![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
EkoGraf, you have reverted my edit that removed multiple dot-points from the result parameter of the infobox. Per the infobox documentation, the result parameter is for "who won" (see also MOS:MIL) and not for multiple dot-points. This is also contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - that we don't write the article in the infobox. The place for such nuanced detail is in the prose of the lead section. It is not. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/28/ukraine-charges-russian-soldiers-alleged-to-have-shot-at-civilian-cars
https://www.facebook.com/kyiv.gp.gov.ua/videos/415253133892434/?t=297
220.255.241.198 (
talk)
02:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Beyond My Ken, why do you want to retain this information? It strikes me as unsuitable for the lead, and it's not in the body of the article text. Also, you seem to be implying that the Hostomel operation was intended to overthrow the government, even though the government doesn't sit there. Stara Marusya ( talk) 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Please add casualties
https://www.bbc.com/russian/extra/zub490ht8o/russian-deaths-in-ukraine : Например, только за три дня штурма аэропорта Гостомель под Киевом Россия потеряла убитыми по меньшей мере 125 десантников. Реальное число погибших в эти дни может быть выше, поскольку мы опираемся только на открытые источники информации.
For example, in just three days of storming the Gostomel airport near Kyiv, Russia lost at least 125 paratroopers killed. The real death toll these days may be higher, since we rely only on open sources of information.
Manyareasexpert (
talk)
19:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Cinderella157: I don't particularly care whether we capitalize the "battle" in the lead, but I'd like to point that just about every other WP article on battles has it capitalized, e.g. see WW2 battles, including the Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Battle of Stalingrad or Battle of Berlin. -- Mindaur ( talk) 10:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lead details the Russian strategic intent and the "result", with three sources. To paraphrase the lead and the sources cited therein, the Russians planned a rapid advance from Hostomel on Kyiv to decapitate the Ukranian government and achieve a quick result to the invasion. Russian forces captured the airport and controlled at least most of the town but were unable to rapidly advance on Kyiv (see article). When apparent that they could not achieve their operational objective, the Russian forces withdrew. Ref 9 describes this as a "key moment" and "a decisive event in the war" but the battle of Hostomel is not called a Ukranian victory. There is nuance to what happened here. If one interprets this as meaning "Ukrainian victory", then that is WP:OR.
MOS:MIL gives voice to the documentation at
Template:Infobox military conflict with respect to the result parameter. Where there is nuance to the result, we are advised to refer the reader to an appropriate section (eg see Aftermath section) but in this case, there is no such section. It occurs in the lead. The documentation also tells us Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
The infobox is a supplement to the lead. Per
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article
and an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored
.
Accordingly, I deleted "Ukrainian victory" from the infobox
here with the edit summary: This is not so much a Ukraine victory as a Russian operational failure in which they chose to withdraw. Per MOS:MIL, this is a case when it would be most appropriate to use the "See Aftermath" option but there is no aftermath section (or similar). Instead, this is explained in the lead. That surfices.
Mindaur reinstated "Ukrainian victory"
here with the edit summary: The result of the battle very much fits the definition of a victory. RU were forced to withdraw: they took heavy losses and their position was precarious. "Victory" isn't just a full destruction or capture of the opponent. It's consistent with MOS:MIL and we should primarily omit the result if the battle was inconclusive. This battle was more than conclusive: it was decisive.
The justification given in the edit summary is analysis and WP:OR. The claim of a Ukrainian victory is not explicitly supported by either the article or the sources cited in the article. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The battle of Hostomel: How Ukraine’s unlikely victory changed the course of the warbut the article itself tends to be written more generally about the Kyiv offensive when it elsewhere refers to a Ukrainian victory. However, it is not cited in the article. All of the sources mentioned fall to WP:NEWSORG:
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.A claim of who won is opinionand might carry some weight if attributed to a military analyst of note but the first additional source is attributed to Ashleigh Stewart who is described as
An investigative journalist by trade, Ashleigh is particularly interested in stories about mental health, inequality and underrepresented communities.So far, I am seeing an argument in justification that fall to WP:OR. It is much better to simply report the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
a detailed "results" fieldis quite contrary to the guidance. If there is nuance to the result, which is what I see and how I understand your observations, then we are instructed to direct the reader to a section of the article where the result is discussed and nuance explained. However, in this case, there is no section save the lead. We are also told that it is quite reasonable to omit the result from the infobox. As there is no section we can refer the reader to, in my view, omitting the result would appear to be the best alternative consistent with WP:P&G. That way, our readers are presented with the information from the sources and can reach their own conclusions rather than being fed information that is WP:ANALYSIS or a particular POV. We need to be cautious that we only record history and are not writing it. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Notifications requesting input have been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
[T]hey still didn’t allow air landings to contribute to the larger battle- but there was a land bridge established?
[T]hen they were driven away.This might be good reason to conclude a Ukrainian victory except it is not supported by the article. This article tells us that the Russian intention to withdraw from Kyiv and Chernihiv was announced in advance in the context of negotiations with Ukraine
as "a good faith" measure. It also reports the likely Russian intent to redeploy its forces and focus its efforts elsewhere - since borne out. There is nuance to the result not reasonably captured by being simplistically represented as a victory. It is precisely the type of case addressed by the guidance. In such a case, our readers should be presented with the information from the sources to reach their own conclusions rather than being fed information that is WP:ANALYSIS or a particular POV. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
driven away. There is nuance to the result not captured by simply reporting this as Ukranian victory and best dealt with in prose that is suited to capturing the nuance. This is not the Olympics, you don't get a gold medal for doing a Bradbury. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
the cited passages are clearly referring to the battle for Hostomel Airport- even when it simply states Hostomel. I have already commented on WP:NEWSORG sources as sources for opinion and in particular, that source written by Ashley Stewart. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
the cited passages are clearly referring to the battle for Hostomel Airport
I have already commented on WP:NEWSORG sources as sources for opinion and in particular, that source written by Ashley Stewart
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
EkoGraf, you have reverted my edit that removed multiple dot-points from the result parameter of the infobox. Per the infobox documentation, the result parameter is for "who won" (see also MOS:MIL) and not for multiple dot-points. This is also contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - that we don't write the article in the infobox. The place for such nuanced detail is in the prose of the lead section. It is not. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/28/ukraine-charges-russian-soldiers-alleged-to-have-shot-at-civilian-cars
https://www.facebook.com/kyiv.gp.gov.ua/videos/415253133892434/?t=297
220.255.241.198 (
talk)
02:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Beyond My Ken, why do you want to retain this information? It strikes me as unsuitable for the lead, and it's not in the body of the article text. Also, you seem to be implying that the Hostomel operation was intended to overthrow the government, even though the government doesn't sit there. Stara Marusya ( talk) 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Please add casualties
https://www.bbc.com/russian/extra/zub490ht8o/russian-deaths-in-ukraine : Например, только за три дня штурма аэропорта Гостомель под Киевом Россия потеряла убитыми по меньшей мере 125 десантников. Реальное число погибших в эти дни может быть выше, поскольку мы опираемся только на открытые источники информации.
For example, in just three days of storming the Gostomel airport near Kyiv, Russia lost at least 125 paratroopers killed. The real death toll these days may be higher, since we rely only on open sources of information.
Manyareasexpert (
talk)
19:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Cinderella157: I don't particularly care whether we capitalize the "battle" in the lead, but I'd like to point that just about every other WP article on battles has it capitalized, e.g. see WW2 battles, including the Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Battle of Stalingrad or Battle of Berlin. -- Mindaur ( talk) 10:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lead details the Russian strategic intent and the "result", with three sources. To paraphrase the lead and the sources cited therein, the Russians planned a rapid advance from Hostomel on Kyiv to decapitate the Ukranian government and achieve a quick result to the invasion. Russian forces captured the airport and controlled at least most of the town but were unable to rapidly advance on Kyiv (see article). When apparent that they could not achieve their operational objective, the Russian forces withdrew. Ref 9 describes this as a "key moment" and "a decisive event in the war" but the battle of Hostomel is not called a Ukranian victory. There is nuance to what happened here. If one interprets this as meaning "Ukrainian victory", then that is WP:OR.
MOS:MIL gives voice to the documentation at
Template:Infobox military conflict with respect to the result parameter. Where there is nuance to the result, we are advised to refer the reader to an appropriate section (eg see Aftermath section) but in this case, there is no such section. It occurs in the lead. The documentation also tells us Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
The infobox is a supplement to the lead. Per
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article
and an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored
.
Accordingly, I deleted "Ukrainian victory" from the infobox
here with the edit summary: This is not so much a Ukraine victory as a Russian operational failure in which they chose to withdraw. Per MOS:MIL, this is a case when it would be most appropriate to use the "See Aftermath" option but there is no aftermath section (or similar). Instead, this is explained in the lead. That surfices.
Mindaur reinstated "Ukrainian victory"
here with the edit summary: The result of the battle very much fits the definition of a victory. RU were forced to withdraw: they took heavy losses and their position was precarious. "Victory" isn't just a full destruction or capture of the opponent. It's consistent with MOS:MIL and we should primarily omit the result if the battle was inconclusive. This battle was more than conclusive: it was decisive.
The justification given in the edit summary is analysis and WP:OR. The claim of a Ukrainian victory is not explicitly supported by either the article or the sources cited in the article. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The battle of Hostomel: How Ukraine’s unlikely victory changed the course of the warbut the article itself tends to be written more generally about the Kyiv offensive when it elsewhere refers to a Ukrainian victory. However, it is not cited in the article. All of the sources mentioned fall to WP:NEWSORG:
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.A claim of who won is opinionand might carry some weight if attributed to a military analyst of note but the first additional source is attributed to Ashleigh Stewart who is described as
An investigative journalist by trade, Ashleigh is particularly interested in stories about mental health, inequality and underrepresented communities.So far, I am seeing an argument in justification that fall to WP:OR. It is much better to simply report the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
a detailed "results" fieldis quite contrary to the guidance. If there is nuance to the result, which is what I see and how I understand your observations, then we are instructed to direct the reader to a section of the article where the result is discussed and nuance explained. However, in this case, there is no section save the lead. We are also told that it is quite reasonable to omit the result from the infobox. As there is no section we can refer the reader to, in my view, omitting the result would appear to be the best alternative consistent with WP:P&G. That way, our readers are presented with the information from the sources and can reach their own conclusions rather than being fed information that is WP:ANALYSIS or a particular POV. We need to be cautious that we only record history and are not writing it. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Notifications requesting input have been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
[T]hey still didn’t allow air landings to contribute to the larger battle- but there was a land bridge established?
[T]hen they were driven away.This might be good reason to conclude a Ukrainian victory except it is not supported by the article. This article tells us that the Russian intention to withdraw from Kyiv and Chernihiv was announced in advance in the context of negotiations with Ukraine
as "a good faith" measure. It also reports the likely Russian intent to redeploy its forces and focus its efforts elsewhere - since borne out. There is nuance to the result not reasonably captured by being simplistically represented as a victory. It is precisely the type of case addressed by the guidance. In such a case, our readers should be presented with the information from the sources to reach their own conclusions rather than being fed information that is WP:ANALYSIS or a particular POV. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
driven away. There is nuance to the result not captured by simply reporting this as Ukranian victory and best dealt with in prose that is suited to capturing the nuance. This is not the Olympics, you don't get a gold medal for doing a Bradbury. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
the cited passages are clearly referring to the battle for Hostomel Airport- even when it simply states Hostomel. I have already commented on WP:NEWSORG sources as sources for opinion and in particular, that source written by Ashley Stewart. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
the cited passages are clearly referring to the battle for Hostomel Airport
I have already commented on WP:NEWSORG sources as sources for opinion and in particular, that source written by Ashley Stewart