Talk:Russia: Kremlin drone attack was Ukrainian assassination attempt on Putin

Notes

There is a video on Commons, but I am loath to add it to the article as I think the copyright status is shaky. SVTCobra 16:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me like a CCTV camera would pivot more smoothly than that, if at all. It's not clear from the sources if Russia is saying this was a CCTV camera or a human-produced video (one thinks they would say the former even if it wasn't, as that's more believable than saying "someone just happened to be walking around recording the Kremlin at night when this explosion happened"). Heavy Water (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

And it'd follow, I think: if a human took the video, but then released it into the public domain as a machine's work, the public domain nature would still hold as a standard public domain release even if the video was found to be human-produced. Heavy Water (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, last night, I started a conversation on Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:2023 Kremlin drone attack.webm to get the admins to evaluate but the uploader is not likely to be the person who recorded the video. I believe it was first shared on Telegram and then spread to Twitter and every news outlet is using it. We could perhaps upload it locally as fair use as it is not reproducible and of no commercial value. Cheers, SVTCobra 17:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I replied there. Whatever the guy said, he didn't sound particularly panicked about it for someone who's watching a drone flying directly towards his nation's president's office during wartime. Heavy Water (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

At one point, I saw a video from a different angle which was definitely CCTV. But I have been unable to find it again; otherwise, I would upload it to Commons. SVTCobra 17:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I found the video (sort of) on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47nnJBpszdA ... However it is by a content farm and a ridiculous watermark is all over it complete with text-to-speech audio. But this is genuine CCTV which would be public domain per Russian law. If only we can find the original. SVTCobra 20:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I decided to upload a local copy as WN:Fair use. SVTCobra 20:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4724919 [Passed]

Revision 4724919 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good article. Needed active voice in some places and there were a couple of things the sources were fuzzy about. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4724919 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good article. Needed active voice in some places and there were a couple of things the sources were fuzzy about. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

@Heavy Water: Thanks for the review, but I think your rewrite of the final sentence suggests [Ukraine] had US-supplied drones capable of flying to Moscow. That is not what the officials said. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

...doubted Ukraine's drones could have penetrated air defenses and that it had US-supplied drones capable of flying to Moscow. "Speaking to NBC News" is an appositive, so "doubted" is the verb applying to both phrases. Heavy Water (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I reworded slightly. SVTCobra 17:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)