams, and then he literally speaks of things that did not happen:
 * "Sadly, these types of dams are extremely vulnerable, and are usually washed away quickly in case of a partial breach. And this is the reason that the dam is already completely washed away."


 * All of that is false: the dam is not "gravel and rock", and it was not "completely washed away". And yes, these opinions are in direct contradiction with all other quoted experts who correctly describe the construction of the dam as mixed embankment and reinforced concrete, and correctly describe the character of the breach (partial). This is precisely why I don't consider Heidarzadeh's opinion of any value for this article. Cloud200 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * All of that is false: the dam is not "gravel and rock", and it was not "completely washed away".


 * Well, most of it is gravel and rock. It's 3.2 km long with only 85 m being not gravel and rock. Dr. Bowman said:




 * Heidarzadeh’s comments directly contradict the others only if you assume that he was saying that the entire dam was an embankment dam (and there was no concrete portion). But isn’t it reasonable to understand him as saying that most of it was, and that aspect of it was its weakness? The reference to “clay core in the middle” meant that the embankment part had a clay core in the middle, not that the concrete part had a clay core. As far as being “completely washed away,” are you saying that since some remnants remain, Heidarzadeh said “completely” and therefore we’ve caught him in a falsehood and he has sacrificed all his credibility?


 * Furthermore, Dr. Bowman indicated the dire consequence when the breach in an embankment dam is not limited to the concrete section:




 * Notice that she said “It appears.” Therefore, she was leaving open the possibility that the breach could have begun in the soil embankment part, downcutting very rapidly through scour. This is exactly the scenario that Heidarzadeh described. She doesn’t say that’s idiotic. She says that it appears otherwise to her.


 * When they talk about “scour” they are apparently are talking about something like this.


 * Andrew Barr, an expert in the effects of blast damage on structures at the University of Sheffield in northern England, said that while the true cause of the dam's destruction was uncertain, an explosion was the likeliest cause. However, he also discussed the issues of erosion and scour. See here, described as follows: “Satellite images on 28th May showed a partial collapse of the waterbreak wall next to the HPP, followed by the collapse of several previously damaged road spans and bridge piers on 5th June. Is this damage from erosion?” He goes on to say that scour/erosion remains a possibility but the answer still lies hidden under the water.


 * The NYT experts assumed that erosion was responsible for the collapse of the concrete wall. So even they put that in the mix.


 * Answer me this: why would Science Media Center have listed Heidarzadeh’s opinion if it were as patently ridiculous as you insist it is. Are they unable to detect ridiculous opinions? And then apparently CNN was also unable to detect such absurd misstatements. Others quoting Heidarzadeh were The Guardian, Reuters, The Washington Post, US News. Also, can you identify for me the Wikipedia principle you are applying to exclude Dr. Heidarzadeh? If you think he was contradicted by other experts please quote the contradictions. Swood100 (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Гребля і Каховська ГЕС 10.jpg
 * Kakhovka HES.jpg
 * Каховская ГЭС.jpg
 * Kakhovka dam destruction1.gif
 * Kakhovka Dam cross-section scheme.svg
 * I will point out further falsehoods in your arguments.
 * You said "3.2 km long with only 85 m being not gravel and rock", but it only demonstrates you have no clue what you're talking about. The central, reinforced concrete part with sluice gates and turbine rooms was nearly 600 m long (first three images).
 * The earthfill dams ("gravel and rock") that Heidarzadeh speaks about make the remaining part of the 3.2 km and join the central part to the banks (as seen on fourth image). The problem with Heidarzadeh opinion is that the earthfill parts remain undamaged and he therefore speaks of a hypothetical scenario where the earthfill parts would be washed away, probably because he didn't have full information at that time. But this opinion is simply irrelevant, because it's not describing what has actually happened.
 * Cross section of the central part clearly shows it's a solid block of reinforced concrete, with no "gravel and rock" that can be "washed away". It also clearly shows the placement of the car bridge demonstrating it could not be merely "washed away" by water going over the top of the dam.
 * Having said that, I don't understand your fierce insistence on inclusion of Heidarzadeh's obviously wrong conclusions in the article and I don't see any point in discussing this any further. I have provided all arguments against it, and I will leave it to the community to judge. Cloud200 (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * On Brumfiel: phrase "washed away" implies there was a wave of water that went 10 m up over the top of the dam and, well, washed away the road bridge. The fact that Brumfiel used it in a Tweet (!) on the day of the disaster (!) doesn't mean it has to be reported forever, especially in Wikipedia. The road bridge was simply missing on the satellite photos, and that's the only thing that we know so far. The later phrasing ("road seemingly failed") is precise and correct statement of the fact. Cloud200 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really care about the term "washed away". I'm content with that paragraph as is. Swood100 (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * On Mulligan: he simply reported all known facts and theories about the event. You singled out Mulligan as a source worth having a separate paragraph in the section, but then also singled out a statement he clearly presented in speculative tone ("remains a possibility") while ignoring all the other facts. This is precisely what WP:CHERRYPICK is. Hypothetical structural failure also already is mentioned in the article, so why a separate paragraph just for Mulligan? Cloud200 (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I gave a paragraph to Mulligan because he was the principal expert in a BBC article on the subject. The text I included was intended to show that for him, unlike for Christopher Binnie or some of the NYT experts, structural issues were not excluded. Yes, he was more uncertain than these other experts. That’s relevant. What other facts did I ignore?
 * Hypothetical structural failure also already is mentioned in the article, so why a separate paragraph just for Mulligan?


 * Well, intentional bombing by the Russians was already mentioned in the article but we go ahead and give Christopher Binnie’s evaluation, and Ihor Syrota’s evaluation, and Nick Glumac’s evaluation. Swood100 (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You assert that the "earthfill parts remain undamaged," but what is your source for that? Bowman said, "It appears that the breach is limited to the structural section rather than the soil..." meaning that she thinks it is possible that the breach is not limited to the structural section. But look, if you find Heidarzadeh's commentary problematic (despite the fact that the commentary of Heidarzadeh that you object to was reported by both Science Media Center and CNN) then you need to (a) state the Wikipedia principle that requires the exclusion of this commentary, and (b) quote the exact words that you believe contravene this Wikipedia principle. In the absence of this you haven't got a valid objection. Swood100 (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Swood100 It's quite simple in this case: commentary by Heidarzadeh is in the first place WP:REDFLAG, because he is the only expert source reporting that "the dam is already completely washed away" and basing his assessment incorrect assumption of the dam structure ("gravel and rock"). A large quote for such an exceptional claim is WP:UNDUE and even if the source (scientific journal or CNN) is verifiable, it doesn't mandate inclusion per WP:VNOT. I do not oppose inclusion of the claims about self-destruction of the dam (which are already well covered), which is consistent with WP:CONFLICTING, but specifically Heidarzadeh as what he says is certainly not a "significant viewpoint" from the policy's perspective, as nobody else says what he said. Cloud200 (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Your only reason for excluding Heidarzadeh is that you claim that he is "poorly informed" and that "he has no clue about what he's talking about," and that he has a "wrong description of dam structure" and is "clearly wrong about the dam design" and got his "basic facts wrong." But the fundamental problem here is that you rely on your own expertise to impeach his expertise. You cite no sources.


 * “earthfill parts remain undamaged”
 * Says who? You? Can you quote a reliable source saying that all earthfill parts remain undamaged?
 * Certainly we have many sources talking about possible “erosion” or “scour”. This can only affect the non-concrete elements of a structure, right? Dr. Bowman says, “It appears that the breach is limited to the structural section rather than the soil which is very fortunate. Once a breach begins in a soil embankment it can downcut very rapidly through scour...” She doesn't say that the breach absolutely did not involve the soil.


 * incorrect assumption of the dam structure ("gravel and rock")
 * Says who? You? Where is the source saying that the dam structure is not primarily gravel and rock? This is an embankment dam. "Gravel and rock" is standard for these dams.
 * According to Dr. Bowman, “From what I can understand, the dam is partly an embankment dam made of compacted soil and rock at the sides...” Please explain how that contradicts what he said, and if it does, how we determine which one is correct?


 * but specifically Heidarzadeh as what he says is certainly not a "significant viewpoint" from the policy's perspective, as nobody else says what he said.
 * Says who? You? Where is the source finding fault with Heidarzadeh or saying that his is not a significant viewpoint?
 * The exact opinion of Heidarzadeh that you are trying to exclude was published by Science Media Centre and CNN (not to mention all those publications that just republished the CNN piece). That is enough to establish a presumption as to the validity of this opinion and as to his qualifications, even without reference to his obvious qualifications. Do you have a source that constrdicts this?
 * "He is an international scientist/engineer on large earthquakes, tsunamis and storms and is a well-known expert on Global-Challenge Researches on extreme geo-environmental hazards worldwide." Advances in Engineerting
 * Everybody who talks about erosion or scour is talking about the same phenomenon. CIS also thought that erosion is what was responsible.


 * he is the only expert source reporting that "the dam is already completely washed away"
 * What about these sources:
 * "As aerial footage circulated on social media, showing most of the dam wall washed away" The Guardian
 * "Before-and-after satellite images show the extent of the damage to the dam and the adjacent Kakhovka hydroelectric plant, which were largely swept away". The Guardian
 * "According to “Ukrhydroenergo”, the state-owned operator of Ukraine’s hydroelectric power plants, the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (KHPP) has been completely destroyed". Reliefweb
 * What does this picture show? How is it different from "completely washed away"?


 * I do not oppose inclusion of the claims about self-destruction of the dam (which are already well covered)
 * That’s exactly what you oppose. You also opposed including Brumfiel and Mulligan because they both were open to the possibility that natural forces played a major role. There is no doubt that you oppose Heidarzadeh because of WP:CONFLICTING but he is a recognized expert in the field and this exact opinion of his has been reported by reliable sources. On that alone WP:CONFLICTING calls for it to be reported. Swood100 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The picture you're asking about shows exactly what I was explaining for the last few days: large part of the concrete dam (600 m) destroyed and the remaining embankment dam (2600 m) undamaged. You are contradicting yourself here.
 * As for the remaining arguments, you can't use old sources which reported on the destruction immediately after the incident, often in speculative tone, to prove a point that contradicts the current reports that clearly describe the extent of damage. Please read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUST for more guidance. This is the relevant paragraph from the latter:
 * "All material added to Wikipedia must be verifiable from a reliable source. A reliable source has a good reputation for accuracy, and the source can be verified by other editors. However, with breaking news, reports are often made without the usual level of background checking, and are often superseded by later reports."


 * This exactly describes the case of the reports on whose inclusion you are insisting - they were published as the events unrolled, and were simply incorrect. And in one case - Ukrhydroenergo - it's also your inability to read their reports correctly which results in you misinterpreting its meaning: the "hydroelectric power plant" was only one small part of the whole dam, hosted at the southern end of the concrete dam which sits in the middle of the whole 3.2 km long structure. Yes, the HPP is entirely destroyed but it does not mean the whole dam is destroyed. Cloud200 (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Cloud200 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, one of your objections is that Heidarzadeh described the dam as “completely washed away,” whereas the dam is 3.2 km in length and only about 85 m was washed away. You presumably also object to the same description by The Guardian (“most of the dam wall washed away” and “the dam and the adjacent Kakhovka hydroelectric plant, which were largely swept away"). Some would call this an insistence on taking figures of speech literally, but if you insist we can exclude the “completely washed away” part.
 * Then you say that “As for the remaining arguments, you can't use old sources … to prove a point that contradicts the current reports…” Please quote both the old sources you are objecting to and the current reports that they contradict. Swood100 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have commented on all of your claims providing evidence why you are trying to push statements which are factually incorrect and I'm not wasting any more time on replying to your ever escalating demands. If you will try to push them in the article, I will respond accordingly. Cloud200 (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Swood100 I have reverted this edit as it's a perfect example of violation of WP:UNDUE guidance:
 * "Avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."


 * I’m trying to figure out what theories you have decided are out-of-bounds. I think you agree with Dr. Bowman that "the dam is partly an embankment dam made of compacted soil and rock at the sides with a reinforced concrete structure in the centre section". As far as I can tell, you also agree that there was an explosion that impacted the concrete portion, but you insist that the characteristics of the embankment part of the dam were of no consequence and absolutely played no part in the dam’s disintegration. Consequently, if the following statement by Andrew Barr (who concludes that there was an explosion) were included in the article you would immediately remove it:




 * Am I correct? I must be, since you objected to the Heidarzadeh statement that the embankment part of such a dam would be very vulnerable in the case of a partial breach. Since erosion/scour is a potential problem with the embankment portion of dams, can I assume that you forbid any analysis that involves erosion or scour, even if the initial breach came about as a result of an explosion? Swood100 (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * He did not speak of "embankment part". He did not speak of "potential problem" in the embankment section. He described the whole dam as an embankment dam, and claimed it was "completely washed away". These are WP:FRINGE and this is precisely the part I am contesting. Cloud200 (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

He described the whole dam as an embankment dam

Here’s what he said:

Dam experts distinguish between “dam” and “barrage.” For example, Andrew Barr said:

Take a look at this article and this one, which explain the difference between the terms “dam” and “barrage.” The concrete part containing the sluice gates that let through the water is the barrage.

Sometimes when dam experts use the term “dam” they are not referring to the “barrage.” For example, consider this comment in Financial Times:

(This is also quoted here.)

Do you think that Luzin is WP:FRINGE, along with Heidarzadeh, because he says that the Kakhovka Dam was “an earth fill dam, made of compacted soil,” whereas any child can see that there is a concrete portion? In fact, WP:FRINGE does not capture it – referring to the barrage as an "earth fill dam" could only be described as sadly delusional.

When courts do statutory interpretation there is something called “the absurdity doctrine,” which counsels judges to avoid interpreting the text of statutes in ways that would lead to absurd outcomes. It seems to me that a judicious use of this doctrine in this case would allow us to conclude that internationally renowned dam experts being cited by well-respected sources are not cavalierly and thoughtlessly making statements that any child could see are false. What if we interpreted Luzin’s remarks so that when he says it was an earth fill dam he is excluding the barrage? Would that do unacceptable violence to the normal rules for understanding people? Likewise, is it possible that Heidarzadeh is aware that the Kakhovka Dam contains a barrage, and that he is not insisting that the barrage is also part of the embankment portion?

This would also involve applying “the absurdity doctrine” to our evaluation of CNN, Financial Times and Science Media Centre. Should we resist an interpretation of Luzin and Heidarzadeh that would require us to conclude that CNN, Financial Times and Science Media Centre are absurdly incompetent, inexplicably failing to minimally proof-read their content? If so, we must suppose that when they quoted these experts as saying that the “dam” was “a type of dam made of gravel and rock with a clay core in the middle,” or an “earth fill dam, made of compacted soil,” CNN, Financial Times and Science Media Centre assumed that the experts were excluding the barrage from this, because otherwise the statements would have been absurdly false.

Do you reject the absurdity doctrine in this case? Do you think that the statements require the conclusion that Heidarzadeh and Luzin are “poorly informed,” and have “no clue” what they’re talking about, and that they are “clearly wrong about the dam design,” and got their “basic facts wrong,” and that furthermore CNN, Financial Times and Science Media Centre bizarrely published these absurd claims despite the fact that any child could see how absurd they were?

You objected to this statement by Heidarzadeh:

According to Barr:

So Barr agreed that there was a breach of the embankment part of the dam. He continued:

So Barr is agreeing that the embankment part is quickly washed away in case of a partial breach, and that was one of the conditions that caused this dam to disintegrate the way that it did. What’s the difference between what Barr said and what Heidarzadeh said?

(A few days after writing the above) Actually, given Barr's analylsis, I don't really think that we need Heidarzadeh in this article. In fact, I'm not sure that we need Bowman, either. At the point that she gave her opinion it was not clear that the embankment portion of the dam had been breached and her comments on this are likely to produce confusion. Swood100 (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Bowman
Elizabeth Bowman's statement is also false and should be removed. The panoramic image ist incorrectly, the dam had 28 sluice enwiki Schleimkopf (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify this? What's wrong with Bowman's statement? Swood100 (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The thing about the earthfill dam doesn't fit, and the comparison to the Teton Dam doesn't fit either (The page contains too much text not directly related to the dam explosion). Schleimkopf (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The dam was partly an embankment dam and partly a dam with reinforced concrete. The experts have given their theories as to (a) what initiated the collapse, and (b) from a structural standpoint how the collapse progressed. They have said that it is all speculation until they are able to examine the foundations first-hand. When looking at how the collapse progressed it is still unclear the extent to which the breach was affected by the embankment dam portion. For example, dam and explosives expert Andrew Barr said:




 * While Barr thinks that an explosion started this whole thing, he has left the question open as to the extent to which the progress of the disintegration was influenced by the embankment portion of the dam.


 * According to the CIT experts,




 * That is why Bowman made her comments concerning the weaknesses that would develop if the embankment portion of the dam was affected. She thinks that it was not, but she is open to the idea that it was. It seems premature to completely dismiss the possibility that some junction of the embankment portion and the concrete portion explains why the breach had the effect that it did.


 * One peculiarity concerns the small concrete wall separating the dam and the power plant that collapsed on April 23 (44 days before the dam failed). This was said by NYT experts and others to be possible evidence of erosion near the dam. This occurred in one of the vulnerable points discussed above. In addition, the collapse of part of the roadway of the dam on 2 June was said by some to have possibly been caused by erosion. We don’t yet have an answer as to how the interaction between the embankment portion and the concrete portion contributed to the final outcome, and changing the article to assert that there was no interaction would not be supported by the sources. Swood100 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)