Talk:Battle of Kherson: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:39, 14 April 2024 editSaintPaulOfTarsus (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,042 edits →Overwhelming majority of use of term "Battle of Kherson" refers to different events: new sectionTag: New topic ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:49, 8 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk \| contribs)Bots1,374,333 editsm Archiving 5 discussions to Talk:Battle of Kherson/Archive1. (BOT)
(27 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:

	{{Talk header~~\|age=365~~}}		{{Talk header}}
	{{FailedGA\|07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)\|topic=Warfare\|page=1\|oldid=1217094635}}		{{FailedGA\|07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)\|topic=Warfare\|page=1\|oldid=1217094635}}
	{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|e-e}}		{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|e-e}}
Line 23:		Line 23:
	}}		}}
	{{OnThisDay\|date1=2024-03-02\|oldid1=1211264239}}		{{OnThisDay\|date1=2024-03-02\|oldid1=1211264239}}

	== 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 ==

	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)

	: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)

	== Natural and logical sectioning and organization ==

	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)
	: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)
	::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)
	:::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)
	::::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)
	:::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)

	== Unit flags ==

	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)

	:] recommends against this. ] (]) 22:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	::😢 ] (]) 04:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::@], the link you've provided appears to refer to infoboxes for military conflicts as ''exceptions'' to ]. ] (]) 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

	:::Read it in full. It is not a blanket exception. ] (]) 05:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

	== Edit request: "Teroboronov" ==

	Please change "Kherson Teroboronov" to "Kherson ]," which is the English equivalent of the term that appears in the Ukrainian article. ] (]) 17:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	:{{done}} '''The ]''' (] 17:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

	== WP:SYNTH: "Beginning the battle of Mykolaiv" ==

	In the "Aftermath" section, the following sentence appears to violate ]:

	Later in March, Russia advanced westward, beginning the ].

	I'm making this claim because it seems that this sentence '''reaches a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source''' - the NYT article makes no mention of the Russian westward troop movement marking the beginning of a battle. Indeed, the bulk of RS report on combat in and around Mykolaiv well before the fall of Kherson, including during the last few days of February. ] (]) 17:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	:{{done}} — Removed. '''The ]''' (] 17:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

	== Inconsistency in spelling of the surname of Kherson's mayor ==

	The spellings "Kolykhaev," "Kolykhaiev," and "Kolykhayev" are variably used. ] (]) 17:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

	:Good catch. It's a bit like the Zelenskyy/Zelensky/Zelenskiy situation, where there is no established transliteration of his surname so RS use various different ones - but in this article, we should stick to one, preferably the one used in the name of his article. I'll try to get to this when I have time. ] (]) 18:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	::I just went through and changed them all to ] to match the title of his Wiki article. '''The ]''' (] 19:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

	== Bullet points ==

	Hey {{u\|Cinderella157}}, I got a question. I looked over ] and I am unable to locate where it says bullet points are not allowed. Could you point me to that and/or quote where it says that? '''The ]''' (] 23:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

	:See section on infoboxes. It gives voice to the template documentation and explicitly states what is allowed. Dot points are not included in what is allowed. ] (]) 23:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	:Hi ], I took a look at the bullet points you had added and had a question about their content. Note that this is not related to the question on whether or not ] allows for the use of bullet points, I just wasn't sure where else to put this - feel free to remove my reply and discuss elsewhere if you prefer.
	:*Russia captures ] and most of ]
	:To avoid possible ] I wanted to ask you to justify the implication that the ] was the '''result''' of a battle that took place only "in and around Kherson" according to the infobox and the content of the body. To geographically illustrate what I mean, out of the five raions of the Kherson Oblast, it is not clear how control over substantial parts of ], ], ], and ] would have been affected by this battle.
	:] (]) 00:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
	::It wouldn't have been a synth violation. Some sources do state that fact. , "Russian troops attacking from the illegally annexed Crimean Peninsula quickly captured most of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblast" and ] , "Russian forces hold most of the part of the Kherson region that is on the east bank of the Dnieper." Exact raion controll wouldn't matter too much since sources state Russia had control of most of the oblast. Even a visual of the ] infobox map elludes to that. Either way, the discussion I started at MOS:MIL will help solve if they are allowed or not. Some of the most searched battles have them and others don't, so the debate topic should get solved one way or another in that discussion. Thanks for the help and idea to avoid a synth issue! Cheers! '''The ]''' (] 01:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::], thank you for providing these souces. To be clear, I am not disputing that the majority of the Kherson oblast came under Russian control early on in the war. That's essentially indisputable.
	:::What I do find questionable is the assertion you attempted to include in the results section of the infobox: the assertion that the majority of the oblast fell '''as a result of the battle''' covered in this article. The combat we're defining as the ] here seems to only have taken place within the city limits, in satellite villages such as ], and the nearby ]; hence my mention of places like ] and the ], relatively far from the action. '''Do RS claim that the oblast fell ''because'' the city fell?''' I wasn't able to locate that claim in the provided references.
	:::] (]) 01:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::No, RS don't say that specifically. That said, the battle for Kherson Oblast was this battle, as given by the numerous other towns and cities mentioned during the battle, which Russia all gained control of prior to or on March 2. The occupation/military administration began once Kherson fell, i.e. Russia had almost all of Kherson Oblast when Kherson fell. It's sort of like how ] began right after the ending of the ] ended. So, while RS don't state it, it is an understood thing. '''The ]''' (] 06:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Dear @]:
	:::::Many thanks for your reply.
	:::::I'm glad you brought up {{tq\|the numerous other towns and cities mentioned during the battle}}. I was going to add another Talk page section to address this but decided that five in a single day was probably more than enough. By {{tq\|numerous other towns and cities}}, I assume you are primarily referring this sentence on the page: <code>At the end of the day, Russian troops had captured several towns in the region including Henichesk, Skadovsk, Kakhovka, Nova Kakhovka, Tavriisk, as well as the Kakhovka Dam and the North Crimean Canal.</code>
	:::::There's a major problem with this sentence: it's completely unsourced, and has been since From your edit summary, I became aware that you were adding content from ], and were calling on editors to check there for the attribution. Unfortunately, I checked the analogue sentence there and it also lacks a source. As things stand now, I believe the sentence constitutes an ] claim that must be struck from the article until ] can be found to support it, which will be relatively difficult to achieve considering the bulk of RS state that
	:::::So, ignoring that one sentence for now, let's explore {{tq\|the numerous other towns and cities mentioned}} here. I see the following places: ], ], ], Sadove, ], ], Zymivnyk, and ]. With the exception of Nova Kakhovka, all of {{tq\|the numerous other towns and cities mentioned}} fall within an approximate 20km radius of the city center of Kherson, roughly following the curve of the Kherson Ring Road. Please understand that when we are talking about the ] here, we are talking about a place with a square area of nearly thirty thousand square kilometers. You can not realistically justify that {{tq\|the battle for Kherson Oblast was this battle}} when all the significant combat operations of this battle took place in a twenty kilometer radius.
	:::::In my opinion, once we start getting into comments like {{tq\|So, while RS don't state it, it is an understood thing}} to justify our arguments, we are entering extremely murky and frankly dangerous territory as editors, especially as it relates to a conflict still going on its second birthday with minimal formal military-historical analysis to draw on. I need to remind you, per ], that <code> analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. </code>
	:::::My very best wishes and thank you for your assistance in implementing my desired changes so far.
	:::::] (]) 07:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

	*{{u\|Cinderella157}}, do you have any other reason as to why bullet points should not be in this article? When asked about this on the ] talk page, two different experienced editors basically said it wasn't a MOS:MIL problem. Basically, saying it isn't allowed under MOS:MIL isn't valid, just because it isn't there. You can see their replies here: ]. One of them even said, {{tq\|It doesn't seem pertinent to this page, since it's a content dispute, and it belongs at ]}}. So, if I may, would you mind self-reverting or at least saying a different reason to not have bullet points? Also, if you decide to self-revert, feel free to help us not have a SYNTH issue with those bullet points. Cheers! '''The ]''' (] 06:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

	::] applies. I don't think you can declare a consensus either here or at ] based on 2 responses there (that are arguably not incontrovertible) after 6.5 hours. ] (]) 11:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

	== Edit requests: "194th Belozersky Battalion" ==

	Hello again all, I'd like to address this page's mention of the "194th Belozersky Battalion."

	The origin of this terminology appears to be the article titled "Подвиг у Бузковому парку," which tells the story of a military unit called the "194-ий білозерський батальйон" in Ukrainian.

	(Presumably) machine translation turned "білозерський" into "Belozersky," likely influenced by the existence of several notable Russian people and Russian places named ].

	But it must be noted that this translation process has taken a Ukrainian word and returned an English word that uses Russian romanization. Given that language is a particularly sensitive issue on articles relating to the Russo-Ukrainian crisis, I don't anticipate any opposition to my request that this article follow the Ukrainian romanization, B'''<big>i</big>'''lozersky, in order to properly represent the name of the military unit in question.

	In addition to using Ukrainian romanization, I have another suggestion for the way that we translate the name of this military unit. The word "Bilozersky" here is just the adjectival form of ], the village west of Kherson where the battalion was headquarted. The article mentions that nearly everyone in the battalion was a resident of a village in the ] - specifically, it mentions people from ], ], ], ], and ]. So maybe it's better for the readers' understanding if the name is translated as the '''194th Bilozerka Battalion.''' Grammatically, it makes no real difference, and there's also the opportunity include a link to the location, so that the name appears as '''194th ] Battalion'''. I'll leave this suggestion to the discretion of the editors with the ability to edit this page.

	I also want to point out that for the ] article which contains all this information, the date of publication appears to have been mis-transcribed. It was published on '''November 8, 2022, not March 8, 2022'''.

	Another small catch: In the infobox, you might also consider "pushing forward" the name of this battalion by one space, in order to represent its subservience to the 124th Kherson Territorial Defense Brigade, which is already well-established.

	] (]) 00:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
	:I will take a look at these in the morning and correct them. They all need fixed, but it will take some formatting/control + f searches to get them all. '''The ]''' (] 06:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

	== February 2024 checks ==		== February 2024 checks ==
Line 326:		Line 229:
	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"?		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"?
	] (]) 08:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)		] (]) 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 ] 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)

			== Update on GA review comments above ==

			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.

			{{collapse top\|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 ]). {{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'''
			* 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'''
			* 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'''
			* Dup link – ''Oleshky.'' {{done}}
			* Link ''Tweet'' (]); ''the Kyiv Independent''; ''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'' (]). {{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'''
			* 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'''
			* '']'' 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)'''

			'''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}}
			{{collapse bottom}}

			] (]) 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 {{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)
			: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 ==

			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.
			#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)
			: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.
			: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 ].
			: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.
			:Regarding Romanova, I have several problems with your new interpretation of
			:{{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.}}
			: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)

			== 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)
			: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)
			*Map sources found at ]. No OR concerns anymore. '''The ]''' (] 15:37, 12 November 2024 (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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Battle 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:

International relations Mid‑importance

	This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War Start‑class

This 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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Russia: History / Politics and law High‑importance

	Russia portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Ukraine High‑importance

	Ukraine portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This 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
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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 Kherson – battle 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 force – large 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 tank – MOS: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

2022 Chornobaivka attacks should not be included here, as the link is already in the text.
I would query including Pavel Filatyev here. He is not particularly related to the article (see MOS: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.

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: Results from Misplaced Pages and its mirrors and forks: WikiWand, Fandom (formerly Wikia), others Results from other Wikimedia projects: Misplaced Pages Commons and Wikidata Results from self-published sources: YouTube and Dailymotion videos, X (Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok, LinkedIn, Substack, Medium, Google Sites and WordPress, blog sites, forums, Quora, and Quizlet Results that only mentioned "battle of Kherson" in headlines and subheadlines, 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 (Yahoo! News) 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 capture of Chersonesus)

Methodology

Results I ignored:

Results from Misplaced Pages and its mirrors and forks: WikiWand, Fandom (formerly Wikia), others
Results from other Wikimedia projects: Misplaced Pages Commons and Wikidata
Results from self-published sources: YouTube and Dailymotion videos, X (Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok, LinkedIn, Substack, Medium, Google Sites and WordPress, blog sites, forums, Quora, and Quizlet
Results that only mentioned "battle of Kherson" in headlines and subheadlines, 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 (Yahoo! News)
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 capture of Chersonesus)

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 tank – MOS: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

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 tank – MOS: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.

Date ending on March 1?
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)}
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 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.

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)

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 WP:CIRC. There is a WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS to be met before reinstating the map that has not been met. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Map sources found at commons:User talk:Rr016#URGENT — What is the source for File:2022 Kherson-Mykolaiv Offensive.png. No OR concerns anymore. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: