Misplaced Pages

Talk:Battle of Kherson: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:15, 6 December 2023 editGenQuest (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers63,602 edits OneClickArchived "Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle of Kherson"" to Talk:Battle of Kherson/Archive 1← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:49, 8 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,375,736 editsm Archiving 5 discussions to Talk:Battle of Kherson/Archive1. (BOT) 
(69 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:

{{Talk header|age=365}}
{{Ds/talk notice|e-e}} {{Talk header}}
{{FailedGA|07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)|topic=Warfare|page=1|oldid=1217094635}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|e-e}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|European-task-force=y|Russian-task-force=y|Post-Cold-War-task-force=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=no|b4=yes|b5=yes}} {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|European-task-force=y|Russian-task-force=y|Post-Cold-War-task-force=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=no|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Russia|class=C|importance=High|hist=yes|pol=y}} {{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|hist=yes|pol=y}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=C|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=High}}
{{GOCE|user=Dhtwiki|date=11–14 February 2024}}
}} }}
{{Translated|uk|Бої за Херсон}} {{Translated|uk|Бої за Херсон}}
Line 19: Line 22:
| format=%%i | format=%%i
}} }}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2024-03-02|oldid1=1211264239}}

== February 2024 checks ==

Hey {{u|SaintPaulOfTarsus}}, whenever you are done with all the changes for the article, shoot me a ping here. I was not anticipating really any changes to the article, so the article already went through a copy/edit and was a GA nomination.

Part of the GA nomination criteria is that the article doesn't change much day to day. So a ping would be much appreciated once the changes are done, since the copy/edit process probably needs to take place again and the GA nomination may need to be withdrawn pending it. '''The ]''' (] 06:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

:I'll try to expedite my edits so that the process isn't interrupted too much. But there's a lot more information that can be added, especially from non-English sources. In my opinion, as it stands now the article barely scratches the surface. I'll make this my main priority and let you know when I'm done. ] (]) 06:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
{{Talk:Battle of Kherson/GA1}}

== Overwhelming majority of use of term "Battle of Kherson" refers to different events ==

Kherson, we have a problem. My analysis below shows that an estimated 93% of instances of reliable sources using the term "Battle of Kherson" use it to refer to events not covered by this article whatsoever.

I performed a Google search for the exact string "Battle of Kherson" (not case-sensitive) on 13 April 2024. Of approximately 157 search results, I managed to access 47 unique pages from seemingly reliable sources (methodology is below) that used the term "Battle of Kherson" a total of 65 times. All direct quotes are included here with context. Notable authors (those with their own Misplaced Pages pages) have been denoted in parentheses.

{{collapse top|title=4 sources use "Battle of Kherson" 4 times in reference to the February–March 2022 Russian takeover of the city}}
, 10 November 2022
{{tq2|In early March 2022, Kherson was captured by Russia through intense fighting. The '''battle of Kherson''' proved to be the starting point to capturing and occupying the southern part of Ukraine while the battles for Kharkiv and Kyiv in the north progressed. Russia’s hold over Kherson since March 2022 enabled Moscow to capture the key port cities — Mariupol in the Sea Azov, and Odesa, thus expanding control.}}

, 18 November 2022
{{tq2|Stanislav Vasanov, call sign “Medic”, was a civilian fighter in the Kherson Territorial Defense Force and took part in the '''Battle of Kherson'''. Today, he serves as senior combat medic in the 192nd Kherson Battalion of the Territorial Defense Force (TDF).}}


, 21 February 2023
== Requested move 24 April 2022 ==
{{tq2|'''Battle of Kherson''': It was invaded on the first day of the war. As per Al Jazeera, by the evening of February 24, Russia had reached the city and had secured the Antonivsky Bridge: the main crossing over the Dnipro River in the city of Kherson. Months later, in November, the bridge was blown up. In March, Russia claimed full control over Kherson, but a counteroffensive by Ukraine was able to push back Moscow's forces. The operation took months, but Ukrainian forces burst through the Russian front lines, targeting their communication, military, and transport assets. Finally, on November 9, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that Russian troops would be pulling out of Kherson.}}


, 22 February 2023
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
{{tq2|During the '''Battle of Kherson''', the bridge changed hands many times in an attempt by Russian forces to establish a path from Russian-held Crimea into central Ukraine.}}
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''
{{collapse bottom}}


{{collapse top|title=43 sources use "Battle of Kherson" 61 times to mean a speculative future battle or as a synonym for August–November 2022 Ukrainian counteroffensive activity}}
The result of the move request was: '''not moved''' to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. There is no clear agreement as to whether titles using "of" in this way necessarily indicate that the article titles are proper names, or more simply reflect a standard way of referring to battles. Relevant arguments were presented by both sides in the discussion, but it is clear that there is not currently a consensus in favor of the proposed moves. Separately, please consider creating redirects from the proposed titles if they are likely to be used by readers and editors. ]<small>]</small> 05:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
, 27 July 2022
----
{{tq2|The coming '''battle of Kherson''' will in many ways be a reversal of May’s struggle for Severodonetsk, where Ukraine found itself trying to maintain an ever-dwindling bridgehead supplied by constantly shelled bridges.}}


, 2 August 2022
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Kherson}}
{{tq2|The looming '''battle of Kherson''' will be one of Ukraine’s most important fights since the defense of Kyiv. With the smart use of its new arsenal and a bit of luck, Ukraine just might be able to turn the tide against the invaders and give the world a glimpse of what a Russian defeat looks like.}}


, 2 August 2022
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Ivankiv}}
{{tq2|Preparations for a major Ukrainian counter-offensive in the south of the country have been underway since May. After weeks of minor advances in the surrounding countryside that have seen Ukrainian forces liberate more than fifty towns and villages, there is now a mounting sense that the '''Battle of Kherson''' is about to begin.}}
{{tq2|The looming '''Battle of Kherson''' is an event of unprecedented international importance. The outcome of this battle will shape the fate of Ukraine and the course of the war. A Russian victory could pave the way for the conquest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline and the complete subjugation of the country. If Ukraine is victorious, it may mark the beginning of the end for Vladimir Putin’s dreams of a new Russian Empire.}}


, 6 August 2022 (], former Russia bureau chief for VoA and Bloomberg)
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Vasylkiv}}
{{tq2|“A Russian victory could pave the way for the conquest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline and the complete subjugation of the country,” the editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert Service, Peter Dickinson, wrote Tuesday in an essay titled: “Putin’s entire Ukraine invasion hinges on the coming '''Battle of Kherson'''.”}}


, 5 August 2022
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Irpin}}
{{tq2|So I was hoping to get some insight into Ukrainian military morale and readiness for the '''Battle of Kherson''' on this trip.}}
{{tq2|He told me he is eager for the '''Battle of Kherson''' to begin and plans to marry his girlfriend “if I am not killed.”}}
{{tq2|Yet this military thirst for justice opens the possibility that Ukraine can win the '''Battle of Kherson'''.}}


, 30 August 2022 (], Ukrainian-born oligarch, formerly of the Russian MoD)
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Bucha}}
{{tq2|For the war to end quickly, however, we need a single overwhelming victory, and this victory should be claimed in the '''battle of Kherson'''. The bulk of combat-capable Ukrainian and Russian troops are currently concentrated in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of south Ukraine, and the Russian forces are clearly worse off, as they are badly battered from previous battles and cut off from logistics to easily resupply.}}


, 31 August 2022
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Brovary}}
{{tq2|One way or another, the '''battle of Kherson''' is shaping up to be a decisive turning point in the war.}}


, 1 September 2022
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Slavutych}}
{{tq2|I don't intend to forecast exactly how long the Ukraine war will last, but its final duration will depend entirely on the outcome of the '''Battle of Kherson''' which started on August 29 and is likely to be the most critical military operation in Europe since 1945.}}


, 3 September 2022 (], foreign correspondent)
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Avdiivka (2022)}}
{{tq2|Journalist Richard Spencer discussed Ukrainian generals proclaiming that the Russian-occupied region of Kherson in Ukraine would be liberated, despite the assault starting in the last week of August... The region which is now under Russian control has been turned into a brutal battlefield. The '''battle of Kherson''' is a crucial one, and it has been heating up this week as Ukraine fight to retake and hold the region.}}
{{tq2|Experts have been paying close attention to the '''battle of Kherson''', as it is an important region for Ukrainians to take back and hold.}}


, 7 September 2022 (], military historian)
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Avdiivka (2017)}}


{{tq2|When the front line in Kherson showed only incremental Ukrainian advances after the first few days, Russian sources... began talking about how Ukraine had failed... though this view of the specific '''Battle of Kherson''' (if that’s what we are calling it) will almost certainly be shown to be wrong in the medium term, the overall notion that Russia can and is winning this war is wrong at this very moment.}}
*] → {{no redirect|Battle of Volnovakha}}
{{tq2|If we look at the six months of war that has brought us to the '''Battle of Kherson''' we can see a Ukrainian military, state and people which are adapting, learning and strengthening.}}
{{tq2|The Ukrainian Army that is launching the '''Battle of Kherson''' is considerably more capable than the force that faced the Russians in February.}}


, 8 September 2022 (], military historian)
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Rubizhne}}
{{tq2|...even with the announcements of the Ukrainians’ transition to a more intense phase of the '''Battle of Kherson''' on August 29, we have not seen major attempts to push tanks through the Russian lines. Instead, we have seen Ukrainians probing up and down the line, trying to assess the location and strength of Russian forces, attack weak spots, advance cautiously, and, most of all, continue the regular attrition of Russian forces.}}{{tq2|Exactly how long the renewed '''Battle of Kherson''' will continue is tricky to say. Even if Ukraine is relatively successful, this phase of accelerated attrition might last for several weeks; even if Russian forces collapse in some places, they may prove harder to dislodge from others.}}


, 13 September 2022
*] → {{no redirect|Battles for Sievierodonetsk (2014)}} (] is presently a rediredt to ]. Disambiguation can be dealt with by hatnote)
{{tq2|In recent days, one thing has been on the minds of those who have been following the events in Ukraine with the attention that a World Cup deserves. The progress and outcome of the '''Battle of Kherson'''. Who will win, who will lose and what will be the consequences of the battle for the southern front? Will the road to Mykolaiv and Odessa be opened or will Russian domination of the Crimean peninsula be threatened?}}
{{tq2|The '''battle of Kherson''' may have very significant, possibly decisive, consequences for the war as a whole.}}
{{tq2|I think that if we take the very low-probability extreme outcomes out of the deck, we come to the conclusion that the '''Battle of Kherson''' will not be a turning point in the Russo-Ukrainian war at the strategic level. Perhaps not even at the operational level... I should explain why I think so. To do so, it is essential to consider the '''Battle of Kherson''' in the broader, grand strategic context of the war.}}
{{tq2|What does all this say about the possible outcome of the '''Battle of Kherson'''?}}
{{tq2|That is why I think it is not impossible that, years from now, we will look back on this “decisive” battle announced months in advance as the '''Battle of Kherson''' that made no difference at all.}}


, 19 October 2022
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Kharkiv (2022)}} (keep date to avoid confusion with other battles - see ])
{{tq2|The '''Battle of Kherson''' is announced. The Russian side is evacuating the civilian population and leadership to the left bank of the Dnieper.}}
{{tq2|Here, it is worth noting that the Russian side stands out for its information initiative announcing the "'''Battle of Kherson'''." In their own language: what is it for? Is some event or retreat in the works?}}


, 28 October 2022
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Konotop}} (] exists but there is no target for "Battle for". Disambiguation can be dealt with by hat note)
{{tq2|For him, the '''battle of Kherson''' is also personal. After Kherson, the Ukrainians can turn to an even bigger prize, the Crimean Peninsula...}}


, 4 November 2022 (], French war correspondent)
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Sumy}}
{{tq2|This is why the upcoming '''battle of Kherson''' is important for both belligerents. It represents a critical turning point in the war. Should the Ukrainians succeed in retaking this regional capital...}}


{{collapse top|News reports quoting Aleksandar Vučić (6–7 November 2022)}}
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Trostianets}}


, 6 November 2022 (], Serbian president)
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Okhtyrka}}
{{tq2|The possible '''battle of Kherson''' will be decisive in the conflict in Ukraine and comparable with the Battle of Stalingrad during the World War II, President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic said...}}
{{tq2|"The next winter will be even harder than this one because we face the Battle of Stalingrad, the decisive battle in the war in Ukraine, the '''battle of Kherson'''..."}}


, 7 November 2022
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Lebedyn}}
{{tq2|The possible '''battle of Kherson''' will be decisive in the conflict in Ukraine and comparable with the Battle of Stalingrad during World War II, President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic said...}}
{{tq2|“We face a challenging time. The next winter will be even harder than this one because we face the Battle of Stalingrad, the decisive battle in the war in Ukraine, and the '''battle of Kherson'''...}}


, 7 November 2022
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Izium}} (] is a disambiguation page the a link to ]. No target to "Battle for". Disambiguation can be dealt with by hat note without need for year in title or disambiguation page.)
{{tq2|Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vučić has said he expects the '''battle of Kherson''' to be the defining battle of the war.}}


{{collapse bottom}}
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Melitopol}}


{{collapse top|News reports quoting the Institute for the Study of War (9–11 November 2022)}}
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Mykolaiv}}


, 9 November 2022
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Enerhodar}}
{{tq2|The '''battle of Kherson''' is not over, but Russian forces have entered a new phase—prioritizing withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely.}}
{{tq2|The '''battle of Kherson''' is not inherently over, but Russian forces have entered a new phase— prioritizing withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely.}}


, 10 November 2022
*] → {{no redirect|Battle for Voznesensk}}


{{tq2|“The '''battle of Kherson''' is not over, but Russian forces have entered a new phase – prioritizing withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely,” the Institute for the Study of War, a think-tank, said on Wednesday.}}
In the majority of cases, the naming is not supported at all by sources as evidenced by links. In no case, do sources indicate that the names would satisfy ]. The format "battle of X" tends to imply a degree of formal recognition of the status of a battle, that in these cases simply doesn't exist. This is misleading and can lead to ]. is already indicating this: {{tq|in what’s been dubbed online as the “Battle of Brovary,”}}. The format "battle for X" does not have the same implication but is equally succinct, natural and recognisable and should be preferred. ] (]) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


, 10 November 2022
:@]: {{no redirect|Battle of Sievierodonetsk}} that you nominated, is a redirect to ]. Redirects aren't subject to RMs. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • ] • ])</sup> 09:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|“The '''battle of Kherson''' is not inherently over,” said The Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think tank.}}
::{{U|CX Zoom}}, thank you. It should have been for ] and ]. I have corrected this here and added notices. ] (]) 11:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


, 10 November 2022
:In dissent to the above, I will note how the google search results are not very convincing arguments either, and limiting to solely news seem to yield rather different results from actual usage (reliable sources include more than just newspapers, and in fact Misplaced Pages is very much ]...). yields over 16500, not the two results implied by the above link. The same search for yields just 7000... I'm not going to bother doing the same exercise for many others; as it yields similar results, ex. (3900) vs (700)... In all cases, even with only news selected, the difference is usually not even one order of magnitude, in fact in most cases both numbers are far below 10, which suggests that the number of reliable sources covering these in detail is overall very small, and thus that the actual wider conventions used everywhere (]) are probably a better guide. ] (] / ]) 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|The Washington-based think tank said: “The entire Russian contingent will take some time to withdraw across the Dnipro River and it is still unclear if Russian forces will be able to conduct the withdrawal in relatively good order under Ukrainian pressure. The '''battle of Kherson''' is not over, but Russian forces have entered a new phase—prioritising withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely.”}}


, 10 November 2022
::I agree that WP is ] but the reality is that almost all of the sourcing for any article to do with the event of the invasion are news sources. Of the nominated articles, I would be hard pressed to find any sources used that are not news sources. I did also look at Google Scholar for the nominated articles and their present names. These returned no hits in almost every case and, in the couple of cases where there were hits, these were almost exclusively to wiki like sources. Not surprisingly, ngram searches won't give hits because the events are too recent. There was no evidence that would lend to these articles having a ]. ] would guide us against using raw Google searches as you are doing here: {{tq| When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books).}} Your search for "battle of kherson" -wiki may return 16500 hits but returns only 36 results it would describe as "relevant". The using "battle for kherson" returns 65 results it describes as "relevant". For Avdiivka, each alternative returned only 32 relevant results. However, the premise of the RM is that don't have a body of ] (let alone good quality ones) that would lead us to conclude a ]. As to the argument of consistency, "battle of" is fairly consistent for engagements where an engagement has risen to the level of being know in sources by a ]. The evidence below is that naming is much less consistent (even tending to "for") for engagements that have not risen to the level of having a proper name (even if they might rise to having a proper name at some future time). There is no binding "wider convention" for naming that is not a proper name. ] (]) 02:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|"The '''battle of Kherson''' is not inherently over," said The Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think tank.
"But Russian forces have entered a new phase -- prioritising withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely."}}


, 11 November 2022
:::What the google results do show, however you take them, is that people (average readers) tend to use the same convention as elsewhere, and that would perfectly match the other parts of the article title criteria (]) which you are seemingly ignoring, notably naturalness ({{tq|The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for}}
{{tq2|However, experts warn that this should not be seen as Russia conceding defeat in Kherson oblast (province). The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a think-tank based in Washington D.C., cautioned that the '''“battle of Kherson”''' was not over, but the that Russian forces were entering a fresh phase —“prioritising withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely”.}}
:::Even if, somehow, the usage amongst sources is divided, the advice of COMMONNAME is then to look at the other criteria ({{tq|When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.}}). And on those, "to" wins the battle hands down over "for".
:::As for the rest, as has been shown multiple times, the conventional "battle of" applies in nearly all cases, whether the battle is consistently capitalised or not in sources (in fact, you have not presented a single shred of evidence to support your ] into this). We should defer to the convention which is clearly documented (go look at ]; go look at the results from JSTOR which I show below; go look at any other source about history, ...), whether you personally like it or not. ] (] / ]) 06:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


, 11 November 2022
::::What google results show is not what "average readers" use but what web page writers (who in the most are not ]) use. ""Battle for" is quite a natural phrase. Reading my posts, you will see that I have not ignored it. For the most part, it is not a case of divided usage in determining a ] but no usages (for most cases). The quoted section does not apply (for the most). ] is clearly incomplete but what does it proove? Are more ]d battles called "Battle of X"? You say: {{tq|the conventional "battle of" applies in nearly all cases, whether the battle is consistently capitalised or not in sources}}. Umm, your evidence? or is this the same type of ] presented without {{tq|a single shred of evidence}}? Nothing you are saying here is any less ] than matters I am raising. To JSTOR as a resource, I have addressed this below where you first raised it. ] (]) 11:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|“The '''battle of Kherson''' is not over, but Russian forces have entered a new phase — prioritizing withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely,” analysts at the Institute for the Study of War noted Wednesday evening.}}
:::::I have shown clear evidence that "battle of" (with or without caps, not that it matters: in many cases, this is a stylistic choice) is used so frequently that it's nearly universal. You keep making an assertion that "battle for" is more frequently used for battles which are "not proper names", but have not shown a single example for this (short of a few examples which you, um, "created" for this purpose...). As such I am going to keep dismissing it as OR nonsense until you present actual evidence, such as usage in sources. ] (] / ]) 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


, 11 November 2022
===Comments===
{{tq2|However, military experts believe the Russian announcement is not a russe. “The '''battle of Kherson''' is not inherently over,” said The Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think-tank. “But Russian forces have entered a new phase – prioritising withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely.”}}
* {{u|Cinderella157}} If you haven't already, you may want to post a link to this discussion at ], since editors there may have knowledge of relevant policy or precedent in this area. ] (]) 15:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
:] has been notified. ] (]) 05:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support''' This seems like a sensible proposal frankly. I would support it. Until proper names are clearly stabilized by external reliable sources, these are just descriptive titles invented on the run by Wiki editors. Using "for" (rather than "of") underlines that better. But I am not sure if it applies to each and every one of the moves proposed above. ] (]) 16:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. More accurate description. ] (]) 16:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. Nominator has already notified ]. ] (] '''·''' ]) 16:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Note: pinging participants of conflicting discussion at ]. Ganesha811 and Cinderella157 have already commented above, leaving {{ping|Elijahandskip|Gog the Mild|prefix=|p=. }} ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
* '''Oppose'''. Despite no clear-cut common names being available online at the moment, "Battle of..." is still the established Misplaced Pages template for battle articles in various conflicts. Also, at least to me in a sense, "Battle for..." implies that a battle is still ongoing, despite ending. ] (]) 17:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per EkoGraf and as Battle for seems as likely to be subject to WP:CITOGENESIS as Battle of. ] (]) 18:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I did a quick search on WP and as stated by EkoGraf, the vast majority of Misplaced Pages article start with "Battle of..." ie ], ], etc. This ] give an alphabetical list, and appears for every "Battle for..." there are +100 which are described as "Battle of...". Looks like most of the "Battle for..." relate to Science Fiction ie ], ], ], etc ] (]) 22:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' {{tq|The format "battle of X" tends to imply a degree of formal recognition of the status of a battle}}—no it doesn’t. It’s a descriptive noun phrase. Who says it can lead to citogenesis while “battle for” can not? The entire rationale is unfounded, and does not even aspire to the level of unacceptable ]. On the contrary, “battle for” (or “at,” “in,” “near,” or some other other prepositions) implies a specific kind of relation to the location, in this case the adversaries’ objective being control of the city, and should only be used when that can be demonstrated for every specific case. On the contrary, “of” is natural and devoid of such implications, only creating a non-specific association.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 03:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
::I can get behind that reasoning - the common understanding is that "battle of" means a battle associated with that location whether it is taken or not. Battle of Normandy is probably a fair comparison. ] (]) 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
* '''Strongly Oppose''' – The convention for military articles on Misplaced Pages is to use "Battle of X" in the article titles, as this is the standard convention and the naming style used more often. I don't actually see any articles on Misplaced Pages that start with "Battle for", and I don't see a good reason to change this now. I could see a reason for renaming a few of these articles if the "Battle of" naming style was the overwhelming ] for that battle, but I don't see that for any of these examples. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' per long-standing conventions which are ] both on and off Misplaced Pages. It's the ], it's the ], it's the ], so on so forth. ] (] / ]) 20:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' per above and the examples provided by {{np|RandomCanadian}}. ]]] 01:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Perhaps in a better world we might have "battle of" to go along with "battle for", "battle at", "battle in", "battle near", etc., but English has settled on "battle of" as the standard for names of battles, and we should stick with that.&nbsp;]&#124;] 02:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


{{collapse bottom}}
*'''Comment/rebuttal/evidence''': Commentors here have listed a number of well known engagemrnts as evidence for the format "battle of X" such as: ], ], ], and ]. Notable battles are commonly designated in good quality (often academic) secondary sources using this format. Moreover these generally rise to the status of being ]s, in that "battle" is consistently capitalised in these name phrases even though capitalisation is not intrinsic to the format - ie "of X" is a ] acting as an adjuct (modifying) the noun "battle"(?). These engagements that have been so designated in sources (plural) satisfying ] have this as their ]. Given this relationship to ] and the imperative that articles created in WP meet notability requirements, it is not surprising that the corpus of WP articles for military engagements is largely populated with the title format "Battle of X". ({{U|RandomCanadian}})


{{collapse top|title=News reports quoting Jake Sullivan (10–13 November 2022)}}
:However, this is not (as is suggested in comments) the exclusive naming format - not even for articles with "battle" as part of the name. revealed multiple example of "battle for" for actual military engagements (without even getting through the full first page of the search. ({{U|Ilenart626}}{{U|LightandDark2000}}) As an aside, I don't recall that any of these cases are ongoing engagements. Furthermore, ] (listed above as evidence) is clearly not comprehensive. There is no implication that "battle for X" is reserved for ongoing engagements, even though some of those listed for moving are probably still ongoing. ({{U|EkoGraf}}) In a significant majority of these WP articles using "battle for", there is no ] and these do not meet the threshold for the titles to be considered a ] (per ]). This supports the premise of the move, that "battle for X" should be preferred where there is no ].


, 10 November 2022 (], U.S. National Security Advisor)
:Looking at some Google ngrams ngram results with hits for "battle for X". one tends to see a trend for early use of "battle for X" as a significant form (or mixed uaage). If it emerges that the engagement is known by a ] , this is most often of the form "Battle of X" however, if "battle for X" might be considered the ] then it rarely rises to being considered a ] (ie the most common name is rarely in the form "Battle for X"). This goes to the matter of ]. The format "battle of X" is most readily associated with "recognised", common or ] of battles. The articles for move have titles that are neither recognised, common nor ]. ({{U|Gog the Mild}}{{U|Mzajac}}{{U|GraemeLeggett}}{{U|SchreiberBike}}) I have pinged editors that have already commented at points of this post that would appear to be associated with their reasoning to oppose the proposal. ] (]) 12:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Ping {{U|Severestorm28}} ] (]) 00:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters Thursday the U.S. is keeping a close eye on whether the Russians actually pull out of Kherson, which would represent a "significant military milestone" for Kyiv's forces. "If this does come to pass, that will mean in the battle of Kyiv, in the '''battle of Kherson''', in the battle of Kharkiv, the Ukrainians will have prevailed against an invading, marauding force that conducted an illegal war in their country," Sullivan said. "But of course, it's not the end of the war."}}


, 11 November 2022
::In one fell swoop: '''nonsense'''. "Battle of" is a format common even for battles which are not "well known" at all. Ex. ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ... The format "battle of" is a near universal convention (the few more well known exceptions I can think of are naval engagements which use "off", ex. ];), in use both on and off Misplaced Pages. A look at lists like ] reveals only a few exceptions; ] has exactly none). Unless there is very clear evidence something is not known as the battle "of" something, the only thing using any other format does is actively impede readers by having articles at surprising titles. Arguments that following a well established convention is somehow citogenesis sound as hollow as they are unconvincing, since such arguments miss the whole point of the article title policy (which is to use recognisable names consistent with existing conventions). ] (] / ]) 13:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|According to him, Russia's withdrawal to the left bank of the Kherson region will be an "important military event" for Ukraine. "If this happens, it will mean that in the battle of Kyiv, in the '''battle of Kherson''', in the battle of Kharkiv, the Ukrainians will be victorious over the invading marauding army that was waging an illegal war in their country," Sullivan said.}}


, 13 November 2022
::::Umm, in this thread, I have linked (allbeit as a hyperlink) about 11 WP articles that use the title format "battle for X" and to my recollection, none of these are sea battles. I have reasonably made you aware of these examples. ] (]) 11:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said the United States will continue monitoring Russia's claim of retreating Kherson. Sullivan said it would be a major win, but not necessarily the end of war. "If this does come to pass, that will mean in the battle of Kyiv, in the '''battle of Kherson''', in the battle of Kharkiv, the Ukrainians will have prevailed against an invading, marauding force that conducted an illegal war in their country," Sullivan said in the USA Today. "But of course, it's not the end of the war."}}
:::::11 examples, compared to the hundreds I have shown, pretty much is a very tiny and negligible minority. Also far less convincing when to support your argument here... ] (] / ]) 12:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::And since the best kind of examples are counter-examples, here are:
:::::#A few isolated of "battle of Verdun" (; )
:::::#An instance of the "battle for Verdun" ()
:::::#And even the "Battle for Verdun" ( on p. 291 {{tq|Even the Battle for Verdun received scant mention.}}; on p. 777 {{tq|As the Battle for Verdun began in February 1916 }}.
:::::Of course, that is a very small sampling (that vast majority of the other sources use the capitalised "Battle of Verdun"), but it shows that this is simply a stylistic choice and has very little, if anything, to do with "battle" being capitalised or not. ] (] / ]) 22:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


{{collapse bottom}}
::::::{{U|RandomCanadian}}, I don't know what is realy intended by the links to "Verdun". would indicate that "]" is clearly the ] for the engagement. There is clearly a multitude of sources on the subject to indicate the common name as evidenced by the reference section of the article and of google books (ngrams are bases on the corpus of Google Books). While this may not always be considered a ], the ngram evidence would indicate that in recent times the Battle of Verdun (arguably) reaches the threshold to be considered a proper name. This, however, is not pertinent to the issue of this RM, where the engagements herein are not named in sources or, if they are, it is in such a small proportion of sources on the subject no common name could reasonably be asserted (ie there is no consensus in the sources). Yes, I have already acknowledged that there are perhaps hundreds of articles on WP using the format "battle of X" but such a listing does nothing to discern which of those are comparable to those subject to this RM. Nor does it discern what proportion of these "hundreds" have a ] and which have a proper name as determined by sources. Only five (in this sub-thread) have been indicated and of those, the ] would appear to have this as its ]. So the pertinent comparison is 4 to 11? Yes, I have changed capitalisation in articles but only where its being a ] is not supported by sources per ]. I do not rely on the changes I have made but on the sources (or rather the lack of them) that such instances are not ]s. ] (]) 02:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


, 10 November 2022 (], former Ukrainian Minister of Defense)
:::::::Either I can't read or the ngram link you give clearly, clearly shows that the most common form is actually "Battle of Verdun", not "battle of Verdun". You consistently claim that "for" should be used for battles which are "not proper names" (nevermind that these are not proper names, but stylistic choices). My example clearly shows that, depending on the exact style one chooses, all combinations are possible, and your argument is thus invalid. Not only that, it entirely misses the point. Whether the battle is a proper name {{sic}} or not, "to" and "for" are matters of choice and convention, however a convention which is very heavily weighted on one side and for which you have not provided any convincing evidence that it somehow doesn't apply here. I'm done here, nothing more to add, please stop ]. ] (] / ]) 03:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


{{tq2|Russia’s November 9 announcement of a general withdrawal from Kherson is further confirmation that Vladimir Putin is losing the war. The '''Battle of Kherson''' itself is still far from over, of course. Ahead are days and possibly weeks of further fighting as tens of thousands of Russian troops attempt to withdraw in good order from strongly entrenched defensive positions.}}
::::::::The threshold for capitalisation as set by ] is {{tq|... consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources ...}} It is not a simple majority. {{tq|Misplaced Pages avoids unnecessary capitalization.}} Mixed usage of a simple majority does not establish that capitalisation is necessary. {{tq|You consistently claim that "for" should be used for battles which are "not proper names"}}. Well, no. I have claimed that the format "battle of X" is more often associated with ], and {{tq|In a significant majority of these WP articles using "battle for", there is no WP:COMMONNAME and these do not meet the threshold for the titles to be considered a proper name (per MOS:CAPS). This supports the premise of the move, that "battle for X" ''should be preferred where there is no WP:COMMONNAME''.}} That is quite a bit different from what you are attributing to me. You did say you were done a long time ago. {{tq|... please stop ].}} If you are replying to me, it is perfectly reasonable for me to reply to you - particularly when you appear to be misrepresenting what I have said. Your link looks a bit ] to me. ] (]) 05:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|...it is already apparent that the '''Battle of Kherson''' will end in a landmark Ukrainian victory that will have major ramifications for the further conduct of the war.}}
:::::::::Come on guys let's keep it civil and to-the-point. I agree it is indeed reasonable for you to respond to his responses {{U|Cinderella157}} but we don't need to make accusations of purposely misattributing or misrepresenting viewpoints, it's not really conducive to the argument at hand anyway.
:::::::::As for the central point, while I might agree that 'battle for X' might be preferred where there is no ], I really do think we could say there's a common name here considering it's about a conflict which battles are very frequently and numerously named along the pattern of 'Battle of <x>'. This isn't just my own opinion considering there's currently a broad consensus opposing the motion too. ] ] ] 12:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


, 11 November 2022 (], Ukrainian war reporter)
::::::::::{{U|Amadeus1999}}, I did not {{tq|make accusations of ''purposely'' misattributing or misrepresenting viewpoints}} but it is, nonetheless a misrepresentation. As to your comments about civility, that boat sailed with . ] (]) 13:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|The '''Battle of Kherson''' is the most far-reaching Ukrainian success since the Battle of Kyiv. It is also the heaviest blow to Russian pride, morale, and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership throughout the war.}}


, 11 November 2022 (], Russian-American journalist)
:::{{U|RandomCanadian}}, of the lesser known engagements you have listed, are you asserting that none of these have a ] as would be determined by an assessment of reliable sources, since it is the premise of the move that none of the candidates have a corpus of sources that would lead to a ] for those articles. If this is your assertion, then none of those articles you list would have sufficient evidence (per ]) to support an assertion that the article titles are a ] and that "Battle of X" should be capped in running prose - yet they all do. ] (]) 00:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|...pro-Russian Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić declared that the impending '''battle of Kherson''' was going to become “the decisive battle in the war in Ukraine,” comparable to the Battle of Stalingrad during World War II. He was echoed, in an interview published Tuesday, by noted Russian “political analyst,” former Duma member, and onetime Putin adviser Sergei Markov, who waxed hopeful that the '''battle of Kherson''' would “become for the Ukrainian Armed Forces what Stalingrad became for the Wehrmacht.”}}


, 14 November 2022
::::The MOS applies for articles. This is a bloody talk page. I couldn't give less of a bother about how I'm capitalising stuff on a talk page. Such pedantic remarks are frankly disruptive.
{{tq2|A huge triumph of the workers and the people of Ukraine has occurred on November 12, 2022 with the capture of the city of Kherson, the regional capital of southern Ukraine. The triumph of the '''battle of Kherson''' implies a heavy defeat for Putin and the world counterrevolution. The people of Ukraine celebrate the revolutionary triumph in Kherson that strengthens the struggle of all the peoples of the world, and the millions of activists who carry out a global revolutionary wave against capitalism...}}
::::And for the benefit of avoidance of any possible doubt whatsoever, what I am asserting is that there is a clear convention, one which, as other pages on Misplaced Pages and external sources show, is ''almost'' universal, and that the evidence presented here is far from sufficient to establish that these battles do not follow that conventionl. Now I'm done here, over and out. ] (] / ]) 02:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|The triumph of the '''battle of Kherson''' is the triumph of a revolutionary war of national liberation}}


, 17 November 2022 (], war researcher and former military officer)
:::::{{U|RandomCanadian}}, you have misread my comment. {{tq|... an assertion that the article titles are a ] and that "Battle of X" should be capped in running prose - yet '''they''' all do}} - ie the articles are asserting that the titles are a ] by capitalising the phrase in running prose. The association of the format "Battle of X" with a ] is a tenet of my argument for not using that format when the the engagement does not rise to be known by a ]. ] (]) 04:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|...the lack of solidly defensible urban positions, combined with the lack of a truly motivated fighting force and the superior range of Ukrainian MLRS capabilities, meant that the '''Battle of Kherson''' was more likely to end in a withdrawal, as it did, than in a head-on collision.}}
::::::And that is, as I've already boldly highlighted, ] '''nonsense''' which is not supported by a shred of evidence. ] (] / ]) 06:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


, 21 December 2022 (])
:::::::{{U|RandomCanadian}}, my original question in this particular thread is whether there was a ] for the five lesser known articles listed? My own searches are indicating that these engagements have few or no sources that would result in a ] (except perhaps the ]) and none of these would rise to the title "battle of X" being considered a ]. Yet these articles would report (by usage) that these titles are proper names - supporting a tenet of my rationale. Any analysis (such as analysis of raw google search results) or statements of opinion unsupported by citation such as: {{tq|... what I am asserting is that there is a clear convention, one which, as other pages on Misplaced Pages and external sources show, is almost universal ...}} may be construed as rising to ]. I see no citations being made here for any opinions beyond some occasional WP links. However, just as you would state that ] has no applicability to capitalisation on a TP, ] has a substantially different meaning and applicability between article space and talk pages. Shouting, swearing and making allegations of misconduct don't make one case stronger or another case weaker. ] (]) 08:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|Ukraine has won the battle of Kyiv, has won the '''battle of Kherson''', has won the battle of Kharkiv. Ukraine has defied Russia’s expectations at every single turn.}}


, 16 February 2023 (], U.S. Secretary of Defense)
::Well now it is rising to the level of ], but vague evaluations like “is largely populated” and “a significant majority,” when there is no defined corpus or methodology, do not indicate any causal relationships or even correlations between the supposed implications. None of the conclusions are supportable. “Of” creates a grammatically neutral association, while “for” implies some kind of motivation for somebody, and other pronouns have not been considered. The rationale is not sound, and it does not override these obvious inherent implications.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 15:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|Now, we've seen them make good use of the capabilities that we provided to this point. They won the Battle of Kharkiv. They won the Battle of Kyiv. They won the '''Battle of Kherson'''. They've inflicted significant damage on Russia's lands forth -- land forces, and they've held their own in a very contested battle in the Donbas.}}


, 20 February 2023
:::{{U|Mzajac}}, the premise of the RM is that none of the candidates have reliable sources that would allow us to determine a ]. Consequently, even naming them "battle of X" might be described as ] but ] gives us general guidance on how to deal with such a case. The use of qualitative terms does not make the analysis less valid. I have provided the evidence so that my assessments can be confirmed. If you would state: {{tq|... do not indicate any causal relationships or even correlations between the supposed implications}}, then the statement that follows, {{tq|“Of” creates a grammatically neutral association, while “for” implies some kind of motivation for somebody}}, fails for being an assertion made without any evidence at all. ] (]) 01:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC) PS, if you feel that there is a better alternative to the proposal, you are free to advance this. ] (]) 01:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|...he gave us other videos from the '''battle of Kherson''', where he called in the location of Russian tanks so one could be hit with a Ukrainian strike.}}
::::Naming stuff as "battle of X" is not OR. It's following the convention (]) which is used almost everywhere, on and off Misplaced Pages. Try taking a look at academic sources, ex. (in contrast, looking for "battle for" will yield you both A) far less results and B) plenty of stuff which is not actually about a military battle but about some other form of "battle", for ex. "", "", "", ...). ] (] / ]) 02:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


, 23 February 2023
:::::Selecting a name not supported by sources (when there is no ]) "could" be construed as ] but is permitted by ] in such a case. Please read my response and what I was responding to. ] is only one of the five principles to be considered and not an overriding "convention". Reviewing JSTOR search results for indicates that the term is used largely for engagements reported as having a ] - ie "Battle of X" is usually reported in the capitalised form in running prose. On the otherhand "battle for" returns many results that are not directly connected with military engagements. This serves to indicate that "battle for" is a ] construction. The search of JSTOR can be narrowed to a topic (military studies) as . Discerning titles or headings and like (where capitalisation would be expected) the results tend to indicate that "battle for X" is more commonly associated with battles that don't have a ]. This is a tenet of the proposition. However, broad searches do not address the pertinent question and premise of the RM: how we should name recent events which have no ] and which clearly have no ] (v historical events which may have a proper name and are more likely to have a common name by virtue of time). ] (]) 10:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|Having won the '''battle of Kherson''' and retaken a poorly defended Kharkiv region in a lightning assault, the lines have been drawn for the next, and decisive stage.}}
::::If you need evidence about the meaning of ''of'' and ''for'', it’s in any English dictionary.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 15:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


, 26 July 2023 (], foreign policy writer)
:: I see no evidence in the original nomination that "battle for" has anymore evidence than "battle of". ] (]) 18:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|The Hollywood-tailored excitement of the Battles of Kyiv and Kharkiv may have unduly raised the bar for what Ukraine can accomplish in short order. Yet the '''Battle of Kherson''', begun in August 2022, was a long, hard slog, the bulk of which garnered comparatively little contemporaneous front-page coverage — until all of a sudden it did. That operation culminated four months later with an announced Russian withdrawal.}}


, 7 July 2023 (], war correspondent)
* '''<s>Strong support</s>''' Changed vote to '''Oppose''' per explanation above and below by {{U|RandomCanadian}} <s>per above explanation by {{Reply to|RandomCanadian|p=}} as the use of ''of'' does strongly imply (inter)national recognition as a (significant) field of battle that in my eyes elevates the significance or recognition of a battle similar to naming conventions of battle theaters, despite the fact such recognition may not exist. Some of the examples listed by the original request probably still belong in the format "Battle of" considering they have attracted such recognition and dedication by consensus, ] comes to mind as a likely candidate for this. I'd be in support even more so for applying a distinction like this on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket transformation across the board, which seems excessive and might throw people off or cause undue implications for some readers.</s> ] ] ] 13:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|The guns were salvaged from an Ouragan tank and Russian Grads, spoils of war from the '''Battle of Kherson'''.}}
*:I'd like to add that '''historical''' battles that are discussed at length tend to follow the "Battle of" naming convention regardless, but seeing as these battles are recent, this obviously does not apply. ] ] ] 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


(accessed through ]), October 2023
:::{{U|Amadeus1999}}, if you believe that a particular article is an exception to the proposal, then you are free to advance this with an argument and evidence as to why it should be an exception. ] (]) 01:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|Ukraine’s counteroffensive operations can be divided into two major phases. The first phase includes counteroffensive operations that caught Russian decision-makers off guard. Because Russia was still waging its offensive operation while the Ukrainian counteroffensive was underway, these came as a surprise to the Russianarmy. The first phase of Ukraine’s counteroffensives included the Battle of Kyiv, the Battle of Kharkiv, and the '''Battle of Kherson'''. Russia’s primary goal was undoubtedly to capture Kyiv. }}


, 10 December 2023 (], former television anchor and war reporter)
::My apologies, the above explanation by {{Reply to|Cinderella157|p=}} rather. ] ] ] 13:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|Citizens of Kherson who gave the "last full measure of their devotion" look to their city from a hill. The '''battle of Kherson''' would ultimately be their victory over the arrogance of the Kremlin.}}
:::As my explanation shows rather convincingly, "battle of" is not reserved, in any way, for "significant" or merely distant historical battles, so your argument is not only unconvincing but has already been rebutted. ] (] / ]) 14:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Another thought in the category of "could have been shower thoughts": What about 'Battle of' for battles that ''took place in'' a certain place, and 'Battle for' in case a battle has taken place to ''specifically occupy or capture'' that place. This could be a detritus take but I genuinely pondered it for a moment, thought I'd share. ] ] ] 02:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}} {{ping|Amadeus1999}} The ] was very much a battle specifically to occupy or capture that place; so was the ], so was the ]; same for the ]; and I can keep going back in history and picking stuff at random pretty much as far as I want if you need further examples. ] (] / ]) 02:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::Hm yeah seems like non-sense on my part then. That thought was merely conjecture anyway. Probably shouldn't have even brought it up as it's off-topic. Thanks for your examples and arguments though. ] ] ] 02:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Also, I've changed my vote. ] ] ] 02:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per RandomCanadian arguments. ] (]) 12:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


, 23 January 2024 (], EU foreign affairs representative)
*'''Comment'''. A lot of the oppose !votes are badly reasoned. "Battle of Stalingrad" is not a descriptive title, but a common name. Same with "Battle of France". You absolutely cannot go around making up articles with titles paralleling "Battle of France" or "Battle of the Bulge". That would be very bad practice. We should not try to apply external naming conventions for battles to make up our own names. The UK actually created formal names for every engagement in World War I. Articles titles should be ''merely'' descriptive or else found ''exactly'' in RS. "Battle of" titles are not the former. It is not for Wikipedians to decide if the fighting in the eastern and western suburbs is one battle or two. ] (]) 15:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
{{tq2|The Ukrainian armed forces won the Battle of Kyiv, they won the '''Battle of Kherson''', they liberated more than half of the territory Russia had captured, broke the blockade of Black Sea ports and forced Russia to withdraw the bulk of its fleet from occupied Crimea.}}
*:While I agree it is indeed not up to Wikipedians to decide, I still think ] applies here. If virtually ''all'' news outlets, articles, blogs, etc. use "Battle of" formatting, why should the Wikipedians then get to decide to divert from this long-practiced standard in favor of "Battle for", and how would we possibly monitor and moderate each entry as to whether it 'qualifies' for "Battle of" or "Battle for"? ] ] ] 15:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*:"Battle for" implies a specific target, i.e. the battle was specifically aimed at the place in question and not for some other objective. In many cases, and probably applying in Ukraine, many battles happened near populated places, or named localities, but probably weren't directly for them. For ex., the Battle of Waterloo only has anything to do with that town due to sheer location and historical coincidence. It would be very inaccurate to refer to it as the "Battle for Waterloo": that was not the thing that was being fought over. If Napoleon had met the Allied armies, at, I don't know, Mons or Charleroi, the battle would still have happened. "of" on the other hand is neutral and indeed merely descriptive (as it indeed does not apply any specific relationship other than location). And it is very much the standard widely used everywhere (including on Misplaced Pages, which does indeed reflect how external sources describe something...). In this case, both "battle of" and "battle for" seem to be used by sources, but since the former is usually more accurate and fits with the existing convention, it should be preferred unless there is clear evidence that a substantial majority of sources are not using that format. ] (] / ]) 00:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
::: Well, just scanning through them, most of the links listed above are for control of location cited, not simply happening at that location. If "control" and "target" is indeed what is guiding the choice of these article titles, then certainly "battle for" is warranted. ] (]) 03:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


{{collapse top|title=Methodology}}
:::{{U|RandomCanadian}} (just so U|Walrasiad doesn't think this might be directed to their comment), {{U|Srnec}} has addressed the key issue: that the nominated articles have titles that are WP constructed. Much of what is said in your response is opinion without reference to authorities or conjecture without any evidence or if evidence has been proffered elsewhere it does not discern that which is applicable to the key issue. Such statements have been pejoratively referred to as {{tq|WP:OR '''nonsense'''}} (even if not deserved since at least some evidence relevant to the point was offered). That ] is only a reasonable and valid argument if there is a sound basis for direct comparison. Painting with a broad brush does not consider the nuance of the key issue. To Waterloo, the battle is (almost universally) reported in good quality English language ]s as ] and as a ] (ie universally capped). However, it was fought at Mont Saint-Jean and the adjoining village of St Jean (see map in article). Wellington's senior officers were billeted at Waterloo some distance to the rear of the battlefield. In France, it was known as the Battle of Mont Saint-Jean. It just goes to show that the naming of "named" battles (in the format ""Battle of X") can be capricious and doesn't necessarily comply with your argument. ] (]) 09:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Results I ignored:
::::I said I was done replying to you, and I'll stand by that commitment, so please don't ping me or post long responses to my posts again. Solely for the benefit of others: the above is still repeating the same (discredited, and hence indeed bolded nonsense) notion that battles which are "proper names" are battles "of" while those which aren't are battles "for". See my posts from 22:20, 27 April; or 13:19, 26 April; for the existing refutations. ] (] / ]) 12:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
* Results from ] and its ]: ], ], others
* Results from other ]: ] and ]
* Results from ]: ] and ] videos, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ], blog sites, forums, ], and ]
* Results that only mentioned "battle of Kherson" in ], image captions, embedded Tweets, article category tags, "see also" sections, and/or elsewhere outside of the body of the article
* Results that were republished or otherwise duplicated through wire services, print syndication, live blogs, and/or news aggregation (])
* Results with unbreakable paywalls (note: this was only a problem with two (2) unfamiliar websites: StrategyAndFuture.org and GlobalSourcePartners.com)
* Clearly irrelevant or inappropriate results (including a video game set in Kherson and a reference to the 988 A.D ] of ])
{{collapse bottom}}


I welcome discussion on whether '''Battle of Kherson''' remains an appropriate article title in light of this evidence. Questions for consideration: Should a parenthetical disambiguator be added? Should "battle" be replaced with word|s used to describe these events more frequently, e.g. "Russian capture of Kherson"?
:::::{{ping|RandomCanadian}} My point is that "battle of X" is a bad descriptive construction ''because'' there are so many reasons that a battle can get named a certain way. Thus, we have "Battle of the Atlantic" and "Battle of Crete" and "Battle of the Bulge" and "Battle of the Golden Spurs". It is true that "battle of" most commonly is a descriptive title indicate the (approximate) location of a battle, but it is not clear enough to meet ]. If RS use the form "battle of X", however, that is enough. That is, if RS consider it an acceptable short descriptor (even if it does not yet rise to the level of a common name), I consider that good enough for WP:NDESC. But if we are looking for a ''descriptive'' title for an unnamed event, we should never use "battle of X" on our own authority. For reasons you yourself have given, "battle for" is probably good enough as a mere description, as would be, e.g., "battle off" (for naval engagements). ] (]) 16:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
] (]) 08:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{Reply to|Srnec}} The more I follow this conversation the more I'm starting to think neither option is fully ]... I think we should just be ]. I really don't see any practical benefit to the average user or visitor to Misplaced Pages besides semantic implications that are vaguely sourced at best both ways. I feel like changing it to "Battle for", even if it were to be technically more correct, which I'm neutral on (on its own), it would be burdensome to readers; especially those not as familiar with the English language since everything they come across will pretty much state "Battle ''of'' <x>". This in itself might even create the implication or indication to some that the article is politically motivated at first sight, which is something we of course don't want. ] ] ] 18:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::: The precise benefit is to avoid ] and ]. We really should not be imposing names not used in RS that have a likelihood to slip into proper names. RandomCanadian's assertion that it is just a manner of speech is unconvincing. It is careless speech, and poor titling. Unfortunately, not uncommon. I've seen ridiculous cases done here by Wiki editors, calling things "Battle of X" which were never called that - and sometimes were not even battles! I remember having had to reverse instances of, say, a pirate capturing an unarmed civilian vessel from being dignified with the the title of "Battle of Somalia"! Or a guy stealing an elephant cargo boat being titled "Battle of the Elephants"! I've seen plenty of obscure attacks, raids, skirmishes, even one-sided massacres of civilians, get lazily called "Battle of" here on Misplaced Pages by overenthusiastic editors. This is all really bad practice, and should not be encouraged.
::::::: Moreover, RandomCanadian is not even giving relevant examples. If you think things are only called "Battle of x", it is only because you are only recalling names of engagements (or series of engagements) historians have already settled on calling a "Battle of x". But they do not characterize every engagement that way, but tend to use it more sparingly. The ] is a well-established name in RS. But practically no RS will refer to the engagement at Fort Vaux as the "Battle of Fort Vaux", but only as the "battle ''for'' Fort Vaux".
::::::: Everything listed above are individual engagements, defined by the area for which control is being fought over. They may be subordinate parts of larger battles, sieges or just skirmishes hardly worth the name. It's not for us to guess which name will stick. "Battle for" is perfectly fine as a descriptive title, fits the area names we are using (i.e. after what is being fought over) and doesn't run the danger of imposing made-up Wiki-names on the world. Let us leave it to external sources and historians to name them. ] (]) 20:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::{{Reply to|Walrasiad}} Thanks for your insight. I do agree that overzealous editing can lead to skewed and problematic impressions. However, I also think that your negative experiences surrounding this '''could''' be influencing your view on this particular matter. That's not to assume bad faith though so please don't take it as such. As far as I'm aware it still holds true that most RS report most of the battles in the requested moves in the format ''"Battle of"'', although I admit I haven't done any deep research regarding the subject matter. If you have any ngrams or other convincing evidence that points to the contrary I'd definitely be in favor of that. As it stands I still think that ] demands we use ''"Battle of"'', particularly with regards to the recognizability aspect of it. I've gone through ] and could not find any existing naming convention (pertaining to Misplaced Pages specifically) and I do not know where we'd go to construct such a convention but we might want to do so, as I feel this conversation has extended beyond a normal move request and instead could/should be applied to a vast number of battles or conflicts. I'll ask around at the Village Pump to see if I can find anything, or any more experienced editors can of course tell us, I don't mind. Or they could just tell me it's a bad idea (and why preferably if so haha)
::::::::/rant ] ] ] 20:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


:The trouble is the events are so recent and so complex that its hard to know how future historians are going to qualify these; for example, from a historiographic perspective, the entire ] can reasonably be considered to be a singular large battle for Kherson, similar to the ]. A parenthesis disambiguator may be a band-aid fix for now, but this is definitely something that needs coming back to. ] (]) 09:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{U|Amadeus1999}}, all of the nominated moves have links to searches of news source attached (noting that the articles are only supported by news sources). Few if any give hits for ''actual'' usage of the search term and if they do, there is certainly not sufficient (one or two actual uses) to assert a ]. That is why they have been nominated. There simply isn't ngram evidence because it is too recent and ngrams are based on books. ] (]) 23:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


== Update on GA review comments above ==
*'''Comment''' I dislike mass-nominations like this becuase what might apply to one article, might not apply to another. There are 24 battles, 21 of which took place during the past month or so, during the recent ], while the other 3 are from earlier in the ], 2 from 2014 & the other from 2017 (cmiiw). I respect {{u|Cinderella157}} as they been contributing to MILHIST for a long time now. That said, I'm not sure why they feel a need to change these names, when {{fuchsia|A)}} it goes agaisnst an obviously well-established convention here for the naming format of battles, and {{fuchsia|B)}} it being so recent, we don't really know what version will become established in sources. Not just what newspapers are reporting now, but which format recognized historians will be using when they start writing books about the invasion, and war, and teaching about them in university courses. The war is not even over yet, (or the invasion for that matter).<p>Though this is looking like a snow-oppose, I'm not !voting either way. Instead, I will suggest that it would probably have been better to have waited, and/or address these battle names individually on their article talk pages, based on any unique merits that apply and, using the sourcing that is to come and is specific to each battle/article. {{small|(Sorry about the length.)}} Cheers & Good luck to you. - '']'' 03:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>


I have implemented some of the more minor recommendations made in the ]; I plan on leaving the remaining points to other editors, as I am less familiar with certain sections of this article. For the sake of convenience, I am leaving a record here of which changes I have applied.
== June 24 ==


{{collapse top|Changes}}
There are reports the Ukrainian Army is outside of Kherson City and have begun to enter. ] (]) 13:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
'''Lead/infobox'''
:What are the sources for these reports? ] (]) 17:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
* The lead needs to be expanded to double its current size, in order to be a better summary of the article (see ]). {{not done}}
* ''Kherson, Kherson Oblast, Ukraine'' in the infobox need only read ‘Kherson, Ukraine’. {{done}}
* Link ''192'' and ''194'' in the infobox ]. {{done}} '''(linked ''192nd Territorial Defense Battalion (Kherson)'' and ''194th Territorial Defense Battalion (Bilozerka)'' to ])'''
* Link ''personnel carrier''; ''rocket launcher''. {{done}} '''(linked ''armored personnel carriers'' and ''multiple rocket launchers'' to ] and ])'''
* I would consider enlarging the map to fit the infobox. {{not done}}
* ''The battle of Kherson'' – battle needs a capital (in both cases). {{not done}} '''(] and ] advise against this, and local consensus in Ukraine war articles is also very much against this)'''
* ''by Russian forces'' - imo should be within the middle of the sentence, not at the end. {{not done}}
* ''Kherson was the first major city'' - ‘Kherson is the first major city’ sounds better imo, as the war is still ongoing. {{not done}}


'''1.1 Russian invasion'''
== Theoretical ==
* Link ''Dmytro Ishchenko'' to Іщенко (Дмитро Миколайович (uk)), using Template:Interlanguage link. {{done}}
* Link ''column'' (]). {{done}}
* Dup link - ''Nova Kakhovka''. {{done}}
* ''a large Russian force'' – large is a redundant word here, and so can be removed. {{not done}}
* ''by Ukrainian military expert Serhii Hrabskyi'' – is unnecessary, and i would remove it. {{not done}}
* ''the town of Chaplynka'' – Chaplynka is much smaller than a town. {{not done}}
* ''for the city's defense'' - should be ‘for the defense of Kherson’ (as it has not yet been introduced). {{done}}
* ''The Kherson International Airport'' - simply ‘Kherson International Airport’? {{done}}
* ''Thereafter'' – ‘Afterwards’ sounds slightly less formal. {{done}}
* ''nearby'' makes no sense in this context. {{not done}}
* ''Antonivka'' links to a set index page, to the actual village, so the link needs to be replaced. {{done}} '''(links to ])'''
* ''of the Territorial Defense Forces.'' – not GA, but it is normal practice to have references in numerical order (this happens here and in other places in the article). {{done}} '''(I believe all such cases have now been addressed)'''


'''1.2 Battle for the Antonivka Road Bridge'''
So I asked this type of question before but couldn't find it, so I'll ask again I guess.
* Dup link - ''Antonivka''. {{done}}
* ''8 kilometers'' – all distances need to be in both km and miles (if not already done), use ]. {{done}}
* ''the city of Mykolaiv'' - this needs to be moved to where Mykolaiv is first introduced in the section. {{done}}


'''1.3 Ukrainian counterattack'''
If Ukraine were to recapture the city, would there be a second page like "Second Battle of Kherson" while this is "First Battle of Kherson"?
* Dup link – ''Oleshky.'' {{done}}
] (]) 17:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
* Link ''Tweet'' (]); ''the Kyiv Independent''; ''checkpoint'' (]). {{done}}
:Since it is an oblast capital (and the only one captured), wording is the key. If a new battle occurred, and the city is not recaptured, it would be the “Second Battle of Kherson”, and this would be renamed to the “First Battle of Kherson”. If the city is recaptured, it would make sense for the “Liberation of Kherson”, due to it being a capital. (Similar to ]). ] (]) 17:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
* I would call ''Radensk'' a village (or amend ''near the towns of Radensk and Oleshky'' to ‘near Radensk and Oleshky’). {{done}} '''(latter option)'''
:It is dependent on how ] cover it. It is not up to us to willy-nilly create titles for events. ] (]) 18:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
* ''in the town of Chornobaivka'' – perhaps ‘in Chornobaivka’, as it is a village. {{not done}}
::Uh it literally is, otherwise ] should be renamed. ] (]) 05:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
* There is a tag that needs to be sorted. {{not done}}


'''1.4 Encirclement and Russian victory'''
== Sources ==
* Dup links - ''Kherson International Airport''; ''124th Territorial Defense Brigade.'' {{done}}
* Link ''Lilac Park'' (Бузковий парк (uk)). {{done}}
* Link ''Kherson Refinery'' (and amend ''Kherson Oil Refinery'' to 'Kherson Refinery'). {{done}}
* Link ''Svobody Square'' (Площа Свободи (Херсон) (uk), amended to 'Freedom Square'). {{done}}
* "''finishing off''" – should be replaced with something less euphemistic (see MOS:EUPH). {{not done}}


'''2 Aftermath'''
Why are all of the article's sources coming from American, British or Ukrainian media?
* Dup link - ''CNN''. {{done}}
They remain too biased and must be balanced by Russian media too. ] (]) 01:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
* Link ''Ukrainian government'' (Government of Ukraine). {{done}} '''(Changed to ''a Ukrainian official'', I found ''Ukrainian government'' too vague)'''
:First of all, Russian sources are used like , secondly, all the sources used are ], so if you can find any Russian sources, that are ] and discuss this battle, feel free to add them. No bias is in the article. If you think there is a part that is biased, you can discuss it here. ] (]) 03:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
* Consider amending ''who were armed'' to ‘who they found armed’ to improve the prose slightly. {{not done}}
::I support ] statement.
::I would like to remark that Russian state affiliated sources are not often used since thy do not fall under the WP:RS due to their unreliable and often fabricated and generally unfactual nature.
::As people trying to promote accurate information we must recognize what the Russian state is doing in the information space and must take precautions since our objective differ from those of the Kremlin in this regard. ] (]) 05:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


'''4.1 Treachery and collaboration'''
== Requested move 2 September 2022 ==
* Unlink ''United States'' (]). {{done}}
* Consider linking ''Journal of Advanced Military Studies'' (School of Advanced Military Studies). {{done}}
* ''Chatham House think tank'' – ], consider amending to something like ...’Chatham House, the British-based think tank’. {{done}} '''('the Chatham House, a British-based think tank')'''
* Introduce and link ''Zelenskyy'' (using his full name). {{done}}
* Link ''aide'' (]); ''airstrike''. {{done}}
* I would simplify ...''Russia had its agents infiltrated into the Ukrainian security forces''.… to ‘Russia had its agents infiltrated into the Ukrainian security forces’. {{done}}
* ''SBU'' should be unabbreviated. {{done}} '''(])'''


'''4.2 Significance'''
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
* Some of the information in this section sounds obscure. ''El País'' – why is it notable that this newspaper described the defeat in this way? Is there a more general consensus that this is the case? Why is the information about the ‘measured spike in bots’ important enough to include here? {{not done}}
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''
* ''by analysts'' - seems unnecessary. {{not done}}


'''5 See also'''
The result of the move request was: '''not moved'''. <small>(])</small> ] (]) 01:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
* '']'' should not be included here, as the link is already in the text. {{done}}
----
* I would query including '']'' here. He is not particularly related to the article (see ]). {{done}} '''(I added a quote from his book in the article)'''
] → {{no redirect|First Battle of Kherson}} – This article is referring to the battle of Kherson in Feburary to March 2022, in the southern Ukraine offensive. The page should be renamed in order to avoid confusion with the battle of Kherson in the Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. ] (]) 14:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose and Wait''': For now, it would be good to stay under the ] article. As ] is an oblast capital (and the only one captured during the invasion thus far), it would be logical to rename the new/second battle, once it occurs to ], similar to the ] article if Kherson is recaptured. If it is not recaptured & the new battle warrants an article, then we can rename this to first battle and the other battle as second battle. For now, the “second battle” does not have an article by itself yet, so renaming is pointless. ] (]) 14:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Speedy close'''. Ukrainian forces haven't even arrived in Kherson. Why would we spend one single second into personal conjecture and hypotheses? ] ] ] 00:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Speedy oppose''' Concur with Super Dromaeosaurus above. Premature. ] (]) 00:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''&nbsp; Without a ] I see no ] to confuse it with.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


'''6 References'''
:When it happens it'll happen. ] (]) 16:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
* Ref 60 (Smart) has an error message. {{not done}}
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
* What makes you think Ref 20 (Twitter) is a reliable source? (see WP:USERG). {{not done}}
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>
* Ref 23 (Daily Sabah) has a tag. {{not done}}


* Ref 3 (Pavel Fitalyev) does not have the surname put before the first name. {{done}} '''(now reads Filatyev, Pavel)'''
== Add current events/update article with 2022 Ukrainian counteroffensive info? ==
* Avoid using Ukrainian text (e.g. Ref 5 (Рєуцький, Костянтин)), but include it where the words are also in English (e.g. "''Вони встали за Херсон. Історії оборонців вільного міста''" should read something like "Вони встали за Херсон. Історії оборонців вільного міста" ("They stood up for Kherson. Stories of the defenders of the free city"). {{not done}}
* Where articles are not in English, the language has not always been given (e.g. Ref 13 (Ukrainska Pravda)). {{done}} '''(I believe all of these have been addressed)'''
* Ref 14 (The Kyiv Independent) – link the newspaper. {{done}}
* The numerous quotes take up quite a lot of space and are not applied in a consistent way. Are they really needed? {{not done}}
* Ref 38 (Landry) has (News article), which is not needed. {{done}}


'''7 External links'''
From the infobox, it appears like this article wants to discuss both the prior & ongoing battle(s) of Kherson. However, the article as it stands has mostly information regarding the initial Russian offensive from February to March 2022, and then an "Aftermath" section without any information regarding the current situation. Is there precedent to make a new section in this article to reference the ] since it relates to the Kherson Oblast, or should we wait until more information becomes available? ] (]) 18:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Could this source not be incorporated into the article? {{not done}}


'''Spot checks''' {{not done}}
:No, the consensus with these past battles is that this article is limited in scope to the events of February and March. Anything new is to be covered at ]. ] (]) 18:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
::Pinging ]. ] (]) 20:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
:If sources call it the second battle or just battle, then it's to be merged, otherwise it'd remain on there (even with nova kakhovka, melitopol, etc ] (]) 16:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
:Agreed. Sources are not calling all the summer attacks and ongoing counteroffensive by ZSU as "Second Battle of Kherson" and such naming would cause further confusion because the battle continued in this area. ] (]) 03:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


] (]) 23:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2022-11-13T18:51:22.332448 | ZSU capture abandoned Russian ammo storage in Blahodatne.webm -->
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —] (]) 18:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


== Controversy section == == Discussion on use of Valentyna Romanova in casualties section ==


Romanova's article, on the topic of decentralization in Ukraine, makes a passing mention of Kherson, saying, without a citation footnote, that {{tq|the territorial defence unit – up to 300 military personnel – continued to defend the city when the Russian army entered Kherson in tanks. The entire Kherson territorial defence unit was shot in battle by the invaders}}, which is interpreted by editors on this page as {{tq|Ukraine sustained 300 military losses during the battle, with the entire Ukrainian defense force at Kherson having been killed during the fighting}}. This constitutes an ] claim and is easily disproven by sources that are far more appropriate to be used in this article like Ukrainska Pravda which managed to conduct interviews with no less than fourteen living former and current members of the 124th Brigade (the Kherson TrO) who resisted the Russian capture of Kherson: Ihor Likhnov, Mykhailo Baliuk, Ihor Kuraian, Mykola Zozulia, Ihor Hryhorenko, Stanislav Vazanov, Dmytro Ishchenko, Serhii Serheiev, Oleksandr Fediunin, Oleksii Vorontsov, Oleksandr Berezovskii, Oleksandr Kozak, Yevhen call sign "Snake", Oleh call sign "Bear" and photographed probably a dozen more. It is also mentioned in these articles that various additional surviving members of the territorial defense unit took part in guerrilla activities after the Russian capture of the city on 1 March, others joined a reconstituted 192th Battalion/124th Brigade after escaping to Ukrainian-controlled territory at Mykolaiv, and still others joined the 59th Motorized Brigade at Mykolaiv instead. About a dozen members of 194th Battalion/124th Brigade are also reported to have successfully fled the engagement in Buzkovyi (Lilac) Park; several others were taken prisoner by the Russians. Romanova fails ] hard. @] ] (]) 05:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey {{u|Curbon7}}. Since you added the controversy template to the article, do you have any immediate issues/see non-neutral issues with the section? I'm asking because after my copy/edit request out right now for the article, I was hoping to GAN it. Any thoughts would be useful. '''The ]''' (] 03:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:Let me add few more sources with which that chapter could be written: and and . ] (]) 08:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
::Compliments on locating these excellent sources. I will incorporate them into the article soon if no one else already has. ] (]) 15:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
*I just learned of this section. On the topic of the exceptional claim, all it sounds like is that the phrase in the article should be "{{tq|Ukraine sustained 300 military casualties during the battle, with the entire Ukrainian defense force at Kherson having been injured or killed during the fighting.}}" Doing that removes the "exceptional" claim aspect and allows the source to be used. I do not support the removal of it entirely nor the source as no discussion has formally stated the author or the authors organization is not a reliable source. '''The ]''' (] 21:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|1=300 military casualties}}<br>I think this number should be more detailed. As I remember from memory, the battle consisted from battles for and around the Antonivsky bridge, and the Lilac park Kherson battle, and perhaps others? I was reading only about Lilac park casualties, which were around 35-45 defenders killed. ] (]) 21:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
*::The source stated 300, so we can't go into more detail and get an original number. That would be more or less ] I believe. I could be wrong on that though. '''The ]''' (] 21:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


== Recent major changes ==
:Generally, such controversy sections should be intertwined with the article rather than separated out. Good luck on the GAN. ] (]) 18:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


Ok, {{u|SaintPaulOfTarsus}}, we need to talk because you just did a whole lot of changes without any talk page discussion. So, can you give some reasoning for the following (just wanting to make sure we have a discussion trail, since this was originally GANed, failed, and following the GAN fail, it seems so much is being altered.
== Natural and logical sectioning and organization ==
#Date ending on March 1?
#Why you are saying that from ] does not say the phrase "Battle of Kherson", when I just checked and it does. Since you added a "failed verification" tag to it now twice (twice I have checked and verified it), I plan to open a discussion at ] or request a third opinion (]) following this since this is a dispute on verification between myself and you it appears. {<small>Discussion started at ] '''The ]''' (] 16:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)}</small>
#Removing AP and ISW from the lead citations. This tacks on to the date changing it appears, but I am mentioning it separately, since plenty of sources say 2 March, including those, and you happen to change the date while removing the verification sources.
#Valentyna Romanova's citation. This also feels like something that should be discussed probably at RSN, since this is more of a dispute on reliability/usage rather than a true content dispute. If you agree that is probably the case, I would be willing to start that RSN discussion, so the larger community (basically not just me and you) can look at it and discuss it, specifically on reliability/usage.
'''The ]''' (] 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|1=Valentyna Romanova's citation}}<br>See sources above ] , with which this piece can be detailed. ] (]) 20:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


:Yes, the Telegraph article does refer to the "battle of Kherson" in a drop-down, which may not be readily apparent, but nor is it an authoritative source - particularly when by itself. The placement of that source (next to "battle of Kherson") is inappropriate. It's previous placement at the und of the sentence also appears inappropriate since it does not state an actual date when the "battle" began (only that it was in the first week of the invasion). ] (]) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
This way the timeline is subdivided, with each day as its own sub-subsection, isn't great. It doesn't make for a logical experience when looking at the table of contents. It might be possible to organize it by "phases" of the battle instead, like how ] does it. ] (]) 21:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding the date of the capture of the city, it is worth keeping in mind that ], as does the quality of a source; the three highly-detailed ] pieces, which are likely the best sources we'll have on this topic for a while, give the capture date as 1 March, as do the accounts of ], the participating Russian soldier. This does not necessarily contradict the breaking-news sources you would bring up to justify the capture date of 2 March, as they only say that Kolykhaiev announced in a 2 March message that the city was under occupation, but do not necessarily imply that the occupation had not already begun sometime the previous day.
:Do you have any suggestions? Maybe 24-28 Feb is around Kherson and then 1-2 March is in Kherson? But then again, 24 Feb had the airport strike plus 24-26 Feb involved the battles at the bridge, which is also in Kherson. I know what you mean that it isn't ideal, but I'm honestly not sure how else to organize it besides the timeline, since fighting took place around Kherson and in Kherson just about every day. '''The ]''' (] 21:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding the failed verification of ''The Daily Telegraph'' article, this appears to be your misunderstanding, as I explained on the RSN board you opened. But the underlying issue is a deeper one. We do not have sources that can verify the statement {{tq|the battle of Kherson began on 24 February 2022}}. This because the so-called "battle of Kherson" as described here is a Misplaced Pages construct that was wholly imagined by editors, who themselves defined its geographic and temporal scope. My analysis above, titled "]" is pertinent here. I intend on opening a move request discussion to a new title like ''Capture of Kherson'' or ''Russian capture of Kherson'' though other editors may have better suggestions. I reiterate that there are virtually no reliable sources supporting the framing of the clashes at the river crossing and the capture of the city as a single 5- or 6-day-long contiguous "battle of Kherson". Portraying these events in this manner may be ] and ].
::I see your point. I might try to do some research to find retrospectives on the battle that might help us with analyzing and organizing the article in a logical structure. ] (]) 21:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding ISW of 3 March 2022, see the first paragraph above regarding "age matters". Also the language of the source is that Russian forces {{tq|secured Kherson}} and {{tq|secured a negotiated surrender of Kherson}} on 2 March which does not necessarily contradict the assessment by more recent, long-form, retrospective, non-breaking-news sources that the city was captured 1 March. As for AP News of 5 March 2022, it included very little on Kherson, and only claimed that the city had been captured, but not on any particular date.
:::Hey {{u|HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith}}, I'm on a self-imposed 0RR restriction, but I think at least one reference (the NYT reference named under "falls" (<nowiki><ref name="falls"/></nowiki>) should probably be added next to the Russian victory in the infobox. Some of the battles, even when it is clear who the victor is also have a reference next to the "X victory" in the infobox, i.e. ]. Also, since there is a common mistake that Ukraine won the "Battle of Kherson" (due to some sources stating the "Battle of Kherson" was the event in November), the source should probably remain in the infobox at least for the time being. Thoughts? '''The ]''' (] 22:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding Romanova, I have several problems with your new interpretation of
::::I don't think that's necessary - there's a hatnote at the top of the article saying this isn't the same thing as the November event, and there's sourced text that say it was a Russian victory easily findable in the lead and article body. Per ], "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious". ] (]) 22:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:{{tq2|The Ukrainian armed forces had been protecting Kherson oblast since the Russian invasion, but they were defeated on 2 March 2022.The territorial defence unit – up to 300 military personnel – continued to defend the city when the Russian army entered Kherson in tanks. The entire Kherson territorial defence unit was shot in battle by the invaders.}}
:::I've reorganized it along the lines of the way does. Let me know if you have suggestions or criticism, I can adjust it. ] (]) 23:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:as
:{{tq2|Ukraine sustained 300 military casualties during the battle, with the entire Ukrainian defense force at Kherson having been injured or killed during the fighting.}}
:{{tq|Up to 300}} is not necessarily 300. Additionally, it is implied that the <u><</u>300 military casualties were allegedly sustained {{tq|when the Russian army entered Kherson in tanks}} on {{tq|2 March 2022}}, not over the entire period of time you call the "battle of Kherson".
:Also, my concerns regarding the source itself remain:
:* ] still applies: A 100% KIA or WIA rate for a military unit, especially when it is not described anywhere else, remains an extraordinary claim.
:* Contradictions with higher quality sources: High-quality, high-detail sources like ] disagree with almost every assertion made by Romanova's sentence here, including the aforementioned casualty rate of the TrO unit, the aforementioned date the Russian army entered Kherson, the size of the unit itself (closer to 500-600, not {{tq|up to 300}}), and the nature of the regular Ukrainian army's operations in Kherson (virtually none following the 24 February retreat)
:* The nature of the source itself: This is a paper on the topic of government decentralization in Ukraine. It makes a single passing mention of the combat in Kherson. Why you insist on retaining its unverifiable, dubious claims in the face of contradictions with information from high-quality, high-detailed sources that actually cover the combat in Kherson as a primary topic is simply beyond me. ] (]) 00:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


== Unit flags == == Map ==


An unsuccessful deletion request on Wikimedia Commons is not a sufficient reason to restore an image removed from an English Misplaced Pages article. Wikimedia Commons has significantly different policies regarding verifiability and reliable sources. The map continues to lack any cited sources, continues to portray unverifiable claims, and will continue to be unfit for English Misplaced Pages until it conforms with our policies. ] (]) 17:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I think a nice touch to the article would be to add some unit flags in the infobox like it was done in the ] page. ] (]) 22:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:What aspects of the map are not true? '''The ]''' (] 17:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
::Please see ] {{tq|Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.}}
::My objection is less about what I may think is inaccurate, and more about the fact that this is a highly-detailed village-level depiction of territorial control that is apparently sourced by nothing but thin air. ] (]) 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Usage: . Since your objection isn’t that it isn’t true & now that a source has been provided, I will re-revert to add the map back. '''The ]''' (] 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I fail to understand the relevance of your link to this dispute. Just because that map has been uploaded on some other website does not change its verifiability problems. That is not a source that verifies the map. ] (]) 19:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)


*The map was removed for lack of verifiability, as required by En Wiki. Commons does not have the same standards and its retention on commons is not material to the question here. Use of the map in the linked source falls to ]. There is a ] and ] to be met before reinstating the map that has not been met. ] (]) 04:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
:] recommends against this. ] (]) 22:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
*Map sources found at ]. No OR concerns anymore. '''The ]''' (] 15:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::😢 ] (]) 04:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:49, 8 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Kherson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
Good articlesBattle of Kherson was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 11, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion not met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconRussia: History / Politics and law High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconUkraine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 11–14 February 2024.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article contains a translation of Бої за Херсон from uk.wikipedia.


A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 2, 2024.

February 2024 checks

Hey SaintPaulOfTarsus, whenever you are done with all the changes for the article, shoot me a ping here. I was not anticipating really any changes to the article, so the article already went through a copy/edit and was a GA nomination.

Part of the GA nomination criteria is that the article doesn't change much day to day. So a ping would be much appreciated once the changes are done, since the copy/edit process probably needs to take place again and the GA nomination may need to be withdrawn pending it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to expedite my edits so that the process isn't interrupted too much. But there's a lot more information that can be added, especially from non-English sources. In my opinion, as it stands now the article barely scratches the surface. I'll make this my main priority and let you know when I'm done. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Kherson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WeatherWriter (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 17:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


Happy to review this article. I notice you are (as of the end of March) on a Wikibreak—please let me know when you are ready to start working with me on the review. AM

@Amitchell125: Hey Amitchell125! I am available to assist with any questions from the review anytime. My userpage says partial Wikibreak only because I am going to be active for roughly an hour a day. That said, I am available to respond to questions that arise from the GA review. Cheers and thank you for being willing to review the article! (Courtesy pinging @SaintPaulOfTarsus as they also contributed a ton to the article after the GAN was started.) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
WeatherWriter: Thank you. Your ping here reminded me of the discussion we had above in February, where I said I would let you know once I was done adding content to the article. Unfortunately offline life took priority and I never ended up making some of my intended edits, and probably will not do so for a while – I foresee another wikibreak in my near future. But I wanted to return the courtesy and make you aware that there is some information I plan on adding sometime in the future (nothing groundbreaking, just supplementary), as long as it can be done in a manner that doesn't jeopardize this nomination process. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter and SaintPaulOfTarsus: It would be helpful to allow me to complete my review comments once the article is stable. Is more time needed to update the article before I start? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Review comments

Leads section / infobox

  • The lead needs to be expanded to double its current size, in order to be a better summary of the article (see MOS:LEAD).
  • Kherson, Kherson Oblast, Ukraine in the infobox need only read ‘Kherson, Ukraine’.
  • Link 192 and 194 in the infobox 124th Territorial Defense Brigade (Ukraine).
  • Link personnel carrier; rocket launcher.
  • I would consider enlarging the map to fit the infobox.
  • The battle of Khersonbattle needs a capital (in both cases).
  • by Russian forces - imo should be within the middle of the sentence, not at the end.
  • Kherson was the first major city - ‘Kherson is the first major city’ sounds better imo, as the war is still ongoing.

1.1 Russian invasion

I have gone ahead and added a map to help understand the events of the battle. Please feel free to delete it if you wish. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Link Dmytro IshchenkoІщенко (Дмитро Миколайович (uk)), using Template:Interlanguage link.
  • Link column (Column (formation)).
  • Dup link - Nova Kakhovka.
  • a large Russian forcelarge is a redundant word here, and so can be removed.
  • by Ukrainian military expert Serhii Hrabskyi – is unnecessary, and i would remove it.
  • the town of Chaplynka – Chaplynka is much smaller than a town.
  • for the city's defense - should be ‘for the defense of Kherson’ (as it has not yet been introduced).
  • The Kherson International Airport - simply ‘Kherson International Airport’?
  • Thereafter – ‘Afterwards’ sounds slightly less formal.
  • nearby makes no sense in this context.
  • Antonivka links to a set index page, to the actual village, so the link needs to be replaced.
  • of the Territorial Defense Forces. – not GA, but it is normal practice to have references in numerical order (this happens here and in other places in the article).

1.2 Battle for the Antonivka Road Bridge

  • Dup link - Antonivka.
  • 8 kilometers – all distances need to be in both km and miles (if not already done), use Template:Convert.
  • the city of Mykolaiv - this needs to be moved to where Mykolaiv is first introduced in the section.

1.3 Ukrainian counterattack

  • Dup link – Oleshky.
  • Link Tweet (Tweet (social media)); the Kyiv Independent; checkpoint (Security checkpoint).
  • I would call Radensk a village (or amend near the towns of Radensk and Oleshky to ‘near Radensk and Oleshky’).
  • in the town of Chornobaivka – perhaps ‘in Chornobaivka’, as it is a village.
  • There is a tag that needs to be sorted.

1.4 Encirclement and Russian victory

  • Dup links - Kherson International Airport; 124th Territorial Defense Brigade.
  • Link Lilac Park (Бузковий парк (uk)).
  • Link Kherson Refinery (and amend Kherson Oil Refinery to 'Kherson Refinery').
  • Link Svobody Square (Площа Свободи (Херсон) (uk), amended to 'Freedom Square').
  • "finishing off" – should be replaced with something less euphemistic (see MOS:EUPH).

2 Aftermath

  • Dup link - CNN.
  • Link Ukrainian government (Government of Ukraine).
  • Consider amending who were armed to ‘who they found armed’ to improve the prose slightly.

4.1 Treachery and collaboration

  • Unlink United States (MOS:OL).
  • Consider linking Journal of Advanced Military Studies (School of Advanced Military Studies).
  • Chatham House think tankMOS:SOB, consider amending to something like ...’Chatham House, the British-based think tank’.
  • Introduce and link Zelenskyy (using his full name).
  • Link aide (Aide-de-camp); airstrike.
  • I would simplify ...Russia had its agents infiltrated into the Ukrainian security forces.… to ‘Russia had its agents infiltrated into the Ukrainian security forces’.
  • SBU should be unabbreviated.

4.2 Significance

  • Some of the information in this section sounds obscure. El País – why is it notable that this newspaper described the defeat in this way? Is there a more general consensus that this is the case? Why is the information about the ‘measured spike in bots’ important enough to include here?
  • by analysts - seems unnecessary.

5 See also

6 References

  • Ref 60 (Smart) has an error message.
  • What makes you think Ref 20 (Twitter) is a reliable source? (see WP:USERG).
  • Ref 23 (Daily Sabah) has a tag.
  • Strictly speaking the following is outside the scope of a GA review (as long as the references can be accessed and are relevant), but for GA the format used should be consistent (MOS:REFERENCES). Some points to consider:
  • Ref 3 (Pavel Fitalyev) does not have the surname put before the first name.
  • Avoid using Ukrainian text (e.g. Ref 5 (Рєуцький, Костянтин)), but include it where the words are also in English (e.g. "Вони встали за Херсон. Історії оборонців вільного міста" should read something like "Вони встали за Херсон. Історії оборонців вільного міста" ("They stood up for Kherson. Stories of the defenders of the free city").
  • Where articles are not in English, the language has not always been given (e.g. Ref 13 (Ukrainska Pravda)).
  • Ref 14 (The Kyiv Independent) – link the newspaper.
  • The numerous quotes take up quite a lot of space and are not applied in a consistent way. Are they really needed?
  • (not GA) Ref 38 (Landry) has (News article), which is not needed.

7 External links

  • Could this source not be incorporated into the article?

I have yet to do spot checks on the references, these will follow shortly. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks

(The version of the article use is this one.)

  • Ref 2 - OK
  • Refs 6/9 - both OK but here is no need to cite this statement (it is cited in the text of the article and is non-controversial).
  • Ref 19 - OK but mayor Ihor Kolykhaiev announced that Kherson remained under Ukrainian control – it was the website that reported it.
  • Ref 36 - The text is not cited by this reference.
  • Ref 41 - OK
  • Ref 50 - The text is not cited by this reference.
  • Ref 58 - OK
  • Ref 59 - described by analysts as "a gateway to Crimea" – this phrase was said by only one person.

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 11 April to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Failing

Failing the nomination due to a lack of activity, but hopefully this will soon be re-nominated. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

Overwhelming majority of use of term "Battle of Kherson" refers to different events

Kherson, we have a problem. My analysis below shows that an estimated 93% of instances of reliable sources using the term "Battle of Kherson" use it to refer to events not covered by this article whatsoever.

I performed a Google search for the exact string "Battle of Kherson" (not case-sensitive) on 13 April 2024. Of approximately 157 search results, I managed to access 47 unique pages from seemingly reliable sources (methodology is below) that used the term "Battle of Kherson" a total of 65 times. All direct quotes are included here with context. Notable authors (those with their own Misplaced Pages pages) have been denoted in parentheses.

4 sources use "Battle of Kherson" 4 times in reference to the February–March 2022 Russian takeover of the city

The Hindu, 10 November 2022

In early March 2022, Kherson was captured by Russia through intense fighting. The battle of Kherson proved to be the starting point to capturing and occupying the southern part of Ukraine while the battles for Kharkiv and Kyiv in the north progressed. Russia’s hold over Kherson since March 2022 enabled Moscow to capture the key port cities — Mariupol in the Sea Azov, and Odesa, thus expanding control.

Euromaidan Press, 18 November 2022

Stanislav Vasanov, call sign “Medic”, was a civilian fighter in the Kherson Territorial Defense Force and took part in the Battle of Kherson. Today, he serves as senior combat medic in the 192nd Kherson Battalion of the Territorial Defense Force (TDF).

WION, 21 February 2023

Battle of Kherson: It was invaded on the first day of the war. As per Al Jazeera, by the evening of February 24, Russia had reached the city and had secured the Antonivsky Bridge: the main crossing over the Dnipro River in the city of Kherson. Months later, in November, the bridge was blown up. In March, Russia claimed full control over Kherson, but a counteroffensive by Ukraine was able to push back Moscow's forces. The operation took months, but Ukrainian forces burst through the Russian front lines, targeting their communication, military, and transport assets. Finally, on November 9, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that Russian troops would be pulling out of Kherson.

India Today, 22 February 2023

During the Battle of Kherson, the bridge changed hands many times in an attempt by Russian forces to establish a path from Russian-held Crimea into central Ukraine.

43 sources use "Battle of Kherson" 61 times to mean a speculative future battle or as a synonym for August–November 2022 Ukrainian counteroffensive activity

The Telegraph, 27 July 2022

The coming battle of Kherson will in many ways be a reversal of May’s struggle for Severodonetsk, where Ukraine found itself trying to maintain an ever-dwindling bridgehead supplied by constantly shelled bridges.

Foreign Policy, 2 August 2022

The looming battle of Kherson will be one of Ukraine’s most important fights since the defense of Kyiv. With the smart use of its new arsenal and a bit of luck, Ukraine just might be able to turn the tide against the invaders and give the world a glimpse of what a Russian defeat looks like.

Atlantic Council, 2 August 2022

Preparations for a major Ukrainian counter-offensive in the south of the country have been underway since May. After weeks of minor advances in the surrounding countryside that have seen Ukrainian forces liberate more than fifty towns and villages, there is now a mounting sense that the Battle of Kherson is about to begin.

The looming Battle of Kherson is an event of unprecedented international importance. The outcome of this battle will shape the fate of Ukraine and the course of the war. A Russian victory could pave the way for the conquest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline and the complete subjugation of the country. If Ukraine is victorious, it may mark the beginning of the end for Vladimir Putin’s dreams of a new Russian Empire.

New York Sun, 6 August 2022 (James Brooke, former Russia bureau chief for VoA and Bloomberg)

“A Russian victory could pave the way for the conquest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline and the complete subjugation of the country,” the editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert Service, Peter Dickinson, wrote Tuesday in an essay titled: “Putin’s entire Ukraine invasion hinges on the coming Battle of Kherson.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer, 5 August 2022

So I was hoping to get some insight into Ukrainian military morale and readiness for the Battle of Kherson on this trip.

He told me he is eager for the Battle of Kherson to begin and plans to marry his girlfriend “if I am not killed.”

Yet this military thirst for justice opens the possibility that Ukraine can win the Battle of Kherson.

Politico, 30 August 2022 (Alexander Temerko, Ukrainian-born oligarch, formerly of the Russian MoD)

For the war to end quickly, however, we need a single overwhelming victory, and this victory should be claimed in the battle of Kherson. The bulk of combat-capable Ukrainian and Russian troops are currently concentrated in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of south Ukraine, and the Russian forces are clearly worse off, as they are badly battered from previous battles and cut off from logistics to easily resupply.

GeopoliticalMonitor.com, 31 August 2022

One way or another, the battle of Kherson is shaping up to be a decisive turning point in the war.

The National (Scotland), 1 September 2022

I don't intend to forecast exactly how long the Ukraine war will last, but its final duration will depend entirely on the outcome of the Battle of Kherson which started on August 29 and is likely to be the most critical military operation in Europe since 1945.

Daily Express, 3 September 2022 (Richard Spencer, foreign correspondent)

Journalist Richard Spencer discussed Ukrainian generals proclaiming that the Russian-occupied region of Kherson in Ukraine would be liberated, despite the assault starting in the last week of August... The region which is now under Russian control has been turned into a brutal battlefield. The battle of Kherson is a crucial one, and it has been heating up this week as Ukraine fight to retake and hold the region.

Experts have been paying close attention to the battle of Kherson, as it is an important region for Ukrainians to take back and hold.

Sky News Australia, 7 September 2022 (Phillips Payson O'Brien, military historian)

When the front line in Kherson showed only incremental Ukrainian advances after the first few days, Russian sources... began talking about how Ukraine had failed... though this view of the specific Battle of Kherson (if that’s what we are calling it) will almost certainly be shown to be wrong in the medium term, the overall notion that Russia can and is winning this war is wrong at this very moment.

If we look at the six months of war that has brought us to the Battle of Kherson we can see a Ukrainian military, state and people which are adapting, learning and strengthening.

The Ukrainian Army that is launching the Battle of Kherson is considerably more capable than the force that faced the Russians in February.

The Atlantic, 8 September 2022 (Phillips Payson O'Brien, military historian)

...even with the announcements of the Ukrainians’ transition to a more intense phase of the Battle of Kherson on August 29, we have not seen major attempts to push tanks through the Russian lines. Instead, we have seen Ukrainians probing up and down the line, trying to assess the location and strength of Russian forces, attack weak spots, advance cautiously, and, most of all, continue the regular attrition of Russian forces.

Exactly how long the renewed Battle of Kherson will continue is tricky to say. Even if Ukraine is relatively successful, this phase of accelerated attrition might last for several weeks; even if Russian forces collapse in some places, they may prove harder to dislodge from others.

NeoKohn.hu, 13 September 2022

In recent days, one thing has been on the minds of those who have been following the events in Ukraine with the attention that a World Cup deserves. The progress and outcome of the Battle of Kherson. Who will win, who will lose and what will be the consequences of the battle for the southern front? Will the road to Mykolaiv and Odessa be opened or will Russian domination of the Crimean peninsula be threatened?

The battle of Kherson may have very significant, possibly decisive, consequences for the war as a whole.

I think that if we take the very low-probability extreme outcomes out of the deck, we come to the conclusion that the Battle of Kherson will not be a turning point in the Russo-Ukrainian war at the strategic level. Perhaps not even at the operational level... I should explain why I think so. To do so, it is essential to consider the Battle of Kherson in the broader, grand strategic context of the war.

What does all this say about the possible outcome of the Battle of Kherson?

That is why I think it is not impossible that, years from now, we will look back on this “decisive” battle announced months in advance as the Battle of Kherson that made no difference at all.

Radar Armenia, 19 October 2022

The Battle of Kherson is announced. The Russian side is evacuating the civilian population and leadership to the left bank of the Dnieper.

Here, it is worth noting that the Russian side stands out for its information initiative announcing the "Battle of Kherson." In their own language: what is it for? Is some event or retreat in the works?

WBUR, 28 October 2022

For him, the battle of Kherson is also personal. After Kherson, the Ukrainians can turn to an even bigger prize, the Crimean Peninsula...

RadixUK.org, 4 November 2022 (Renaud Girard, French war correspondent)

This is why the upcoming battle of Kherson is important for both belligerents. It represents a critical turning point in the war. Should the Ukrainians succeed in retaking this regional capital...

News reports quoting Aleksandar Vučić (6–7 November 2022)

TASS, 6 November 2022 (Aleksandar Vučić, Serbian president)

The possible battle of Kherson will be decisive in the conflict in Ukraine and comparable with the Battle of Stalingrad during the World War II, President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic said...

"The next winter will be even harder than this one because we face the Battle of Stalingrad, the decisive battle in the war in Ukraine, the battle of Kherson..."

TheAsiaToday.org, 7 November 2022

The possible battle of Kherson will be decisive in the conflict in Ukraine and comparable with the Battle of Stalingrad during World War II, President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic said...

“We face a challenging time. The next winter will be even harder than this one because we face the Battle of Stalingrad, the decisive battle in the war in Ukraine, and the battle of Kherson...

The Guardian, 7 November 2022

Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vučić has said he expects the battle of Kherson to be the defining battle of the war.

News reports quoting the Institute for the Study of War (9–11 November 2022)

Institute for the Study of War, 9 November 2022

The battle of Kherson is not over, but Russian forces have entered a new phase—prioritizing withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely.

The battle of Kherson is not inherently over, but Russian forces have entered a new phase— prioritizing withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely.

Al Jazeera, 10 November 2022

“The battle of Kherson is not over, but Russian forces have entered a new phase – prioritizing withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely,” the Institute for the Study of War, a think-tank, said on Wednesday.

The Straits Times, 10 November 2022

“The battle of Kherson is not inherently over,” said The Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think tank.

PolskieRadio.Pl, 10 November 2022

The Washington-based think tank said: “The entire Russian contingent will take some time to withdraw across the Dnipro River and it is still unclear if Russian forces will be able to conduct the withdrawal in relatively good order under Ukrainian pressure. The battle of Kherson is not over, but Russian forces have entered a new phase—prioritising withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely.”

Barron's/AFP, 10 November 2022

"The battle of Kherson is not inherently over," said The Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think tank. "But Russian forces have entered a new phase -- prioritising withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely."

ThePrint.In, 11 November 2022

However, experts warn that this should not be seen as Russia conceding defeat in Kherson oblast (province). The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a think-tank based in Washington D.C., cautioned that the “battle of Kherson” was not over, but the that Russian forces were entering a fresh phase —“prioritising withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely”.

CNBC, 11 November 2022

“The battle of Kherson is not over, but Russian forces have entered a new phase — prioritizing withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely,” analysts at the Institute for the Study of War noted Wednesday evening.

Firstpost, 11 November 2022

However, military experts believe the Russian announcement is not a russe. “The battle of Kherson is not inherently over,” said The Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think-tank. “But Russian forces have entered a new phase – prioritising withdrawing their forces across the river in good order and delaying Ukrainian forces, rather than seeking to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive entirely.”

News reports quoting Jake Sullivan (10–13 November 2022)

USA Today, 10 November 2022 (Jake Sullivan, U.S. National Security Advisor)

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters Thursday the U.S. is keeping a close eye on whether the Russians actually pull out of Kherson, which would represent a "significant military milestone" for Kyiv's forces. "If this does come to pass, that will mean in the battle of Kyiv, in the battle of Kherson, in the battle of Kharkiv, the Ukrainians will have prevailed against an invading, marauding force that conducted an illegal war in their country," Sullivan said. "But of course, it's not the end of the war."

Censor.NET, 11 November 2022

According to him, Russia's withdrawal to the left bank of the Kherson region will be an "important military event" for Ukraine. "If this happens, it will mean that in the battle of Kyiv, in the battle of Kherson, in the battle of Kharkiv, the Ukrainians will be victorious over the invading marauding army that was waging an illegal war in their country," Sullivan said.

Newsweek, 13 November 2022

U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said the United States will continue monitoring Russia's claim of retreating Kherson. Sullivan said it would be a major win, but not necessarily the end of war. "If this does come to pass, that will mean in the battle of Kyiv, in the battle of Kherson, in the battle of Kharkiv, the Ukrainians will have prevailed against an invading, marauding force that conducted an illegal war in their country," Sullivan said in the USA Today. "But of course, it's not the end of the war."

Atlantic Council, 10 November 2022 (Andriy Zagorodnyuk, former Ukrainian Minister of Defense)

Russia’s November 9 announcement of a general withdrawal from Kherson is further confirmation that Vladimir Putin is losing the war. The Battle of Kherson itself is still far from over, of course. Ahead are days and possibly weeks of further fighting as tens of thousands of Russian troops attempt to withdraw in good order from strongly entrenched defensive positions.

...it is already apparent that the Battle of Kherson will end in a landmark Ukrainian victory that will have major ramifications for the further conduct of the war.

The Kyiv Independent, 11 November 2022 (Illia Ponomarenko, Ukrainian war reporter)

The Battle of Kherson is the most far-reaching Ukrainian success since the Battle of Kyiv. It is also the heaviest blow to Russian pride, morale, and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership throughout the war.

The Bulwark, 11 November 2022 (Cathy Young, Russian-American journalist)

...pro-Russian Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić declared that the impending battle of Kherson was going to become “the decisive battle in the war in Ukraine,” comparable to the Battle of Stalingrad during World War II. He was echoed, in an interview published Tuesday, by noted Russian “political analyst,” former Duma member, and onetime Putin adviser Sergei Markov, who waxed hopeful that the battle of Kherson would “become for the Ukrainian Armed Forces what Stalingrad became for the Wehrmacht.”

Revolucion.org.es, 14 November 2022

A huge triumph of the workers and the people of Ukraine has occurred on November 12, 2022 with the capture of the city of Kherson, the regional capital of southern Ukraine. The triumph of the battle of Kherson implies a heavy defeat for Putin and the world counterrevolution. The people of Ukraine celebrate the revolutionary triumph in Kherson that strengthens the struggle of all the peoples of the world, and the millions of activists who carry out a global revolutionary wave against capitalism...

The triumph of the battle of Kherson is the triumph of a revolutionary war of national liberation

Newsweek, 17 November 2022 (John Spencer, war researcher and former military officer)

...the lack of solidly defensible urban positions, combined with the lack of a truly motivated fighting force and the superior range of Ukrainian MLRS capabilities, meant that the Battle of Kherson was more likely to end in a withdrawal, as it did, than in a head-on collision.

The White House, 21 December 2022 (Joe Biden)

Ukraine has won the battle of Kyiv, has won the battle of Kherson, has won the battle of Kharkiv. Ukraine has defied Russia’s expectations at every single turn.

U.S. Department of Defense, 16 February 2023 (Lloyd Austin, U.S. Secretary of Defense)

Now, we've seen them make good use of the capabilities that we provided to this point. They won the Battle of Kharkiv. They won the Battle of Kyiv. They won the Battle of Kherson. They've inflicted significant damage on Russia's lands forth -- land forces, and they've held their own in a very contested battle in the Donbas.

PBS, 20 February 2023

...he gave us other videos from the battle of Kherson, where he called in the location of Russian tanks so one could be hit with a Ukrainian strike.

The Conversation, 23 February 2023

Having won the battle of Kherson and retaken a poorly defended Kharkiv region in a lightning assault, the lines have been drawn for the next, and decisive stage.

NewLinesMag.com, 26 July 2023 (Michael Weiss, foreign policy writer)

The Hollywood-tailored excitement of the Battles of Kyiv and Kharkiv may have unduly raised the bar for what Ukraine can accomplish in short order. Yet the Battle of Kherson, begun in August 2022, was a long, hard slog, the bulk of which garnered comparatively little contemporaneous front-page coverage — until all of a sudden it did. That operation culminated four months later with an announced Russian withdrawal.

Le Monde, 7 July 2023 (Florence Aubenas, war correspondent)

The guns were salvaged from an Ouragan tank and Russian Grads, spoils of war from the Battle of Kherson.

Academic paper (accessed through ResearchGate), October 2023

Ukraine’s counteroffensive operations can be divided into two major phases. The first phase includes counteroffensive operations that caught Russian decision-makers off guard. Because Russia was still waging its offensive operation while the Ukrainian counteroffensive was underway, these came as a surprise to the Russianarmy. The first phase of Ukraine’s counteroffensives included the Battle of Kyiv, the Battle of Kharkiv, and the Battle of Kherson. Russia’s primary goal was undoubtedly to capture Kyiv.

CBS News, 10 December 2023 (Scott Pelley, former television anchor and war reporter)

Citizens of Kherson who gave the "last full measure of their devotion" look to their city from a hill. The battle of Kherson would ultimately be their victory over the arrogance of the Kremlin.

European Union, 23 January 2024 (Josep Borrell, EU foreign affairs representative)

The Ukrainian armed forces won the Battle of Kyiv, they won the Battle of Kherson, they liberated more than half of the territory Russia had captured, broke the blockade of Black Sea ports and forced Russia to withdraw the bulk of its fleet from occupied Crimea.

Methodology

Results I ignored:

I welcome discussion on whether Battle of Kherson remains an appropriate article title in light of this evidence. Questions for consideration: Should a parenthetical disambiguator be added? Should "battle" be replaced with word|s used to describe these events more frequently, e.g. "Russian capture of Kherson"? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The trouble is the events are so recent and so complex that its hard to know how future historians are going to qualify these; for example, from a historiographic perspective, the entire 2022 Kherson counteroffensive can reasonably be considered to be a singular large battle for Kherson, similar to the Battle of Berlin. A parenthesis disambiguator may be a band-aid fix for now, but this is definitely something that needs coming back to. Curbon7 (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Update on GA review comments above

I have implemented some of the more minor recommendations made in the GA review above; I plan on leaving the remaining points to other editors, as I am less familiar with certain sections of this article. For the sake of convenience, I am leaving a record here of which changes I have applied.

Changes

Lead/infobox

  • The lead needs to be expanded to double its current size, in order to be a better summary of the article (see MOS:LEAD).  Not done
  • Kherson, Kherson Oblast, Ukraine in the infobox need only read ‘Kherson, Ukraine’.  Done
  • Link 192 and 194 in the infobox 124th Territorial Defense Brigade (Ukraine).  Done (linked 192nd Territorial Defense Battalion (Kherson) and 194th Territorial Defense Battalion (Bilozerka) to 124th Territorial Defense Brigade (Ukraine)#Structure)
  • Link personnel carrier; rocket launcher.  Done (linked armored personnel carriers and multiple rocket launchers to armored personnel carrier and multiple rocket launcher)
  • I would consider enlarging the map to fit the infobox.  Not done
  • The battle of Kherson – battle needs a capital (in both cases).  Not done (MOS:MILTERMS and MOS:MIL#Events advise against this, and local consensus in Ukraine war articles is also very much against this)
  • by Russian forces - imo should be within the middle of the sentence, not at the end.  Not done
  • Kherson was the first major city - ‘Kherson is the first major city’ sounds better imo, as the war is still ongoing.  Not done

1.1 Russian invasion

  • Link Dmytro Ishchenko to Іщенко (Дмитро Миколайович (uk)), using Template:Interlanguage link.  Done
  • Link column (Column (formation)).  Done
  • Dup link - Nova Kakhovka.  Done
  • a large Russian force – large is a redundant word here, and so can be removed.  Not done
  • by Ukrainian military expert Serhii Hrabskyi – is unnecessary, and i would remove it.  Not done
  • the town of Chaplynka – Chaplynka is much smaller than a town.  Not done
  • for the city's defense - should be ‘for the defense of Kherson’ (as it has not yet been introduced).  Done
  • The Kherson International Airport - simply ‘Kherson International Airport’?  Done
  • Thereafter – ‘Afterwards’ sounds slightly less formal.  Done
  • nearby makes no sense in this context.  Not done
  • Antonivka links to a set index page, to the actual village, so the link needs to be replaced.  Done (links to Antonivka, Kherson Raion, Kherson Oblast)
  • of the Territorial Defense Forces. – not GA, but it is normal practice to have references in numerical order (this happens here and in other places in the article).  Done (I believe all such cases have now been addressed)

1.2 Battle for the Antonivka Road Bridge

  • Dup link - Antonivka.  Done
  • 8 kilometers – all distances need to be in both km and miles (if not already done), use Template:Convert.  Done
  • the city of Mykolaiv - this needs to be moved to where Mykolaiv is first introduced in the section.  Done

1.3 Ukrainian counterattack

  • Dup link – Oleshky.  Done
  • Link Tweet (Tweet (social media)); the Kyiv Independent; checkpoint (Security checkpoint).  Done
  • I would call Radensk a village (or amend near the towns of Radensk and Oleshky to ‘near Radensk and Oleshky’).  Done (latter option)
  • in the town of Chornobaivka – perhaps ‘in Chornobaivka’, as it is a village.  Not done
  • There is a tag that needs to be sorted.  Not done

1.4 Encirclement and Russian victory

  • Dup links - Kherson International Airport; 124th Territorial Defense Brigade.  Done
  • Link Lilac Park (Бузковий парк (uk)).  Done
  • Link Kherson Refinery (and amend Kherson Oil Refinery to 'Kherson Refinery').  Done
  • Link Svobody Square (Площа Свободи (Херсон) (uk), amended to 'Freedom Square').  Done
  • "finishing off" – should be replaced with something less euphemistic (see MOS:EUPH).  Not done

2 Aftermath

  • Dup link - CNN.  Done
  • Link Ukrainian government (Government of Ukraine).  Done (Changed to a Ukrainian official, I found Ukrainian government too vague)
  • Consider amending who were armed to ‘who they found armed’ to improve the prose slightly.  Not done

4.1 Treachery and collaboration

  • Unlink United States (MOS:OL).  Done
  • Consider linking Journal of Advanced Military Studies (School of Advanced Military Studies).  Done
  • Chatham House think tankMOS:SOB, consider amending to something like ...’Chatham House, the British-based think tank’.  Done ('the Chatham House, a British-based think tank')
  • Introduce and link Zelenskyy (using his full name).  Done
  • Link aide (Aide-de-camp); airstrike.  Done
  • I would simplify ...Russia had its agents infiltrated into the Ukrainian security forces.… to ‘Russia had its agents infiltrated into the Ukrainian security forces’.  Done
  • SBU should be unabbreviated.  Done (Security Service of Ukraine)

4.2 Significance

  • Some of the information in this section sounds obscure. El País – why is it notable that this newspaper described the defeat in this way? Is there a more general consensus that this is the case? Why is the information about the ‘measured spike in bots’ important enough to include here?  Not done
  • by analysts - seems unnecessary.  Not done

5 See also

  • 2022 Chornobaivka attacks should not be included here, as the link is already in the text.  Done
  • I would query including Pavel Filatyev here. He is not particularly related to the article (see MOS:ALSO).  Done (I added a quote from his book in the article)

6 References

  • Ref 60 (Smart) has an error message.  Not done
  • What makes you think Ref 20 (Twitter) is a reliable source? (see WP:USERG).  Not done
  • Ref 23 (Daily Sabah) has a tag.  Not done
  • Ref 3 (Pavel Fitalyev) does not have the surname put before the first name.  Done (now reads Filatyev, Pavel)
  • Avoid using Ukrainian text (e.g. Ref 5 (Рєуцький, Костянтин)), but include it where the words are also in English (e.g. "Вони встали за Херсон. Історії оборонців вільного міста" should read something like "Вони встали за Херсон. Історії оборонців вільного міста" ("They stood up for Kherson. Stories of the defenders of the free city").  Not done
  • Where articles are not in English, the language has not always been given (e.g. Ref 13 (Ukrainska Pravda)).  Done (I believe all of these have been addressed)
  • Ref 14 (The Kyiv Independent) – link the newspaper.  Done
  • The numerous quotes take up quite a lot of space and are not applied in a consistent way. Are they really needed?  Not done
  • Ref 38 (Landry) has (News article), which is not needed.  Done

7 External links Could this source not be incorporated into the article?  Not done

Spot checks  Not done

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on use of Valentyna Romanova in casualties section

Romanova's article, on the topic of decentralization in Ukraine, makes a passing mention of Kherson, saying, without a citation footnote, that the territorial defence unit – up to 300 military personnel – continued to defend the city when the Russian army entered Kherson in tanks. The entire Kherson territorial defence unit was shot in battle by the invaders, which is interpreted by editors on this page as Ukraine sustained 300 military losses during the battle, with the entire Ukrainian defense force at Kherson having been killed during the fighting. This constitutes an WP:exceptional claim and is easily disproven by sources that are far more appropriate to be used in this article like Ukrainska Pravda 1 2 3 which managed to conduct interviews with no less than fourteen living former and current members of the 124th Brigade (the Kherson TrO) who resisted the Russian capture of Kherson: Ihor Likhnov, Mykhailo Baliuk, Ihor Kuraian, Mykola Zozulia, Ihor Hryhorenko, Stanislav Vazanov, Dmytro Ishchenko, Serhii Serheiev, Oleksandr Fediunin, Oleksii Vorontsov, Oleksandr Berezovskii, Oleksandr Kozak, Yevhen call sign "Snake", Oleh call sign "Bear" and photographed probably a dozen more. It is also mentioned in these articles that various additional surviving members of the territorial defense unit took part in guerrilla activities after the Russian capture of the city on 1 March, others joined a reconstituted 192th Battalion/124th Brigade after escaping to Ukrainian-controlled territory at Mykolaiv, and still others joined the 59th Motorized Brigade at Mykolaiv instead. About a dozen members of 194th Battalion/124th Brigade are also reported to have successfully fled the engagement in Buzkovyi (Lilac) Park; several others were taken prisoner by the Russians. Romanova fails WP:ECREE hard. @WeatherWriter SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me add few more sources with which that chapter could be written: Key Ukrainian city's rapid fall leaves unanswered questions | AP News and Херсон. Репортаж Елены Костюченко, который «Новая газета» удалила по требованию Роскомнадзора (zona.media) and Битва за Антоновский мост и победа ВСУ под Николаевом. Как и почему Украина пропустила армию РФ из Крыма в феврале 2022 года - BBC News Русская служба . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Compliments on locating these excellent sources. I will incorporate them into the article soon if no one else already has. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I just learned of this section. On the topic of the exceptional claim, all it sounds like is that the phrase in the article should be "Ukraine sustained 300 military casualties during the battle, with the entire Ukrainian defense force at Kherson having been injured or killed during the fighting." Doing that removes the "exceptional" claim aspect and allows the source to be used. I do not support the removal of it entirely nor the source as no discussion has formally stated the author or the authors organization is not a reliable source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    300 military casualties
    I think this number should be more detailed. As I remember from memory, the battle consisted from battles for and around the Antonivsky bridge, and the Lilac park Kherson battle, and perhaps others? I was reading only about Lilac park casualties, which were around 35-45 defenders killed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    The source stated 300, so we can't go into more detail and get an original number. That would be more or less original research I believe. I could be wrong on that though. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent major changes

Ok, SaintPaulOfTarsus, we need to talk because you just did a whole lot of changes without any talk page discussion. So, can you give some reasoning for the following (just wanting to make sure we have a discussion trail, since this was originally GANed, failed, and following the GAN fail, it seems so much is being altered.

  1. Date ending on March 1?
  2. Why you are saying that this article from The Daily Telegraph does not say the phrase "Battle of Kherson", when I just checked and it does. Since you added a "failed verification" tag to it now twice (twice I have checked and verified it), I plan to open a discussion at WP:RSN or request a third opinion (WP:3O) following this since this is a dispute on verification between myself and you it appears. {Discussion started at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Verification of a phrase The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)}
  3. Removing AP and ISW from the lead citations. This tacks on to the date changing it appears, but I am mentioning it separately, since plenty of sources say 2 March, including those, and you happen to change the date while removing the verification sources.
  4. Valentyna Romanova's citation. This also feels like something that should be discussed probably at RSN, since this is more of a dispute on reliability/usage rather than a true content dispute. If you agree that is probably the case, I would be willing to start that RSN discussion, so the larger community (basically not just me and you) can look at it and discuss it, specifically on reliability/usage.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Valentyna Romanova's citation
See sources above Talk:Battle of Kherson#c-Manyareasexpert-20240622083600-SaintPaulOfTarsus-20240622052900 , with which this piece can be detailed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the Telegraph article does refer to the "battle of Kherson" in a drop-down, which may not be readily apparent, but nor is it an authoritative source - particularly when by itself. The placement of that source (next to "battle of Kherson") is inappropriate. It's previous placement at the und of the sentence also appears inappropriate since it does not state an actual date when the "battle" began (only that it was in the first week of the invasion). Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the date of the capture of the city, it is worth keeping in mind that WP:AGE MATTERS, as does the quality of a source; the three highly-detailed Ukrainian Pravda pieces, which are likely the best sources we'll have on this topic for a while, give the capture date as 1 March, as do the accounts of Filatyev, the participating Russian soldier. This does not necessarily contradict the breaking-news sources you would bring up to justify the capture date of 2 March, as they only say that Kolykhaiev announced in a 2 March message that the city was under occupation, but do not necessarily imply that the occupation had not already begun sometime the previous day.
Regarding the failed verification of The Daily Telegraph article, this appears to be your misunderstanding, as I explained on the RSN board you opened. But the underlying issue is a deeper one. We do not have sources that can verify the statement the battle of Kherson began on 24 February 2022. This because the so-called "battle of Kherson" as described here is a Misplaced Pages construct that was wholly imagined by editors, who themselves defined its geographic and temporal scope. My analysis above, titled "Overwhelming majority of use of term "Battle of Kherson" refers to different events" is pertinent here. I intend on opening a move request discussion to a new title like Capture of Kherson or Russian capture of Kherson though other editors may have better suggestions. I reiterate that there are virtually no reliable sources supporting the framing of the clashes at the river crossing and the capture of the city as a single 5- or 6-day-long contiguous "battle of Kherson". Portraying these events in this manner may be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
Regarding ISW of 3 March 2022, see the first paragraph above regarding "age matters". Also the language of the source is that Russian forces secured Kherson and secured a negotiated surrender of Kherson on 2 March which does not necessarily contradict the assessment by more recent, long-form, retrospective, non-breaking-news sources that the city was captured 1 March. As for AP News of 5 March 2022, it included very little on Kherson, and only claimed that the city had been captured, but not on any particular date.
Regarding Romanova, I have several problems with your new interpretation of

The Ukrainian armed forces had been protecting Kherson oblast since the Russian invasion, but they were defeated on 2 March 2022.The territorial defence unit – up to 300 military personnel – continued to defend the city when the Russian army entered Kherson in tanks. The entire Kherson territorial defence unit was shot in battle by the invaders.

as

Ukraine sustained 300 military casualties during the battle, with the entire Ukrainian defense force at Kherson having been injured or killed during the fighting.

Up to 300 is not necessarily 300. Additionally, it is implied that the <300 military casualties were allegedly sustained when the Russian army entered Kherson in tanks on 2 March 2022, not over the entire period of time you call the "battle of Kherson".
Also, my concerns regarding the source itself remain:
  • WP:ECREE still applies: A 100% KIA or WIA rate for a military unit, especially when it is not described anywhere else, remains an extraordinary claim.
  • Contradictions with higher quality sources: High-quality, high-detail sources like Ukrainian Pravda disagree with almost every assertion made by Romanova's sentence here, including the aforementioned casualty rate of the TrO unit, the aforementioned date the Russian army entered Kherson, the size of the unit itself (closer to 500-600, not up to 300), and the nature of the regular Ukrainian army's operations in Kherson (virtually none following the 24 February retreat)
  • The nature of the source itself: This is a paper on the topic of government decentralization in Ukraine. It makes a single passing mention of the combat in Kherson. Why you insist on retaining its unverifiable, dubious claims in the face of contradictions with information from high-quality, high-detailed sources that actually cover the combat in Kherson as a primary topic is simply beyond me. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Map

An unsuccessful deletion request on Wikimedia Commons is not a sufficient reason to restore an image removed from an English Misplaced Pages article. Wikimedia Commons has significantly different policies regarding verifiability and reliable sources. The map continues to lack any cited sources, continues to portray unverifiable claims, and will continue to be unfit for English Misplaced Pages until it conforms with our policies. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

What aspects of the map are not true? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Please see WP:V Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.
My objection is less about what I may think is inaccurate, and more about the fact that this is a highly-detailed village-level depiction of territorial control that is apparently sourced by nothing but thin air. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Usage: . Since your objection isn’t that it isn’t true & now that a source has been provided, I will re-revert to add the map back. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I fail to understand the relevance of your link to this dispute. Just because that map has been uploaded on some other website does not change its verifiability problems. That is not a source that verifies the map. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Categories: