This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's been two weeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 ( talk) 19:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Rubizhne is a relatively important and large city in the donbas area and it was recently captured by russians /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Rubizhne, it should be added to the captured cities mentioned in outcome alongside Popasna. PROONTExchange ( talk) 01:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
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)/Archive 1#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)
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)
Is the opening paragraph suggesting that Kharkiv is in the Donbas region? Great Mercian ( talk) 07:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:928:5301:65CE:391F:38F6:5AF2 ( talk) 12:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
That's absurd, that's the equivalent of 2 full brigades, they clearly meant that they have 8000 prisoners from FEBRUARY, not in the last month. And I highly doubt the number since the source is the LPR that has all the interest in lying. If Ukraine lost 8000 prisoners in Donbass alone, the war should have ended already since it would be 5% of their professional army. Should be edited out imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.151.69 ( talk) 02:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
WHAT. Dawsongfg ( talk) 02:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Per this edit, this level of detail does not belong in the infobox. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. For that matter, nor does the detail for the other side in this conflict. This detail belongs in the body - where it exist but is unsourced. That is doing things the wrong way around. We don't write the article in the infobox - it is the otherway around. If we can't come up with a simple range supported by sources, it should be omitted from the infobox or perhaps, have a "see section" link. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The new update from Zelenskyy says 60-100 soldiers are killed and 500+ wounded each day in the Donbas. I think this should fit somewhere either in the infobox or in the casualty table. Any thoughts? PilotSheng ( talk) 17:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Laurel Lodged, 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) 00:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Overnight, the list of commanders on both sides of the battle disappeared. Is there any reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebiguess ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Not. I took them out again, per Cinderella. Put them into the article if sourced; if some of these become notable, or in some way important, we can consider an infobox mention later, but for now I'm not seeing it. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
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)
It’s been three weeks since the map depicting the military situation has been updated, any chance of an update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:928:5301:1CEF:4BCD:B81D:B6AF ( talk) 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
There’s no need to list out every city or town that’s fallen. It’s written in the article, as well as in the info box (although it shouldn’t even be there).
I’m leaving Mariupol, Lyman, Sievierodonetsk, and Rubizhne, because those are the most prominent cities to fall. When the fall of Lysychansk is confirmed we can add that too.
But seriously — putting cities like Sviatohirsk in the lead is excessive. It literally has 4,000 inhabitants and is not a major anchor city like the four I’ve listed above. If anyone has an argument to include others that have been captured, like Kreminna, put it here.
Also pinging @ Cinderella157 because the list of cities in the info box is totally excessive. PilotSheng ( talk) 05:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
We are starting to write the article in the infobox, which is quite contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. as for a prose list in the laed, it is written without context that would reasonably establish any significance for the cities listed in the lead. The infobox is also inconsistent with the lead. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Has this actually happened? Ukraine doesn't think so.
Russia is continuing its offensive into Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region after capturing almost the entire neighbouring Luhansk region, according to the head of Ukraine-controlled Luhansk’s regional civil administration.
Serhiy Haidai told Ukraine’s United News he did not agree with recent western assessments that Russia had paused its offensive and was resting to regroup. The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based thinktank, and British military intelligence have both said in recent days that Russian forces are resting and taking time to reposition themselves for the next offensive.
“There has not been any kind of operational pause or reduction in shelling,” said Haidai. “Their attempts to advance forward are constant. They are putting in new units, including tank units.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/russia-has-not-paused-its-donbas-offensive-says-ukraine-official YantarCoast ( talk) 21:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Battle of Donbas (2022) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"On 10 July, a Russian rocket attack in Chasiv Yar struck a multi-story residential building..." Please change 10 July to 9 July. It happened on 9 July, at approx. 21.17 local time. Anyway, the article on the incident says so as well. Thanks. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:2DFC:12E2:9912:8373 ( talk) 06:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an "or" here:
Now
Federal News Agency (FAN) stated that Ukrainian forces can only withdraw to the northwest of Novoluhanske to Semihirya.
With edit
Federal News Agency (FAN) stated that Ukrainian forces can only withdraw to the northwest of Novoluhanske or to Semihirya. DuckTheDucker ( talk) 20:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello the last paragraph in the lead is incredibly redundant, they also captured other cities and donetsk oblast and it's already stated that they captured all of the luhansk oblast. Dawsongfg ( talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
was taken by russian forces july31 2600:1700:E881:4550:AC97:5BBA:5DD7:FBE8 ( talk) 17:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
BS. That is not true, Avdiivka remains under Ukrainian control, according to an overwhelming number of ISW reports since then. Yavneh ( talk) 23:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The correct English translation is "the Donbas", short for "the Donets Coal Basin" (in Russian), analogous to "the Middle West" or "the South" of the U.S. or "the Middle East". This should be corrected throughout WP after suitable discussion. In Slavic languages like Russian and Ukrainian there is no word for "the" (or "a") so those languages say "Donbas", but that should not mislead translators. Zaslav ( talk) 04:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
When we say that there is a 'battle of siversk', I agree that this is correct. But when describing an area hundreds of miles across with multiple battles along its respective frontline, from siversk, to bakhmut to the outskirts of donetsk, etc. is it correct to call this a battle? To say that there is battles within battles or a battle of battles doesn't really make sense. Nor does it make sense to imagine the frontline as a continuous, singular phenomena? I hope you can see what I'm getting at here, another term should be applied, like theatre, invasion or something else. 86.1.33.129 ( talk) 16:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Some could argue that the battle ended the day that the Ukrainians began the 2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive. Just unclear about the result and how we would adjust the article.
Please discuss. Pinging some editors. @ EkoGraf @ Mr.User200 PilotSheng ( talk) 20:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
We need Reliable Sources for inclusion, please take into account too, that Presidential Advisor Arestovych is not the Ukrainian MOD or Ukrainian Central Command. Don't use url links to attempt to claim Ukrainian MOD have reported those numbers. Use only Primary and Secondary sources of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine for the content of the article. Mr.User200 ( talk) 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
There is an RFC in progress on Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. HappyWith ( talk) 21:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Someone clearly didn't read the article they cited as a source, because the article claims the following: "Despite the mobilization efforts of the Damascus government and private partners, Russia’s goal to flood Ukraine with foreign fighters failed. U.S. Marine Corps General McKenzie confirmed that there has not been a flow of Syrian fighters up to this point." [1] The source does not say anywhere that Syrian mercenaries were involved in the fighting, it says that Moscow only tried and failed. According to that article, there are no Syrian mercenaries in Ukraine, and therefore Syria should be deleted from the "Belligerents" section, because this is an unsubstantiated claim, even disinformation. Dr. Ivan Kučera ( talk) 15:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus not to move the article ( closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 22:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Donbas (2022–present) → War in Donbas (2022–present) – This new title would maintain consistency with War in Donbas (2014-2022), per MOS:CONSISTENCY. I think this move would be good. How says everyone? Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk) 21:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Material Works (contribs) 21:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Donbas (2022–present) → Donbas campaign – This isn't a single "battle" but a series of offensives and battles in the region, i.e. a campaign, a major operation in a broader war. Skovl ( talk) 07:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. {{ping| ClydeFranklin}} ( t/ c) 17:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Battle of Donbas (2022–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Russian forces had began" → "Russian forces had begun" 149.86.189.14 ( talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
In "Strength" section from both sources only one talks about number of Russians and the article claims the following: "Western officials estimate that Russia now has about 76 Battalion Tactical Groups in the region - each of which has about 800 men." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61217528 This gives a number of about 60,000 Russian soldiers, not 120,000 - 150,000 as it is written in section.
The last ongoing battle that is a part of the Battle of Donbas is the ongoing Battle of Bakhmut. When the fighting in/around Bakhmut is over, we can close this article. PilotSheng ( talk) 15:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
as titled above. See Battle of Bakhmut DitorWiki ( talk) 03:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved - Request withdrawn by Nom. ( non-admin closure) Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
We do not have an article with the name, for example, Battle of Donbas (2006). The Wikipedia article on the 2003–2011 armed conflict in Iraq is called the Iraq War, not the Iraq War (2003–2011), although the conflict is still ongoing. Parham wiki ( talk) 20:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Battle of Donbas (2022–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The City of Bakhmut hasn't been captured completely. And also the battle isn't over yet. DitorWiki ( talk) 11:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan747 ( talk • contribs) 17:19, July 14, 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan747 ( talk • contribs) 17:19, July 14, 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Battle of Donbas (2022–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Russian forces Haven't captured Bakhmut. Please change the mistake as fast as possible.
And
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65657621 DitorWiki ( talk) 09:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Battle of Donbas (2022–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Russian offensive (April 2022 - May 2023) section is wrong and is overlapping the Ukrainian Fall counteroffensives (September-November 2022). DitorWiki ( talk) 04:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's been two weeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 ( talk) 19:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Rubizhne is a relatively important and large city in the donbas area and it was recently captured by russians /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Rubizhne, it should be added to the captured cities mentioned in outcome alongside Popasna. PROONTExchange ( talk) 01:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
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)/Archive 1#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)
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)
Is the opening paragraph suggesting that Kharkiv is in the Donbas region? Great Mercian ( talk) 07:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:928:5301:65CE:391F:38F6:5AF2 ( talk) 12:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
That's absurd, that's the equivalent of 2 full brigades, they clearly meant that they have 8000 prisoners from FEBRUARY, not in the last month. And I highly doubt the number since the source is the LPR that has all the interest in lying. If Ukraine lost 8000 prisoners in Donbass alone, the war should have ended already since it would be 5% of their professional army. Should be edited out imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.151.69 ( talk) 02:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
WHAT. Dawsongfg ( talk) 02:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Per this edit, this level of detail does not belong in the infobox. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. For that matter, nor does the detail for the other side in this conflict. This detail belongs in the body - where it exist but is unsourced. That is doing things the wrong way around. We don't write the article in the infobox - it is the otherway around. If we can't come up with a simple range supported by sources, it should be omitted from the infobox or perhaps, have a "see section" link. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The new update from Zelenskyy says 60-100 soldiers are killed and 500+ wounded each day in the Donbas. I think this should fit somewhere either in the infobox or in the casualty table. Any thoughts? PilotSheng ( talk) 17:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Laurel Lodged, 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) 00:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Overnight, the list of commanders on both sides of the battle disappeared. Is there any reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebiguess ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Not. I took them out again, per Cinderella. Put them into the article if sourced; if some of these become notable, or in some way important, we can consider an infobox mention later, but for now I'm not seeing it. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
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)
It’s been three weeks since the map depicting the military situation has been updated, any chance of an update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:928:5301:1CEF:4BCD:B81D:B6AF ( talk) 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
There’s no need to list out every city or town that’s fallen. It’s written in the article, as well as in the info box (although it shouldn’t even be there).
I’m leaving Mariupol, Lyman, Sievierodonetsk, and Rubizhne, because those are the most prominent cities to fall. When the fall of Lysychansk is confirmed we can add that too.
But seriously — putting cities like Sviatohirsk in the lead is excessive. It literally has 4,000 inhabitants and is not a major anchor city like the four I’ve listed above. If anyone has an argument to include others that have been captured, like Kreminna, put it here.
Also pinging @ Cinderella157 because the list of cities in the info box is totally excessive. PilotSheng ( talk) 05:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
We are starting to write the article in the infobox, which is quite contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. as for a prose list in the laed, it is written without context that would reasonably establish any significance for the cities listed in the lead. The infobox is also inconsistent with the lead. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Has this actually happened? Ukraine doesn't think so.
Russia is continuing its offensive into Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region after capturing almost the entire neighbouring Luhansk region, according to the head of Ukraine-controlled Luhansk’s regional civil administration.
Serhiy Haidai told Ukraine’s United News he did not agree with recent western assessments that Russia had paused its offensive and was resting to regroup. The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based thinktank, and British military intelligence have both said in recent days that Russian forces are resting and taking time to reposition themselves for the next offensive.
“There has not been any kind of operational pause or reduction in shelling,” said Haidai. “Their attempts to advance forward are constant. They are putting in new units, including tank units.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/russia-has-not-paused-its-donbas-offensive-says-ukraine-official YantarCoast ( talk) 21:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Battle of Donbas (2022) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"On 10 July, a Russian rocket attack in Chasiv Yar struck a multi-story residential building..." Please change 10 July to 9 July. It happened on 9 July, at approx. 21.17 local time. Anyway, the article on the incident says so as well. Thanks. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:2DFC:12E2:9912:8373 ( talk) 06:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an "or" here:
Now
Federal News Agency (FAN) stated that Ukrainian forces can only withdraw to the northwest of Novoluhanske to Semihirya.
With edit
Federal News Agency (FAN) stated that Ukrainian forces can only withdraw to the northwest of Novoluhanske or to Semihirya. DuckTheDucker ( talk) 20:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello the last paragraph in the lead is incredibly redundant, they also captured other cities and donetsk oblast and it's already stated that they captured all of the luhansk oblast. Dawsongfg ( talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
was taken by russian forces july31 2600:1700:E881:4550:AC97:5BBA:5DD7:FBE8 ( talk) 17:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
BS. That is not true, Avdiivka remains under Ukrainian control, according to an overwhelming number of ISW reports since then. Yavneh ( talk) 23:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The correct English translation is "the Donbas", short for "the Donets Coal Basin" (in Russian), analogous to "the Middle West" or "the South" of the U.S. or "the Middle East". This should be corrected throughout WP after suitable discussion. In Slavic languages like Russian and Ukrainian there is no word for "the" (or "a") so those languages say "Donbas", but that should not mislead translators. Zaslav ( talk) 04:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
When we say that there is a 'battle of siversk', I agree that this is correct. But when describing an area hundreds of miles across with multiple battles along its respective frontline, from siversk, to bakhmut to the outskirts of donetsk, etc. is it correct to call this a battle? To say that there is battles within battles or a battle of battles doesn't really make sense. Nor does it make sense to imagine the frontline as a continuous, singular phenomena? I hope you can see what I'm getting at here, another term should be applied, like theatre, invasion or something else. 86.1.33.129 ( talk) 16:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Some could argue that the battle ended the day that the Ukrainians began the 2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive. Just unclear about the result and how we would adjust the article.
Please discuss. Pinging some editors. @ EkoGraf @ Mr.User200 PilotSheng ( talk) 20:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
We need Reliable Sources for inclusion, please take into account too, that Presidential Advisor Arestovych is not the Ukrainian MOD or Ukrainian Central Command. Don't use url links to attempt to claim Ukrainian MOD have reported those numbers. Use only Primary and Secondary sources of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine for the content of the article. Mr.User200 ( talk) 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
There is an RFC in progress on Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. HappyWith ( talk) 21:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Someone clearly didn't read the article they cited as a source, because the article claims the following: "Despite the mobilization efforts of the Damascus government and private partners, Russia’s goal to flood Ukraine with foreign fighters failed. U.S. Marine Corps General McKenzie confirmed that there has not been a flow of Syrian fighters up to this point." [1] The source does not say anywhere that Syrian mercenaries were involved in the fighting, it says that Moscow only tried and failed. According to that article, there are no Syrian mercenaries in Ukraine, and therefore Syria should be deleted from the "Belligerents" section, because this is an unsubstantiated claim, even disinformation. Dr. Ivan Kučera ( talk) 15:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus not to move the article ( closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 22:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Donbas (2022–present) → War in Donbas (2022–present) – This new title would maintain consistency with War in Donbas (2014-2022), per MOS:CONSISTENCY. I think this move would be good. How says everyone? Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk) 21:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Material Works (contribs) 21:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Donbas (2022–present) → Donbas campaign – This isn't a single "battle" but a series of offensives and battles in the region, i.e. a campaign, a major operation in a broader war. Skovl ( talk) 07:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. {{ping| ClydeFranklin}} ( t/ c) 17:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Battle of Donbas (2022–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Russian forces had began" → "Russian forces had begun" 149.86.189.14 ( talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
In "Strength" section from both sources only one talks about number of Russians and the article claims the following: "Western officials estimate that Russia now has about 76 Battalion Tactical Groups in the region - each of which has about 800 men." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61217528 This gives a number of about 60,000 Russian soldiers, not 120,000 - 150,000 as it is written in section.
The last ongoing battle that is a part of the Battle of Donbas is the ongoing Battle of Bakhmut. When the fighting in/around Bakhmut is over, we can close this article. PilotSheng ( talk) 15:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
as titled above. See Battle of Bakhmut DitorWiki ( talk) 03:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved - Request withdrawn by Nom. ( non-admin closure) Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
We do not have an article with the name, for example, Battle of Donbas (2006). The Wikipedia article on the 2003–2011 armed conflict in Iraq is called the Iraq War, not the Iraq War (2003–2011), although the conflict is still ongoing. Parham wiki ( talk) 20:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Battle of Donbas (2022–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The City of Bakhmut hasn't been captured completely. And also the battle isn't over yet. DitorWiki ( talk) 11:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan747 ( talk • contribs) 17:19, July 14, 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan747 ( talk • contribs) 17:19, July 14, 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Battle of Donbas (2022–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Russian forces Haven't captured Bakhmut. Please change the mistake as fast as possible.
And
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65657621 DitorWiki ( talk) 09:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Battle of Donbas (2022–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Russian offensive (April 2022 - May 2023) section is wrong and is overlapping the Ukrainian Fall counteroffensives (September-November 2022). DitorWiki ( talk) 04:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)