Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LightandDark2000 (talk | contribs) at 03:49, 25 April 2022 (→Requested move 20 April 2022: They should definitely be merged and renamed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:49, 25 April 2022 by LightandDark2000 (talk | contribs) (→Requested move 20 April 2022: They should definitely be merged and renamed.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia: History / Politics and law Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

This article contains a translation of Битва за Донбас (2022) from uk.wikipedia.

Donbas Campaign

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

i agree, it should be changed to Donbas Campaign. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

most news sources refer to it as the battle of the Donbass besides other offensives over broad geographic areas are called battles (battle of France, battle of Kursk etc) Hellow.world123456 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Still not an accurate description, news sources are generally going for dramatic effect rather than actual, strict definitions when making those kinds of names. By all definitions it is an offensive, and should be named as such. History Man1812 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812

I've opened up an RM a few sections down, you might want to bring this discussion there. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not a Terrorist States

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

Requested move 20 April 2022

It has been proposed in this section that Battle of Donbas (2022) be renamed and moved to Donbas offensive.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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

The name "Battle of Donbas" could stay, considering other large-scale operations or engagements have also been called battles, such as the Battle of the Dnieper, Battle of Wuhan, Battle of Galicia or Battle of Luzon. Reaper1945 (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name be at least changed to the "Battle of THE Donbas", since like the Battle of the Dnieper the location usually has an article in English, when standing alone?2001:718:1E03:5128:BD1B:60FD:993E:1D10 (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, I oppose changing to Donbas offensive, but I agree that at least the name should change to "Battle of the Donbas" PilotSheng (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Support - change name to Donbas offensive, many sources are saying so SavageBWiki (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Support per nomination, and also having in mind the Donbas strategic offensive (August 1943) article. —Sundostund (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Current military operations in the Donbas fit all definitions of a Offensive or Campaign, rather than a Battle. There are also multiple battles ongoing in the region as part of the offensive, such as Severodonetsk, Avdiivka, or Izyum. History Man1812 (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812

Further Comment Beside the proposed name change, some possible alternatives can be found at Donbas operation. —Sundostund (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

oppose it is a battle. Panam2014 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source stating that it is? All I can find online are articles reporting that Ukrainian officials are calling the offensive a "Battle of Donbass". HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Move to Donbas offensive (April 2022–present) to distinguish it from the wider Eastern Ukraine offensive which is also primarily a Donbas offensive. Lightspecs (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Support - I agree with this. Cononsense (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Support- Donbas offensive was also a military offensive during WW2 SavageBWiki (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Suport. I´ts a broader offensive with lots of local battles and skirmishes. I´ts a new phase as viewed by both sides presidents. 190.188.140.133 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Support - Obviously, that the correct name.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Support per above. Severe storm 28 02:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

~~Oppose both options~~ Support but I would prefer to just merge with Eastern Ukraine offensive instead. These are literally 1-to-1. Curbon7 (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose The side which wants to rename it from the "Battle of Donbas" to something else, have provided no actual sources or evidence, besides relying on technicalities regarding military terms which are not always strictly followed in articles. The naming of an offensive or military campaign as a battle is nothing new, one can look at the Battle of Uman, Battle of Narva, or the Battle of Mosul. Furthermore, trying to decide the name by the way of limiting the size and scope of the military action is also flawed, considering large operations have been titled as battles, whether it be the Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Battle of the Caucasus or Battle of West Hunan. Battles can also consist of battles themselves, such as the Battle of the Frontiers, Battle of Galicia, Battle of Wuhan, Battle of Kursk or the Battle of Hürtgen Forest. Not to mention that sources cited in the article refer to the offensive as the "Battle of Donbas" or "Battle for Donbas". Reaper1945 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Oppose heavy shelling in Kharkiv was reported after the "second phase" started. This phase also extends beyond Donbas and Kharkiv, Russia has declared that it aims for occupying all of southern Ukraine and getting a land corridor to Transnistria . Merge with Eastern Ukraine offensive. Super Ψ Dro 13:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Support this is a second new major offensive separate and apart from the first Russian offensive into Eastern Ukraine at the start of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. It´s a new major offensive, not to be merged with the first. 190.188.140.133 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for same reason as above. RaincoatDance (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Agreed, its part of Eastern Ukraine Offensive, but it resembles nobility. SavageBWiki (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Strongly Support merging with Eastern Ukraine offensive, and then renaming to "Donbas offensive (2022)". This is basically a continuation of the same offensive, so unless we have enough content for this second phase of the offensive to warrant a content fork, we should keep everything in the same article. Neither article is near the readable prose size limit, and a combined article won't get there, either. Also, the Donbas offensive will probably end once Russia finishes conquering the rest of the Donbas Oblasts in this current offensive, so I don't see the need for a separate article at this time. Additionally, most reliable sources are referring to this operation as an offensive, and many of them also treat this operation as a continuation of the existing Donbas offensive. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Viewsridge, EkoGraf, Applodion, PixelatedGalaxy, and LordLoko: I think you guys would be interested in this discussion as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, to those who are unaware of this, there's another related discussion on Talk:Eastern Ukraine offensive, which deals with renaming that article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of Social Media and use of Partisan Sources.

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

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

Of cource, Please User:PilotSheng could you explain why you kep restoring this claim made by Ukrainian officials. The source is a Social media account, and the claim is made by one of the actors in conflict regarding losses of the opposing side, this does not fit in the criteria of WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:PARTISAN.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Citing the Facebook posts of the Eastern "Skhid" task force in my opinion is acceptable. It is from the official Ukrainian military account responsible for the Donbas region. This Facebook account has been cited by reputable news entities like this: https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/826309.html. If that link constitutes an acceptable source, and it is literally copying and pasting the information from the military Facebook account, then it should be acceptable to cite straight from the Facebook post. It is the same as citing the Ukrainian General Staff facebook account, it is an official statement made by Ukrainian military officials. Additionally, when citing Ukrainian and Russian Telegram/Facebook accounts, I include caveats like "claim" or "according to," because casualty counts are almost always unreliable and if the Ukrainian or Russian military "claims" to have killed X amount of enemy fighters, then it should be acceptable to include that in the article, as long as you use caveats like "Claimed to have killed X enemy fighters" etc. PilotSheng (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case, these are official communications, it doesn't matter what software they use to communicate, whether it be facebook, telegram or anything else. It matters who said it, and if they are a reliable source for what is being used. In this case, the information is used for the Ukrainian perspective on information hidden by the fog of war, so it is very much reliable for that, just like official Russian communications would be for the Russian estimate. Cononsense (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No, thats not the case Cononsense, those claims are made by Ukraine regarding Russian losses. Ukrainian official releases are suitable for losses suffered by Ukrainian forces not otherwise.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

AGREED. Regardless of whether or not it is accurate, it is the Ukrainian "Claim" on the casualties. Thus Pilotsheng's edits should be reinstated and casualty counts updated to reflect that, with

"Ukrainian Claim:

X soldiers killed, wounded" 67.175.216.62 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thats not exactly how reporting iin WP works, read WP:SOCIALMEDIA:

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

Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle of Donbas"

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

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

Syrians?

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

Middle Eastern Mercenaries such as Syrians, Libyans, Afghans, Pakistanis, and Iranians are fighting for Russia during the new offensive. SavageBWiki (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"European officials" have also confirmed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/19/russia-deployed-20000-mercenaries-ukraine-donbas-region Cononsense (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Categories: