Talk:Siege of Mariupol

Sheikh Mansur Battalion

According to this source [1], the Sheikh Mansur Battalion has fought alongside Ukrainian forces in Mariupol. Not much has been said about them, I'd assume they retreated once it seemed that the battle would turn into a siege. Should we include them in the infobox? Probably more sources would be ideal. Super Ψ Dro 18:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I added it. Super Ψ Dro 22:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Drop-down lists in infobox

I think that the infobox could benefit from the usage of drop-down lists, in particular under the "Russian Ground Forces", "Russian Navy", "Rosgvardiya", "DPR People's Militia", "Inside Mariupol", and "Other involved units" sections, so as to compress the display of information. Mupper-san (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Siege or Battle?

I would think that this is a battle for the city, they assaulted it immediately. Look at other battles fought in cities in the modern era, they are all called battles by wikipedia. Kyiv was a siege arguably, which failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.184.180.208 (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

An attempted siege that didn't make it into a siege - Kyiv. 64.82.204.2 (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This was already discussed and decided upon. See archives.

It was determined that the vast majority of what happened in Mariupol was siege-related. Also, in history, most sieges always end with attacks, which are historically considered to be a part of the siege. Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Fate of Volodomy Baranyuk

I have checked the article of V. Baranyuk seems someone updated it, he was not MIA or KIA but captured instead. But the source was RT, after thinking about I think we can made a exception and include it since the conflicting reports from Italian media(KIA) and Ukrainia media(MIA) of it's fate are a little misleading and outdated.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainska Pravda also says that "Ukrainian sources" in Mariupol confirmed he was captured.

www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/8/7344802

Plus the man who appears in the RT video definitely looks like Baranyuk.2.36.103.195 (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I'm adding it.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Done, also added the Chief of Staff on the body of the article. It's notable too.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Notable deaths

Would it be a good idea to list in the article the “notable deaths” who died in the Siege? Like: Maksym Kagal, Oleg Mityaev (general), Vanda Obiedkova, Yevhen Obedinsky, Andrei Paliy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.174.61.58 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I would include the 11 year old famous Ukrainian gymnasist who was killed by shelling in Mariupol. I forget her name but anyone can Google it, this was covered by major media outlets.

Also there are some who became notable due to news coverage. For example the pregnant woman who was filmed being evacuated while injured after the maternity hospital airstrike. She later died of her injuries and her baby was miscarried.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Terrible English.. Why is this Article under edit protection?

As you can see below, these few sentences aren't the best spelling. I can see someone corrected "asks" to past tense "asked" now but still looks ridiculous with "has" before it, obviously this person is not a native English speaker. Also a better word for "asked" would be appealed, called for etc. something like that you would expect in a professionally written article. Anyways the quote should also be put in a separate margin to appear less sloppy, or not included at all, a reference would do. They make appeals every single day, this isn't a rare occurrence.

On 8 May, the commander of the 36th marine infantry brigade, Serhiy Volinski, has asked: “that a higher power find a way to figure out our rescue!”

As to their current conditions:“It feels like I’ve landed in a hellish reality show in which us soldiers fight for our lives and the whole world watches this interesting episode. Pain, suffering, hunger, misery, tears, fears, death. It’s all real,”

President Zelenskyy has promised: “…we are working on evacuating our military,” — Preceding unsigned comment added by User6619018899273 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Try to remember that people edit here from many countries where English is not their first language. Yet many have made very important edits to this article.

A little patience and understanding along with cheerfully contributing some editorial cleanup is a better use of time than complaining about it.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

One can only contribute when they’re allowed to. Remove the protection Ahnaf.eram (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on proposed split (Creating a new article "Siege of Azovstal")

Wikipedia may gain from a split and the creation of Siege of Azovstal. This lone event is already running for 3 weeks now, and could run further. Giving it a proper article would give it the space and air needed the develop its coverage in an healthier manner. Yug (talk) 🐲 17:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This was already proposed, but it remained largely unnoticed or ignored. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. It's still part of the battle/siege of Mariupol. Single buildings in Stalingrad, for instance, were fought over for a longer time and it's not like we have specific pages for that. --195.225.41.202 (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not a good analogy because the Azovstal area is significantly more notable in this context than any random building during the battle of Stalingrad, regardless of how long it was fought over. It is sufficiently notable to gather a significant portion of this article and it is also a notable last stand that will probably end up in the list of last stands article. There is a whole lot going on there to write about. The same cannot be said for any building during the battle of Stalingrad. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know if potential list membership is a good rationale for creating an article, and certainly WP:CRYSTAL doesn’t support its creation on that basis at this time. —Michael Z. 17:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, the battle for the factories is a part of the overall fight in Mariupol, no need for a split. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:A7:A2AA:C3F7:A3C2 (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Mariupol theatre airstrike is also "Part of the siege of Mariupol during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", which did not stop it from getting a separate article. In fact, this siege itself is "Part of the Eastern Ukraine offensive of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" (as are many others). One thing being a part of another does not mean it should not have a separate article.

Size of the main article is now 185 kB, so (according to WP:SIZESPLIT) some splitting should be done and this proposed split seems natural. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree to this as this in news networks has been called the battle of Azovstal or siege of Azovstal. Cyclonicpotalt (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I support this but not yet.

So far, all that is here is just enough for a section.

In time this topic area will grow and splitting will then make sense. But so far, there isn't enough there to warrant a split.

And the Siege of Mariupol should always have a good-sized section on the Siege of Azovstal (not just a single referal sentence) because the fight at Azovstal is a major event within the siege of the city. So there is significant overlap here.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What's the point? Azovstal is in Mariupol. Super Ψ Dro 13:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So? Donetsk Regional Drama Theatre is also in Mariupol, but this does not prevent Mariupol theatre airstrike from being a separate article from this one (size of which is 185 kB, almost double the maximum recommended size). 193.198.162.14 (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Whelp, someone created it at Battle of Azovstal. Curbon7 (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Huh. Does anyone know what's supposed to happen when someone executes a controversial split/fork like this mid-discussion? I can't find it anywhere in the rules, but I don't think that's supposed to happen, given the similar guidelines for controversial moves. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  perhaps propose a merge of the fork and we can discuss it if there is content worth saving?

  Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger

  I support merging it btw, since the siege is seemingly over. Cononsense (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Good idea, done. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Start Date

Genuine question here: did the "Siege" of Mariupol really start on February 24? At least from the text of the article, it took Russian forces over a week from the start of the war to reach the outskirts of the port city, only besieging it in March. What occurred prior is just shelling, which does not really constitute a battle or siege (if shelling was indicative of a battle, we would have a Battle of Lviv article by now). Shouldn't the article reflect a later start date? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:A7:A2AA:C3F7:A3C2 (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The first subsection after "Background" is entitled "Preliminary shelling and advance on the city".

That sufficiently addresses your concern and so, IMO, no changes are needed.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the infobox sets the start date at February 24, and the battle did not start then, only shelling. So a change needs to made in the infobox, my inquiry is directed towards the infobox, not the rest of the article. Shelling does not constitute the beginning of a battle, let alone a siege. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:89E8:7775:A47C:AF93 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Civilian deaths

In the infobox it says 6,000-21,000 killed... but all sources including the Mayor of Mariupol and the Ukrainian government are reporting that 21,000+ civilians have been killed in the city.

I think we should revise the infobox to 21,000+ killed. Any thoughts? PilotSheng (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The status quo is fine as is. The 6,000 figure comes from the deputy mayor, reporting at the same time as the mayor, who reports 21,000. This obvious discrepancy, as well as the fact that these are both involved sources who are probably inflating the numbers to a degree, means that a range, even one so large, is preferable until there is a neutral assessment. As this source states, it can take years to tally up all of the casualties. Curbon7 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

End of the Siege

It has now been widely reported that the last Ukrainian soldiers have left Azovstal, and ceded control to Russia. Should we change the article to say the siege ended on 16 May? 2600:1700:CB20:8170:54AF:A099:876E:6B9A (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There also been repots that the fighters have been evacuated as well, so its just a question abou if the russians has fully captured the steel plant. However, what can be certain is that the soege of mariupol is over, in Russia's favor. 83.243.133.117 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Link? The news I can see say that 264 soldiers left so far, the rest are still inside even though it is likely the siege will end today or tomorrow. By the way, those 264 should be added to the 'captured' count in the Infobox. --195.225.41.202 (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61461805 ukraine has confirmed that the defence of mariupol is over. Meaning the siege is over TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The battle has ended. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/may/17/russia-ukraine-war-bloodiest-battle-ends-as-ukrainian-fighters-evacuated-from-mariupol-steel-plant-live DrYisus (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Status should be updated

As of 17th May Ukrainian soldiers have "surrendered" to the Russians ending the siege of Mariupol with a Russian victory. This page has not been updated. Also Rubhzine is still being shown as contested city whereas your wiki page clearly states its under russian control.

These two cities need to be updated on their status and on the map respectively.

Thank you 117.99.84.209 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Why does the article says 'evacuated to Russian controlled territory'? There's a term for that, called 'surrender'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.233.8.202 (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

i guess it was there first for medical treatment before being exchanged for russian prisoners of war TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This is highly doubtful. For one, Ukraine does not have enough Russian POWs to exchange all of them; secondly, the speaker of the Duma said that "Nazis" (Azov) should not be exchanged, and indeed it would be very doubtful the Russians are going to exchange Azov members after singling out this regiment as the no.1 enemy in this war. But even if this was the case - this would still be a surrender, even if a conditional one, and the defenders of Azovstal are still prisoners until exchanged. A historical example of conditional surrender: the Siege of Fort William Henry, where the conditions for the surrender were that the besieged garrison would be allowed to reach their own lines rather than held in captivity, without even being exchanged with other prisoners. Still, that was a surrender, and is mentioned as such in the text, and the garrison are mentioned as 'captured' in the Infobox. There really seems to be a taboo about using the words "surrender" and "prisoners" for the Azovstal garrison in the Western press, but this is the reality, however one wants to spin it. --Potionkin (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Update

Needs to be updated to show a pyrrhic russian victory, Ukraine has confirmed the end of the defence of Mariupol https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61461805 TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian victory would suffice. Pyrrhic is a value judgment that needs some strong sources. --Killuminator (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What would count as a strong source on this. TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources DrYisus (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"Evacuation" euphemism...

The article uses rather euphemistic language: "Remaining Ukrainian military personnel evacuated from Azovstal to Russian-controlled territory."

There's a plain English word though for when opposing soldiers are "evacuated" at gunpoint to be held in enemy territory. It's called "SURRENDER." These troops SURRENDERED, they were taken as POWs.

So let's call it for what it is. -2003:CA:8701:F48D:A9DD:189B:A9A8:1C71 (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, as I pointed out above. Nobody says that the British were "evacuated" after the siege of Fort William Henry, for instance, even though their post-surrender condition was even better than the one of the Azovstal defenders (well, until the Indians started killing them, at least). Monro and his men surrendered, even though not uncoditionally, and the same is true for the Ukrainians in Azovstal. If they accepted to leave with the condition of being exchanged (which I will believe when it will take place - I very much doubt they will release Azov members...), then it's a conditional surrender, not an "evacuation". Conditional surrender as per defined in the relevant wiki page: When the parties agree to terms, the surrender may be conditional; that is, the surrendering party agrees to submit only after the victor makes certain promises. The leaders of the surrendering group negotiate privileges or compensation for the time, expense and loss of life saved by the victor through the stopping of resistance. --Potionkin (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source calling it a surrender, rather than an evacuation? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, this was my edit. I didn't use the word "surrender" because precisely the term "evacuation" is being used by Western English-language media, for example: YantarCoast (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, I was anticipating something along these lines....Unfortunately, a lot of the sources that Wiki considers "reliable" often prioritize pushing certain narratives over straight forward facts, and in this case many outlets uncritically parroted Kiev's cope/spin "evacuation" rhetoric. Fortunately though, I was able to find some Wiki "RS" which did use the more accurate and straight forward "surrender" wording, including this one from the Guardian: "The fate of hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers who have ended weeks of resistance at the Azovstal steelworks in Mariupol remains unclear, after the fighters surrendered and were transferred to Russian-controlled territory." [2] -2003:CA:8701:F48D:A9DD:189B:A9A8:1C71 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

A Pyrrhic Victory

I feel like this is a pyrrhic victory for Russia, as it took way too long for them to capture the city and suffered too many casualties as a result. It also doesn't help that the city is next to worthless now due to the destruction caused by all the fighting going on around there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.242.36 (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Siege of Odessa (1941) took way longer and had 10x as more men than Russia has in Mariupol. Yet it isn't listed as a pyrrhic victory for Germany. I dont think personal opinion should come into play here.--73.5.92.146 (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Except that Odessa was still of some use to the Germans, there is no longer any value in the Russian capture of Mariupol, since they already have established a land bridge before that, and the port is now blocked by a sunken ship and naval mines, making it worthless for now. In the end it wasn't worth it for the Russians to capture Mariupol in its current state. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

certainly the Ukrainians delayed and hurt the Russians significantly, and the destruction of the city is certainly a negative for whatever Russia is planning in the future. But the land itself has value due to its proximity to the sea of Azov, land that Russia now controls in perpetuity. A bitter victory, but not a pyrrhic one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.198.180 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Destroyed or not, this is a pointless topic, wikipedia rely on RS, when some RS call the battle pyrrhic victory, we could talk about the issue, but nowdays no RS call it pyrrhic victory, so is just a Russian Victory. DrYisus (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the "pyrrhic victory" label, we need to consider that Mariupol is a large city - nearly half a million in peacetime, and urban warfare is pretty much always slow, grinding, high-casualty, and highly destructive of the physical infrastructure - especially if there's a rather large well trained, well armed, and fanatical force defending the city. When the US-backed forces defeated ISIS to retake the cities of Raqqa and Mosul, those battles took a long time, there were plenty of casualties on both sides, and much of those cities were destroyed, but few would call them "pyrrhic victories." A "pyrrhic victory" is one that imposes such a great cost, and so weakens the victor, that they're no longer able to achieve their wider goals....The Mariupol battle did tie up quite a lot of the Russian/allied troops, slowing advances on other fronts, but those troops are freed up now, and while Russia/DPR/Chechen forces did suffer significant losses in the campaign, they weren't catastrophic to the point where they can no longer continue other offensive operations. -2003:CA:8701:F48D:A9DD:189B:A9A8:1C71 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

WP infoboxes by consensus only contemplate "X Victory" or "Y Victory", nothing else. So there is nothing more to debate here.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Battle of Azovstal into Siege of Mariupol

Battle of Azovstal is a redundant fork of Siege of Mariupol. This is just another stage of the overall siege - which also seems to be over, so there shouldn't be concerns about the articles' size anymore. The Battle of Azovstal article was created in spite of the ongoing split proposal, which had no clear consensus. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree - the Russian Ministry of Defense declared victory in Mariupol on April 21, while admitting that there were final Ukrainian holdouts in Azovstal. Thus, the Battle of Azovstal should be treated as a separate battle (albeit a sub-operation) of the overall siege. PilotSheng (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - A major part of the siege, with many sources and incidents relating to the plant CR-1-AB (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly support - Fork article created contrary to no editor consensus on a split at the main article's talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly support too there is not enough material to support a seperate article (at this point). Eventually there could be, but not yet. Also the siege and fight at Azovstal are an integral part of the Siege of Mariupol. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 17:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Additionally the title "Battle of Azovstal" is not the right title. It was/is a classic siege (that included battles). Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 17:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Support The fight for the control of Azovstal is part of the siege of Mariupol, no need to have two articles about the former.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree battle of Azovstal had been a important event during siege of Mariupol. The UA defense of the steelworks and the battle itself have had a great impact and have been covered in the media. I think battle of Azovstal due to his notability and media coverage deserves a different wikipedia page. Plus the siege of Mariupol article is very big and the split (siege of mariupol and battle of azovstal) could help to make the articles shorter. DrYisus (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References for this section

References