Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a00:23c8:928:5301:65ce:391f:38f6:5af2 (talk) at 12:47, 27 May 2022 (→‎Add Kremina to list of cities captured by Russia in outcome: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Donbas Campaign

Article should probably be renamed as the "Donbas Campaign" or "Donbas Offensive" - This is fighting for a broad geographic area where there will be many different engagements for separate towns or objectives, so it does not fit the definition of "Battle" well. History Man1812 (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812[reply]

i agree, it should be changed to Donbas Campaign. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
most news sources refer to it as the battle of the Donbass besides other offensives over broad geographic areas are called battles (battle of France, battle of Kursk etc) Hellow.world123456 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still not an accurate description, news sources are generally going for dramatic effect rather than actual, strict definitions when making those kinds of names. By all definitions it is an offensive, and should be named as such. History Man1812 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812[reply]
I've opened up an RM a few sections down, you might want to bring this discussion there. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a Terrorist States

Change "to the terrorist quasi-states of DPR and LPR" to "to self-proclaimed independent states of DPR and LPR, backed by Russia and de-facto South Ossetia." 117.99.215.47 (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus overall. Weird request that doesn't match — looks like it was adjusted at some point (the desired target of the move request already stands for some reason). Likewise, there is no consensus to merge to Eastern Ukraine offensive (EUO) at this time. It isn't clear what participants wish to do with the 2022 bit (i.e. keep or omit it). There is no other Donbas offensive title, but we do have a Donbas operation DAB page. Often, we'd have something akin to War in Afghanistan (list/DAB page) with individual pages titled War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and so on. Also, as noted by several participants, the designation of Battle, Operation, Offensive, War, Conflict, Campaign, etc., could vary highly.

Then, to add to the confusion, we have an RM running in parallel that wants to retitle EUO into the current title of this page (link). BTW, I've discounted the !vote here by the EUO RM's filing user, Panam2014, as all it said was: oppose it is a battle (i.e. classic WP:NOTAVOTE). But they are far from the only one. Severestorm28 said Support per above (what "above"? all of the above?). Or Mr.User200 who said Support - Obviously, that the correct name (oh, "obviously," of course!). Or Cononsense who said Support - I agree with this (and I agree to dis). And the list goes on. Folks, those kind of subpar echo !votes will always be discounted by a competent closer.

This brings me to the worse thing about both RMs: with the notable exception of Super Dromaeosaurus, not a single participant has provided a single solitary WP:RS. Many (most) allude to them in some way, but that's it. Proof of what is or isn't the WP:COMMONNAME or names remain absent. Ditto for the related views on WP:FORK. Oh well. I suppose the only silver lining is that the conversations (here and at the EUO RM) were surprisingly amicable. In summary: there is no consensus (not even a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) to change anything right now, one way or the other. Hopefully, several participants (named and unnamed) will take note of my caution against subpar, unsubstantive !vote comments, and everyone will consider including pertinent RS, ones that are actually specifically cited, as the basis for their argument. Tjddllg, everyone! El_C 14:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Donbas (2022) → Donbas offensive – Per History Man1812, this isn't a battle for a specific city or objective, but a broad offensive over a large geographic area. "Donbas offensive" is probably not the best title either, but it definitely should be moved somewhere other than where it is - feel free to contribute other suggestions below. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Battle of Donbas" could stay, considering other large-scale operations or engagements have also been called battles, such as the Battle of the Dnieper, Battle of Wuhan, Battle of Galicia or Battle of Luzon. Reaper1945 (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the name be at least changed to the "Battle of THE Donbas", since like the Battle of the Dnieper the location usually has an article in English, when standing alone?2001:718:1E03:5128:BD1B:60FD:993E:1D10 (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I oppose changing to Donbas offensive, but I agree that at least the name should change to "Battle of the Donbas" PilotSheng (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - change name to Donbas offensive, many sources are saying so SavageBWiki (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, and also having in mind the Donbas strategic offensive (August 1943) article. —Sundostund (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Current military operations in the Donbas fit all definitions of a Offensive or Campaign, rather than a Battle. There are also multiple battles ongoing in the region as part of the offensive, such as Severodonetsk, Avdiivka, or Izyum. History Man1812 (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812[reply]
Further Comment Beside the proposed name change, some possible alternatives can be found at Donbas operation. —Sundostund (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should probably rename it, considering that there technically was a "Battle of Donbass" since the beginning of the war. We also appear to have two logical options for its name that have been suggested so far : 1. Battle of the Donbass 2. Donbass offensive Out of which the 2nd name, Donbass offensive, would probably be the best choice, considering it's only a recent offensive in an area that has already seen heavy fighting. Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Donbas offensive (April 2022–present) to distinguish it from the wider Eastern Ukraine offensive which is also primarily a Donbas offensive. Lightspecs (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with this. Cononsense (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Donbas offensive was also a military offensive during WW2 SavageBWiki (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suport. I´ts a broader offensive with lots of local battles and skirmishes. I´ts a new phase as viewed by both sides presidents. 190.188.140.133 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Obviously, that the correct name.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Severestorm28 02:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both options Support but I would prefer to just merge with Eastern Ukraine offensive instead. These are literally 1-to-1. Curbon7 (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The side which wants to rename it from the "Battle of Donbas" to something else, have provided no actual sources or evidence, besides relying on technicalities regarding military terms which are not always strictly followed in articles. The naming of an offensive or military campaign as a battle is nothing new, one can look at the Battle of Uman, Battle of Narva, or the Battle of Mosul. Furthermore, trying to decide the name by the way of limiting the size and scope of the military action is also flawed, considering large operations have been titled as battles, whether it be the Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Battle of the Caucasus or Battle of West Hunan. Battles can also consist of battles themselves, such as the Battle of the Frontiers, Battle of Galicia, Battle of Wuhan, Battle of Kursk or the Battle of Hürtgen Forest. Not to mention that sources cited in the article refer to the offensive as the "Battle of Donbas" or "Battle for Donbas". Reaper1945 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SavageBWiki, Sundostund, Severestorm28, Mr.User200, Dunutubble, and History Man1812: problem is we have already an article about Donbas offensive, Eastern Ukraine offensive. So or we keep battle or we must merge. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete: This is article is clearly part of the Eastern Ukraine offensive all be it a second phase of the offensive. There is no clear reason why this should be forked at this point. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose heavy shelling in Kharkiv was reported after the "second phase" started. This phase also extends beyond Donbas and Kharkiv, Russia has declared that it aims for occupying all of southern Ukraine and getting a land corridor to Transnistria [1] [2]. Merge with Eastern Ukraine offensive. Super Ψ Dro 13:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is a second new major offensive separate and apart from the first Russian offensive into Eastern Ukraine at the start of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It´s a new major offensive, not to be merged with the first. 190.188.140.133 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for same reason as above. RaincoatDance (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agreed, its part of Eastern Ukraine Offensive, but it resembles nobility. SavageBWiki (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eastern Ukraine offensive. The offensive is in the same area and involves the same forces; maybe if an operation name, such as Case Blue, becomes associated with the offensive then it will be notable enough for its own article, but right now this is not the case. --Leviavery (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Support merging with Eastern Ukraine offensive, and then renaming to "Donbas offensive (2022)". This is basically a continuation of the same offensive, so unless we have enough content for this second phase of the offensive to warrant a content fork, we should keep everything in the same article. Neither article is near the readable prose size limit, and a combined article won't get there, either. Also, the Donbas offensive will probably end once Russia finishes conquering the rest of the Donbas Oblasts in this current offensive, so I don't see the need for a separate article at this time. Additionally, most reliable sources are referring to this operation as an offensive, and many of them also treat this operation as a continuation of the existing Donbas offensive. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to Donbas Offensiveit's an Offensive, simple as, it shouldn't be described as one single battle, though I disagree with Merging it into 'Eastern Ukraine Offensive' because of its individual notability. PixelatedGalaxy (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to a merger under the name "Donbas offensive". Per my arguments of the Eastern Ukraine offensive talk page, the offensive is taking place beyond the Donbas in form of the operations at Kharkiv and Izium. "Donbas offensive" would be factually incorrect.
    In regards to a merger under the current name "Eastern Ukraine offensive", I am ambivalent. On one side, there is of course great overlap to the degree that the concerns about it being a fork are valid. On the other side, the current offensive is regarded as the 2nd phase of the eastern campaign - and thus regarded as not exactly the same as the pervious offensive. I also feel that a separate article allows for more details to be included. Applodion (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger Notable on itself. No opinion on name change Both Battle of Donbas and Donbas offensive seem the be the common names. EkoGraf (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of Social Media and use of Partisan Sources.

Please avoid using, Social Media as a source from extraordinary claims. WP:SOCIALMEDIA, expecially regarding claims made about other state/belligrents, etc. I have also seen that the claim of 20,000 Syrian and Lybian mercenaries is being used repetively, if you want to include them go ahead, but dont use Wikipedia voice for those types of claims. Some Western Officials have claimed that, and some media have repeated that info, but until now, there is no a single evidence; photos, written reports, documents or videos of the presence of 20,000 ME fighters in Ukraine.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This could also be said for the random pro-russian telegram accounts making claims of hundreds of Ukrainian military fatalities. The Introvert Next To You (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of cource, Please User:PilotSheng could you explain why you kep restoring this claim made by Ukrainian officials. The source is a Social media account, and the claim is made by one of the actors in conflict regarding losses of the opposing side, this does not fit in the criteria of WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:PARTISAN.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the Facebook posts of the Eastern "Skhid" task force in my opinion is acceptable. It is from the official Ukrainian military account responsible for the Donbas region. This Facebook account has been cited by reputable news entities like this: https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/826309.html. If that link constitutes an acceptable source, and it is literally copying and pasting the information from the military Facebook account, then it should be acceptable to cite straight from the Facebook post. It is the same as citing the Ukrainian General Staff facebook account, it is an official statement made by Ukrainian military officials. Additionally, when citing Ukrainian and Russian Telegram/Facebook accounts, I include caveats like "claim" or "according to," because casualty counts are almost always unreliable and if the Ukrainian or Russian military "claims" to have killed X amount of enemy fighters, then it should be acceptable to include that in the article, as long as you use caveats like "Claimed to have killed X enemy fighters" etc. PilotSheng (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In this case, these are official communications, it doesn't matter what software they use to communicate, whether it be facebook, telegram or anything else. It matters who said it, and if they are a reliable source for what is being used. In this case, the information is used for the Ukrainian perspective on information hidden by the fog of war, so it is very much reliable for that, just like official Russian communications would be for the Russian estimate. Cononsense (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, thats not the case Cononsense, those claims are made by Ukraine regarding Russian losses. Ukrainian official releases are suitable for losses suffered by Ukrainian forces not otherwise.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AGREED. Regardless of whether or not it is accurate, it is the Ukrainian "Claim" on the casualties. Thus Pilotsheng's edits should be reinstated and casualty counts updated to reflect that, with
"Ukrainian Claim:
X soldiers killed, wounded" 67.175.216.62 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not exactly how reporting in WP works, read WP:SOCIALMEDIA:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; => Do not fit the criteria since is exceptional claim no other source says the same.
2. it does not involve claims about third parties; => Do not fit since is a claim about Russian Armed Forces
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and => Doubt since is a claim and a Partisan one
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
For this reasons explained above, we cant use Social Media for this types of claim. Take into account that Ukrainian officials in the past have made claims of deaths of Russian Generals in Social media top later errase those threads and leaving the claim without way to verify. Wikipedia:Verifiability. In short, only use reliable media as trusted sources for this type of claims and from non-exceptional claims, mid-tier sources like regional media, specialized reports, etc.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to this, I have gone back and found reputable media sources to reinstate this information. PilotSheng (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per Mr.User200, usage of FB or Twitter posts as sources should be avoided as per WP guidelines. Also, great care should be taken when using potentially unreliable sources for unverifiable claims. Example - Ukrainian claims of Russian losses and vice-versa. EkoGraf (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have detected more links of Telegram and Facebook account of individual people (not RS), and those have been removed from the article. If content that deserve inclusion is only cited by Social Media; at least try to use those of accounts related to Reliable Sources or National Media. Dont use Telegram accounts of individuals.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle of Donbas"

The initial letter of the title is only capitalised in running text if it would normally be capitalised. Per MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Per MOS:CAPS, the burden is to show that capitalisation is necessary in accordance with the criteria of MOS:CAPS. Looking at news sources here, it appears to be capitalised about half the time or perhaps a little more. It appears to fall well short of the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SavageBWiki, the burden per MOS:CAPS is to show that capitalisation is necessary. The term does not appear to meet the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LightandDark2000, the burden per MOS:CAPS is to show that capitalisation is necessary. The term does not appear to meet the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf, the burden per MOS:CAPS is to show that capitalisation is necessary. The That's what some are actually calling it does not appear to meet the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella157 That's the common name that has been also sourced. And the WP guideline says "capitalization is primarily needed for proper names". So SavageBWiki and LightandDark2000 are right in this regard. But I am not going to argue the matter further. EkoGraf (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf, FYI the guidance (MOS:CAPS) is not just that it can be sourced, but that (paraphrasing the guideline) there is a strong consensus in the sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Use lower-case per MOS:CAPS, as sources do not consistently capitalize this as a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheBestEditorInEngland, the burden per MOS:CAPS is to show that capitalisation is necessary. The terms do not appear to meet the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS.

PilotSheng, the burden per MOS:CAPS is to show that capitalisation is necessary. The terms do not appear to meet the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syrians?

Why is it listed in the infobox that Syrians are fighting in Ukraine, there is no evidence provided? I understand that the RS ISW is cited here, but it is simply repeating a Ukrainian allegation. The Russians have also alleged many foreign fighters in the ranks of the UAF in the Donbas, but there is no mention of (not complaining though). It should be frankly removed, but at the very least say "per Ukrainian sources" instead of "per ISW," which currently gives it the veneer of plausibility. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:148F:D277:F5F3:E173 (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Eastern Mercenaries such as Syrians, Libyans, Afghans, Pakistanis, and Iranians are fighting for Russia during the new offensive. SavageBWiki (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"European officials" have also confirmed it:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/19/russia-deployed-20000-mercenaries-ukraine-donbas-region Cononsense (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is such obvious misinformation and propaganda, there has been literally 0 photographic or video proof to support these allegations. It is simply the Western equivalent of Russian propaganda. Unfortunately because this comes from a "reliable source," it will be put on Wikipedia. Sigh. And Iranians? What? I'll drop the case here. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:103C:B19F:9BB:D628 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not misinformation or propaganda, you can see bloodied documents collected off the bodies of dead Middle Eastern and African fighters posted all over the Internet. PilotSheng (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Shelling" missing I guess

Battle of Donbas (2022)#26_April - Twelve civilians were killed and eighteen wounded during Russian on 26 April - the word is missing. I guess it's supposed to be something like "during Russian shelling". Cementium (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Eastern Ukraine offensive which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers of Russian forces

The article mentions the Ukrainians being outnumbered 3:1. However, that does absolutely not fit the 76 Batallions of the Russian Army, that are known to make up their entire force - Even if all of them had full strength of 800 men each, they would comprise only ~60,000 soldiers (As stated in the infobox); together with the pro-Russian forces of no more than 28,000 men, they add up to ~85,000 soldiers on the Russian side at most. Considering that the Ukrainian defenders number around 40,000, they aren't even close to being outnumbered by a factor of 3, though possibly by a factor of 2. Even if that was simply taken from the sources, we should make sure to use consistent figures and probably remove or alter the claim of being outnumbered 3:1, perhaps by simply stating that there are claims by some experts (As stated in the BBC article) of the Ukrainians being outnumbered by that much. Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I forgot to include the hundreds to possibly thousands of foreign mercenaries Russia is deploying, but my point still stands with those included, as they increase the number of (pro-)Russian forces to no more than ~100,000 men. Also, I personally rather doubt that Russia has been able to increase ALL their Batallions to full strength under constant fighting in April, and the LNR forces are only assumed to have lost ~600 killed in the Infobox, when they have probably suffered 4× times as many wounded as well (Assuming a similar killed-wounded ratio as the DNR reports). And about those Russian volunteers - I'm not sure if they have contributed to Russian war efforts, considering I have yet to read about them in the ISW assessments, making it altogether very likely that the Russians do no outnumber the Ukrainians by any factor larger than 2.5 at most. Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are ~60,000 Russian soldiers, ~28,000 DPR and LPR soldiers, 10-20,000 foreign mercenaries from Libya, Syria, Ethiopia, etc., 300-500 mercenaries from PMC Wagner, and 14,500 Russian civilian volunteers in the Donbas. Take the low estimate and you get 102,300. Take the high estimate, and you get 124,500. PilotSheng (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even properly read my point ? Yes, that's what the Infobox gives, but I say it are not "min. 102,000 men", as there is no evidence or reports so far those ~14,000 Russian volunteers are actually fighting in Eastern Ukraine right now. And the LNR forces are stated to have lost only the ~600 reported killed from their original strength at the beginning of the war (14,000 men), even though they have likely suffered thousands of wounded as well (3000 killed and wounded when using similar ratios as the DNR reports). This adds up to a minimum of ~84,000 soldiers on the Russian side - consisting of 50,000 Russians, 24,000 pro-Russian milita and 10,000 foreign soldiers. In spite of this, the wording should be tweaked a little bit from suggesting a much larger Russian force than that being absolutely the case, to stating it simply as claims by news outlets. Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Spring Offensive on Donbas?

Hello everyone,

I would like Wikipedia community to consider renaming this article to "Russian Spring Offensive on Donbas". From what I know, The Battle of Kursk in 1943. was basically a German summer offensive of 1943., and this ongoing Donbas battle was anticipated in media as something similar to these massive WW2 battles. Franjo Tahy (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there already exists an article titled Eastern Ukraine offensive PilotSheng (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone update the map?

It's been two weeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging discussion

This article covers literally all of the scope of the Eastern Ukraine offensive, except the Battle of Kharkiv. Fighting in Izium aims to surround Ukrainian troops in Donbas [3]. This is supposed to be some kind of suboperation of the offensive, but it's literally all that's going on in this offensive right now. I don't see the point of having two articles with almost the same scope separate. Not for saying that it makes it look like no fighting or serious operations started in Donbas before 18 April, which is false. The name of this article is also subpar, "Battle of Donbas", which can further confuse editors into thinking that no fighting happened there before. And this article has problems anyway. It has become exactly the same the main page of the invasion once was, a timeline article. We already have both Timeline of the war in Donbas (2022) and Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to saturate pages with this type of information. I don't see what information could I hope to see here that could not possibly be integrated into another page on Wikipedia. And anyways, isn't this "Battle of Donbas" just some kind of scapegoat for Putin to reduce his objectives in Ukraine in face of the Russian public? Has anything really changed? Some villages and a town were taken, and fighting is tougher than before, what else? It's also worth mentioning that the main engagements in this "battle", in Izium (Russian forces going north to south to surround Ukrainians) and Popasna (Russians going south to north for this), started before 18 April [4] [5] [6].

I have thus proposed merging this into the Eastern Ukraine offensive, although I am not sure if editors are going to agree. But we should change something. Maybe we could rename it to "Second phase of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", and give it an approach that is both literal (we explain the fighting) and more about the concept (Putin failed to take Kyiv, so he announced a "second phase" and new objectives in Southern Ukraine, and he may have decided to do this because etc etc). But I don't think that this second phase thing should have a separate article on Wikipedia anyway. Super Ψ Dro 08:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add as another issue that editors are getting confused with whether a battle is part of the "Battle of Donbas" or not. See this edit from a user who classified the battle of Popasna as part of the "Battle of Donbas" [7]. The former started on 18 March (ending in 7 May) and the latter started in 18 April. It means that most of the battle in Popasna, supposedly part of this Battle of Donbas, developed when it had not started yet. Besides, what did exactly change in Popasna from 18 April onwards? Its article itself says that not much changed in that day. This all shows the artificiality of this split and the problems it carries in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment, the author of the article has compressed the article from a timeline to a normal page. But the info it has now is not too different from Eastern Ukraine offensive#Russian push to fully capture Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. It all could easily fit there if merged. Super Ψ Dro 15:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highly disagree with merging into Eastern Ukraine offensive. All media is referring to it as a "battle," including both Ukrainian and Russian authorities.
I do think that we need to do something about the timeline, the Invasion page was once a timeline in its beginning stages - I need some help with other editors to refine the article and make it more professional looking. PilotSheng (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether sources call it a battle (which doesn't mean we should have a different article for the same thing only for that reason), what can this article offer us that the Eastern Ukraine offensive can't? Super Ψ Dro 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too big of a page. Also, this is about the, like, way bigger operation. Dawsongfg (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everything should be merged into the Eastern Ukraine offensive article. This page shouldn't be this long for starters. Super Ψ Dro 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When this page was created, I thought it should have been merged with Eastern Ukraine offensive, but I'm less sure now.
Also Siege of Mariupol is not covered in this article, or is it?
Also, if fighting ever heats up near Huliaipole, a lot of the previous fighting in Zaporizhzhia Oblast was covered in Southern Ukraine offensive.
So I have no thoughts right now. Cononsense (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really understand you, but per this article, "The offensive is currently taking place along the Rubizhne–Izium–Huliaipole–Mariupol line". This is by the way the same extent of the Eastern Ukraine offensive except for Kharkiv. Battles in Huliaipole and in Zaporizhzhia Oblast are indeed covered in the Southern Ukraine offensive. Super Ψ Dro 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge and rename Donbas offensive (2022) as other request. The "Battle of Donbas" comprises of many small fronts: Izium, Severodonetsk, Popasna... meanwhile Donbas offensive and Eastern offensive are the same. Sgnpkd (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kharkiv can't be considered part of Donbas though, and operations in Kharkiv Oblast are or have been strongly interrelated to operations in Donbas. Izium itself is in Kharkiv Oblast. Donbas and Kharkiv Oblast do form a single united area, called Eastern Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The military operations of the Battle of Donbas that began on April 18 shouldn't be confused with the operations that began prior to that, such as the battle of Kharkiv and the siege of Mariupol. I think the current situation is fine. The Battle of Donbas is a part of the greater Eastern Ukrainian offensive, but not synonymous with it. We can look at other pages and see that this is how individual battles are mentioned as part of larger offensives, namely the operations related to the Battle of Kursk. For that military event, we have a page for the greater battle, as well as pages for individual phases of the battle, including the German attack in Operation Citadel and the Battle of Prokhorovka, as well as Soviet counterattacks in the Belgorod–Kharkov offensive operation and Operation Kutuzov. Regardless of a Ukrainian or Russian victory, we have no idea if the Battle of Donbas will be the last major operation in eastern Ukraine, or if there will be more in the future (such as a renewed attack after a lull of fighting), and since the page for the battle is long enough already, I think we should not merge the pages. DishonorableKnight (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a great point, after the battle ends there may still be future operations in Eastern Ukraine that are part of the offensive but not part of the battle. Additionally, the events of 24 Feb-18 April are part of the offensive but not a part of the battle. PilotSheng (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What military operations began on 18 April? On that day, the battles that were being fought in Donbas were Popasna (started on 18 March), Avdiivka (started on 20 February), Mariupol (started on 24 February) and Rubizhne (started on 15 March). We only have pages for two battles in Donbas that started during this "battle", the one at the Donets river and the one at Sievierodonetsk. And they all started weeks after 18 April, in 5 May and 6 May respectively. So what changed in 18 April? The same battles that had been being fought kept being fought. You also claim that the Eastern Ukraine offensive and this battle are not synonymous. In what do they differ? The battle in Kharkiv is over, and all operations in Kharkiv Oblast now have an aim of surrounding Ukrainian troops in Donbas. The Eastern Ukraine offensive does not go westwards beyond Kharkiv and Mariupol. And there's no need to worry about lenght, since the Eastern Ukraine offensive page already has a very similar section which covers most of what this page does, see here [8]. Super Ψ Dro 08:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the Eastern Ukraine Offensive contains 2 months of fighting prior to the Battle of Donbas. Also we don't know if the Eastern Ukraine offensive will end when the Battle of Donbas ends. We should keep the pages separate for now. 67.175.216.62 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main points of this merging discussion is whether if something actually changed from 17 April to 18 April. I say no, just fighting got heavier progressively as more Russian troops came in, but it was the same battles that had been being fought in Donbas prior to this battle, and some that started way after 18 April. It's also irrelevant if both offensives end at the same time, although we can say they will, since the Battle of Kharkiv is over and now their scopes are the exact same. Super Ψ Dro 08:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, and the ontological argument about the Battle of Popasna. All these battles that are supposedly part of the "Battle of Donbas" are just battles from the Eastern Ukraine offensive which merely intensified in mid-April. It makes zero sense to split two phases of the same offensive into two different articles, because it just makes it harder for readers to follow the events by making them switch between two different pages to get the full information. Naming by sources aside, what exactly is so different about this stage of the offensive that it needs to be forked? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Event notable enough to warrant its own article. EkoGraf (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we split the Eastern Ukraine offensive into a new article going from 4 March to 13 April, that would also be a notable amount of events, but is it justified to keep it separate? Super Ψ Dro 13:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing, vandalism, and possible pro-Russian sockpuppeting

If you go into the revision history, it is filled with edits from User:Mr.User200 deleting things, almost all of which he does not provide an explanation for why he is removing this information.

If you go onto his talk page, there are a lot of claims made by other users from many years ago that he is a pro-Russian troll, and other evidence that he makes pro-Russian edits on Wikipedia pages about the Russo-Ukrainian war and the war in Syria.

Please, User:Mr.User200, could you please state your claim of why you are deleting all of this information from the page without explanation, and could the community discuss the validity of my own claims? PilotSheng (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a time and read the Wikipedia articles guidelines at WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:TWITTER and WP:RS. As explained to you before, we can use Social media from accounts that have been verified to be from Reliable sources but not individuals. Mr.User200 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the accusations made against me by those accounts, all of them are blocked from disruptive edits, harrasement and mostly for Sockpuppet editing. And please stop saying you are a administrator, like you did here and you have been warned. Mr.User200 (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are pro-Ukrainian and pro-Islamist and pro-Communist and pro-Western (liberal) trolls. What's so weird about that? Wikipedia has become too biased and less and less a free encyclopedia, because the West (especially the Anglophone area) with the arrival of Biden and during the Biden era has already politically sided with any other news, even if it was a complete lie. The fact is that the Ukrainian forces won and unblocked Kharkiv on May 7 in this war phase, but the facts are that they lost the city of Popasna in the Luhansk region on the same day with great losses. A similar situation occurred on March 31 and April 1, when Ukrainian forces won a complete victory or a series of victories in the Kiev and Sumy regions, but lost control of the strategically important city of Izyum. — Baba Mica (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PilotSheng I have explained several times that we can keep Telegram and Facebook as long as they belong to RS accounts or Regional National Media, but not Individuals that report.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Popasna

There is an article, Battle of Popasna which should be linked to in this article, in a see also section. bob (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I will start to work on this article now. PilotSheng (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Rubizhne to captured cities in outcome

Rubizhne is a relatively important and large city in the donbas area and it was recently captured by russians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rubizhne, it should be added to the captured cities mentioned in outcome alongside Popasna. PROONTExchange (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit - shifting from timeline article to regular battle article

You might be seeing an edit in the revision history looking something like -25,000 bytes.

Please do not be alarmed: I transitioned the article from a timeline article to a more respectable battle article, keeping almost all relevant information.

If you go upwards to Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)#Merging discussion, you will see requests to shift this from a timeline article to a regular article. This has been done. PilotSheng (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but how is this article different from Eastern Ukraine offensive#Russian push to fully capture Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts now? I think the merge now looks more justified. Super Ψ Dro 15:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article that the link carries Is not correct

The page Timeline of the war in dombas that the link is posted only shows January and Febraury until the Russian invasion. 186.12.6.48 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is the opening paragraph suggesting that Kharkiv is in the Donbas region? Great Mercian (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there are numerous definitions over what exactly constitutes the Donbas region. In 1945, the Donbas was considered to include the present-day regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, but also the Kharkiv, Dnipro, and Zaporizhzhia regions as well. The current-day definition for the Donbas is limited to the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
With respect to what I think you're getting at, the reason why the Battle of Donbas includes Kharkiv Oblast is because the Russians never really advanced into the north of Kharkiv Oblast and towards the beginning of this battle in mid-April were conducting a large number of operations in Kharkiv Oblast cities that also bordered the Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts - Izium, for example. At the beginning of the battle, Ukrainian sources and Western media counted attacks in Kharkiv as part of the wider battle.
  1. Most of the fighting in Kharkiv Oblast is limited to the southern area of the province, in the regions that border Luhansk and Donetsk.
  2. Russia's offensive beginning of April 18 was not limited to the geographic areas of Luhansk and Donetsk. It included a massive southward assault from Kharkiv Oblast into the Donbas.
  3. The frontline is not constrained by political boundaries. Ukrainian and Western sources both consider the frontline of the battle to stretch along the south of Kharkiv as well as even to the north of Kharkiv in addition to the political boundaries of the contemporary Donbas region to be a part of this overall Russian offensive.
I hope this helps.
-- PilotSheng (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another major edit

You might see an edit looking like (-16,000 bytes) in the edit history; please, do not be concerned, I consolidated all the civilian casualties into one large table. To do this, I reviewed all the sources, some of which repeated the same information so they were removed. PilotSheng (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed?

The opening states ‘The offensive is currently taking place along the Rubizhne–Izium–Huliaipole–Mariupol line’

Rubizhne, Izium and Mariupol are now with Russia… idk whether Huliailopole is with Russia or Ukraine but maybe the other 3 should be updated? Severodonetsk I’ve heard about

I would source but there are plenty for everything I wrote on google Angele201002 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Kremina to list of cities captured by Russia in outcome

The introductory paragraph to the article specifically names Kremina as one of the cities captured by Russia, indeed it was the first city captured by Russia after it launched the Donbas offensive, initially it was included in the list of captured cities but was later removed for some reason. It should be replaced.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Donbas_(2022)&oldid=1090108470"