Misplaced Pages

Talk:Battle of Kherson

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LightandDark2000 (talk | contribs) at 17:28, 25 April 2022 (→Requested move 24 April 2022: We use the "Battle of" naming convention here on WP, and I don't think we should change this now.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:28, 25 April 2022 by LightandDark2000 (talk | contribs) (→Requested move 24 April 2022: We use the "Battle of" naming convention here on WP, and I don't think we should change this now.)(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:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternational relations
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion not met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRussia: History / Politics and law High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUkraine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Use of Twitter

Ther are some rules for the use of Twitter in Misplaced Pages artickes. Keep and eye on them WP:TWITTER. Any use of Twitter for extraordinary claims regarding combatants and events in the ground will be reverted.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Same article?

What's the difference between Battle of Kherson and Kherson offensive? PurpleBuffalo (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Battle" is about the events happening in and around the city, for the control of the city. "Offensive" is about Russian operations in the greater province, for advancing through the province and reaching "battle" sites.BasilLeaf (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I personally don't agree with the distinction and think that we can merge such articles into one.BasilLeaf (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/01/world/ukraine-russia-war/russia-claims-to-control-kherson-a-strategic-city-but-ukraine-says-the-battle-for-it-isnt-over Ukraine contest that the city is captured. 176.158.39.228 (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The source is now updated to reflect Kherson's loss. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Status of the Battle of Kherson

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

If the battle of Kherson is still ongoing, change "24 February-now" for "24 February-Present" and add the Status of ongoing below the date

If the battle has concluded and the Russian MoD claim is confirmed by a reliable source, add the end date of the battle and the status of Russian victory

Kind Regards 201.234.181.227 (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reliable source and has stated that Kherson has fallen. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
{reply to|Knowledgekid87} The New York Times is correct that Kherson has "fallen," but in the context of modern warfare, especially the kind of warfare that we're seeing in Ukraine, that isn't enough to say that the "battle" is remotely over. The Ukrainians have already recaptured parts of the city and the "battle" in this modern war is not so much a fight over positional control as it is an effort to wipe out the enemy's army. For these reasons, it would be most accurate to say that the battle is ongoing. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Antonovsky bridge

Does anybody know why the bridge, only crossing point other than railroad bridge and Hydro dam, was not blown up for defense?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.97.106 (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No, and it's not our business to infer. Curbon7 (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
several sources suggest treason as the cause for the quick fall of Kherson:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/3/29/2088926/-Ukraine-update-How-did-Kherson-fall-so-quickly-Betrayal-looks-like-a-good-bet
https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/808265.html
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/zelensky-sacks-traitor-generals-wbqkrr06r
this one is available through the waybackmachine, since it has been censored:
https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2022/03/26/kherson 171.7.255.149 (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Kherson contested once again.

Pentagon has stated that Ukrainian forces rentered Kherson and have begun to push Russian troops out. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/25/world/ukraine-russia-war/russia-kherson?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes 108.88.8.211 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Kherson is as contested as Mykolaiv is right now, if not more. Yet the Battle of Mykolaiv is listed as ongoing, while Kherson is considered a Russian victory. THis is clearly illogical, so I agree that Kherson should be considered an ongoing battle.Wolf359Locutus (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is referring to action in Kherson at the beginning of the war, not currently. Curbon7 (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the battle for Kherson city at the beginning of the invasion, which ended more than a month ago. EkoGraf (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Death of Russian Lt. Gen. Yakov Rezantsev

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-25-22/h_474504b422b84d41eef29e572c5e9420

Ukrainian army says Russian general has been killed in Kherson fighting From CNN's Yulia Kesaieva in Lviv The Ukrainian army says its forces have killed Russian Lt. Gen. Yakov Rezantsev during fighting in Chornobaiivka, in the Kherson region in Ukraine’s south.

The army said Rezantsez was commander of the 49th Combined Arms Army of the Southern Military District of the Russian Federation.

Russia’s defense ministry has not commented on the Ukrainian claim.

So far, some six Russian generals are believed to have been killed since the start of Russia’s assault on Ukraine, as well as a deputy commander of the Black Sea fleet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmclellan82 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Andrey Mordvichev was also reported by Ukraine to be killed in an airstrike at Kherson a week earlier. Jebiguess (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the map back from the colorblind one 72.229.242.36 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus already established. Wretchskull (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Where has it been established? There hasn't been any sort of agreement as far as I see. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. WP:ACCESS seems to favor color blind accessibility. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, now the maps are the same color, so it doesn't make sense to keep the colorblind one anymore, as the original will end up being more up-to-date now. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that section Russian-controlled Kherson be split into a separate page called Russian occupation of Kherson. The content of the current page seems off-topic since this article is more or less about the battle that took place and ended on 2 March. Also, Russia appointed Igor Kastyukevich as a de facto mayor of the city, meaning this goes beyond a basic military occupation of the city. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

3 days and no opposition, so I will be WP:BOLD splitting. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: it is a particularly short article and the occupation is appropriate to be dealt with in the aftermath section. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2022
  • Oppose, info about this is short. It can perfectly be integrated into this article. Super Ψ Dro 13:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle of Kherson"

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 certainly doesn't meet the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS. The article title is even questionable given so few sources but that is another issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2022

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

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

In the majority of cases, the naming is not supported at all by sources as evidenced by links. In no case, do sources indicate that the names would satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. The format "battle of X" tends to imply a degree of formal recognition of the status of a battle, that in these cases simply doesn't exist. This is misleading and can lead to WP:CITOGENESIS. One source is already indicating this: in what’s been dubbed online as the “Battle of Brovary,”. The format "battle for X" does not have the same implication but is equally succinct, natural and recognisable and should be preferred. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Battle of Sievierodonetsk that you nominated, is a redirect to Battles of Sievierodonetsk (2014). Redirects aren't subject to RMs. —CX Zoom 09:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
CX Zoom, thank you. It should have been for Battle of Sievierodonetsk (2022) and Battles of Sievierodonetsk (2014). I have corrected this here and added notices. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments

the military history talk page has been notified. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support This seems like a sensible proposal frankly. I would support it. Until proper names are clearly stabilized by external reliable sources, these are just descriptive titles invented on the run by Wiki editors. Using "for" (rather than "of") underlines that better. But I am not sure if it applies to each and every one of the moves proposed above. Walrasiad (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. More accurate description. UlyssorZebra (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. Nominator has already notified WikiProject Military history. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Note: pinging participants of conflicting discussion at Talk:Battle of Enerhodar#Requested move 19 April 2022. Ganesha811 and Cinderella157 have already commented above, leaving Elijahandskip and Gog the Mild. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Despite no clear-cut common names being available online at the moment, "Battle of..." is still the established Misplaced Pages template for battle articles in various conflicts. Also, at least to me in a sense, "Battle for..." implies that a battle is still ongoing, despite ending. EkoGraf (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per EkoGraf and as Battle for seems as likely to be subject to WP:CITOGENESIS as Battle of. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I did a quick search on WP and as stated by EkoGraf, the vast majority of Misplaced Pages article start with "Battle of..." ie Battle of Midway, Battle of the Bulge, etc. This list give an alphabetical list, and appears for every "Battle for..." there are +100 which are described as "Battle of...". Looks like most of the "Battle for..." relate to Science Fiction ie Battle for the Planet of the Apes, Battle for Terra, Emperor: Battle for Dune, etc Ilenart626 (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The format "battle of X" tends to imply a degree of formal recognition of the status of a battle—no it doesn’t. It’s a descriptive noun phrase. Who says it can lead to citogenesis while “battle for” can not? The entire rationale is unfounded, and does not even aspire to the level of unacceptable WP:original research. On the contrary, “battle for” (or “at,” “in,” “near,” or some other other prepositions) implies a specific kind of relation to the location, in this case the adversaries’ objective being control of the city, and should only be used when that can be demonstrated for every specific case. On the contrary, “of” is natural and devoid of such implications, only creating a non-specific association. —Michael Z. 03:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I can get behind that reasoning - the common understanding is that "battle of" means a battle associated with that location whether it is taken or not. Battle of Normandy is probably a fair comparison. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose – The convention for military articles on Misplaced Pages is to use "Battle of X" in the article titles, as this is the standard convention and the naming style used more often. I don't actually see any articles on Misplaced Pages that start with "Battle for", and I don't see a good reason to change this now. I could see a reason for renaming a few of these articles if the "Battle of" naming style was the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME for that battle, but I don't see that for any of these examples. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Categories: