Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

This is such obvious misinformation and propaganda, there has been literally 0 photographic or video proof to support these allegations. It is simply the Western equivalent of Russian propaganda. Unfortunately because this comes from a "reliable source," it will be put on Wikipedia. Sigh. And Iranians? What? I'll drop the case here. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:103C:B19F:9BB:D628 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not misinformation or propaganda, you can see bloodied documents collected off the bodies of dead Middle Eastern and African fighters posted all over the Internet. PilotSheng (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Shelling" missing I guess

Battle of Donbas (2022)#26_April - Twelve civilians were killed and eighteen wounded during Russian on 26 April - the word is missing. I guess it's supposed to be something like "during Russian shelling". Cementium (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Eastern Ukraine offensive which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Numbers of Russian forces

The article mentions the Ukrainians being outnumbered 3:1. However, that does absolutely not fit the 76 Batallions of the Russian Army, that are known to make up their entire force - Even if all of them had full strength of 800 men each, they would comprise only ~60,000 soldiers (As stated in the infobox); together with the pro-Russian forces of no more than 28,000 men, they add up to ~85,000 soldiers on the Russian side at most. Considering that the Ukrainian defenders number around 40,000, they aren't even close to being outnumbered by a factor of 3, though possibly by a factor of 2. Even if that was simply taken from the sources, we should make sure to use consistent figures and probably remove or alter the claim of being outnumbered 3:1, perhaps by simply stating that there are claims by some experts (As stated in the BBC article) of the Ukrainians being outnumbered by that much. Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I just realized I forgot to include the hundreds to possibly thousands of foreign mercenaries Russia is deploying, but my point still stands with those included, as they increase the number of (pro-)Russian forces to no more than ~100,000 men. Also, I personally rather doubt that Russia has been able to increase ALL their Batallions to full strength under constant fighting in April, and the LNR forces are only assumed to have lost ~600 killed in the Infobox, when they have probably suffered 4× times as many wounded as well (Assuming a similar killed-wounded ratio as the DNR reports). And about those Russian volunteers - I'm not sure if they have contributed to Russian war efforts, considering I have yet to read about them in the ISW assessments, making it altogether very likely that the Russians do no outnumber the Ukrainians by any factor larger than 2.5 at most. Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There are ~60,000 Russian soldiers, ~28,000 DPR and LPR soldiers, 10-20,000 foreign mercenaries from Libya, Syria, Ethiopia, etc., 300-500 mercenaries from PMC Wagner, and 14,500 Russian civilian volunteers in the Donbas. Take the low estimate and you get 102,300. Take the high estimate, and you get 124,500. PilotSheng (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you even properly read my point ? Yes, that's what the Infobox gives, but I say it are not "min. 102,000 men", as there is no evidence or reports so far those ~14,000 Russian volunteers are actually fighting in Eastern Ukraine right now. And the LNR forces are stated to have lost only the ~600 reported killed from their original strength at the beginning of the war (14,000 men), even though they have likely suffered thousands of wounded as well (3000 killed and wounded when using similar ratios as the DNR reports). This adds up to a minimum of ~84,000 soldiers on the Russian side - consisting of 50,000 Russians, 24,000 pro-Russian milita and 10,000 foreign soldiers. In spite of this, the wording should be tweaked a little bit from suggesting a much larger Russian force than that being absolutely the case, to stating it simply as claims by news outlets. Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian Spring Offensive on Donbas?

Hello everyone,

I would like Wikipedia community to consider renaming this article to "Russian Spring Offensive on Donbas". From what I know, The Battle of Kursk in 1943. was basically a German summer offensive of 1943., and this ongoing Donbas battle was anticipated in media as something similar to these massive WW2 battles. Franjo Tahy (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose there already exists an article titled Eastern Ukraine offensive PilotSheng (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Can someone update the map?

It's been two weeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, vandalism, and possible pro-Russian sockpuppeting

If you go into the revision history, it is filled with edits from User:Mr.User200 deleting things, almost all of which he does not provide an explanation for why he is removing this information.

If you go onto his talk page, there are a lot of claims made by other users from many years ago that he is a pro-Russian troll, and other evidence that he makes pro-Russian edits on Wikipedia pages about the Russo-Ukrainian war and the war in Syria.

Please, User:Mr.User200, could you please state your claim of why you are deleting all of this information from the page without explanation, and could the community discuss the validity of my own claims? PilotSheng (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Take a time and read the Wikipedia articles guidelines at WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:TWITTER and WP:RS. As explained to you before, we can use Social media from accounts that have been verified to be from Reliable sources but not individuals. Mr.User200 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the accusations made against me by those accounts, all of them are blocked from disruptive edits, harrasement and mostly for Sockpuppet editing. And please stop saying you are a administrator, like you did here and you have been warned. Mr.User200 (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are pro-Ukrainian and pro-Islamist and pro-Communist and pro-Western (liberal) trolls. What's so weird about that? Wikipedia has become too biased and less and less a free encyclopedia, because the West (especially the Anglophone area) with the arrival of Biden and during the Biden era has already politically sided with any other news, even if it was a complete lie. The fact is that the Ukrainian forces won and unblocked Kharkiv on May 7 in this war phase, but the facts are that they lost the city of Popasna in the Luhansk region on the same day with great losses. A similar situation occurred on March 31 and April 1, when Ukrainian forces won a complete victory or a series of victories in the Kiev and Sumy regions, but lost control of the strategically important city of Izyum. — Baba Mica (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

PilotSheng I have explained several times that we can keep Telegram and Facebook as long as they belong to RS accounts or Regional National Media, but not Individuals that report.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 20 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus overall. Weird request that doesn't match — looks like it was adjusted at some point (the desired target of the move request already stands for some reason). Likewise, there is no consensus to merge to Eastern Ukraine offensive (EUO) at this time. It isn't clear what participants wish to do with the 2022 bit (i.e. keep or omit it). There is no other Donbas offensive title, but we do have a Donbas operation DAB page. Often, we'd have something akin to War in Afghanistan (list/DAB page) with individual pages titled War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and so on. Also, as noted by several participants, the designation of Battle, Operation, Offensive, War, Conflict, Campaign, etc., could vary highly.

Then, to add to the confusion, we have an RM running in parallel that wants to retitle EUO into the current title of this page (link). BTW, I've discounted the !vote here by the EUO RM's filing user, Panam2014, as all it said was: oppose it is a battle (i.e. classic WP:NOTAVOTE). But they are far from the only one. Severestorm28 said Support per above (what "above"? all of the above?). Or Mr.User200 who said Support - Obviously, that the correct name (oh, "obviously," of course!). Or Cononsense who said Support - I agree with this (and I agree to dis). And the list goes on. Folks, those kind of subpar echo !votes will always be discounted by a competent closer.

This brings me to the worse thing about both RMs: with the notable exception of Super Dromaeosaurus, not a single participant has provided a single solitary WP:RS. Many (most) allude to them in some way, but that's it. Proof of what is or isn't the WP:COMMONNAME or names remain absent. Ditto for the related views on WP:FORK. Oh well. I suppose the only silver lining is that the conversations (here and at the EUO RM) were surprisingly amicable. In summary: there is no consensus (not even a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) to change anything right now, one way or the other. Hopefully, several participants (named and unnamed) will take note of my caution against subpar, unsubstantive !vote comments, and everyone will consider including pertinent RS, ones that are actually specifically cited, as the basis for their argument. Tjddllg, everyone! El_C 14:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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. Severestorm28 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 [1] [2]. 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)
    • If, however, the articles are kept separate, then I oppose the renaming. "Battle of Donbas" appears to be a WP:COMMONNAME for this offensive, bases on the media reports I've seen, and we've used "battle" to name other articles on military offensives, even large-scale offensives, such as Battle of Hawija, Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Battle of Kiev (1941), and Battle of the Atlantic. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

      I agree with this stance, if they are not merged, then the name "Battle of Donbas" or something similar should be kept, as that is what is being reported the most, whether from Ukrainian officials or media reports and articles. Plus, there is already a precedent for using the term "battle" for large-scale military operations or offensives from the past, and even fairly recently such as the Battle of Mosul. Reaper1945 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Support renaming to Donbas Offensiveit's an Offensive, simple as, it shouldn't be described as one single battle, though I disagree with Merging it into 'Eastern Ukraine Offensive' because of its individual notability. PixelatedGalaxy (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose to a merger under the name "Donbas offensive". Per my arguments of the Eastern Ukraine offensive talk page, the offensive is taking place beyond the Donbas in form of the operations at Kharkiv and Izium. "Donbas offensive" would be factually incorrect.
  In regards to a merger under the current name "Eastern Ukraine offensive", I am ambivalent. On one side, there is of course great overlap to the degree that the concerns about it being a fork are valid. On the other side, the current offensive is regarded as the 2nd phase of the eastern campaign - and thus regarded as not exactly the same as the pervious offensive. I also feel that a separate article allows for more details to be included. Applodion (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose merger Notable on itself. No opinion on name change Both Battle of Donbas and Donbas offensive seem the be the common names. EkoGraf (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2022 (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.

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 Wikipedia voice for those types of claims. Some Western Officials have claimed that, and some media have repeated that info, but until now, there is no a single evidence; photos, written reports, documents or videos of the presence of 20,000 ME fighters in Ukraine.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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 in 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. Wikipedia:Verifiability. In short, only use reliable media as trusted sources for this type of claims and from non-exceptional claims, mid-tier sources like regional media, specialized reports, etc.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this, I have gone back and found reputable media sources to reinstate this information. PilotSheng (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

As per Mr.User200, usage of FB or Twitter posts as sources should be avoided as per WP guidelines. Also, great care should be taken when using potentially unreliable sources for unverifiable claims. Example - Ukrainian claims of Russian losses and vice-versa. EkoGraf (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Have detected more links of Telegram and Facebook account of individual people (not RS), and those have been removed from the article. If content that deserve inclusion is only cited by Social Media; at least try to use those of accounts related to Reliable Sources or National Media. Dont use Telegram accounts of individuals.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Popasna

There is an article, Battle of Popasna which should be linked to in this article, in a see also section. bob (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, I will start to work on this article now. PilotSheng (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Add Rubizhne to captured cities in outcome

Rubizhne is a relatively important and large city in the donbas area and it was recently captured by russians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rubizhne, it should be added to the captured cities mentioned in outcome alongside Popasna. PROONTExchange (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Major edit - shifting from timeline article to regular battle article

You might be seeing an edit in the revision history looking something like -25,000 bytes.

Please do not be alarmed: I transitioned the article from a timeline article to a more respectable battle article, keeping almost all relevant information.

If you go upwards to Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)/Archive 1#Merging discussion, you will see requests to shift this from a timeline article to a regular article. This has been done. PilotSheng (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Nice, but how is this article different from Eastern Ukraine offensive#Russian push to fully capture Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts now? I think the merge now looks more justified. Super Ψ Dro 15:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The article that the link carries Is not correct

The page Timeline of the war in dombas that the link is posted only shows January and Febraury until the Russian invasion. 186.12.6.48 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Question

Is the opening paragraph suggesting that Kharkiv is in the Donbas region? Great Mercian (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

No, but there are numerous definitions over what exactly constitutes the Donbas region. In 1945, the Donbas was considered to include the present-day regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, but also the Kharkiv, Dnipro, and Zaporizhzhia regions as well. The current-day definition for the Donbas is limited to the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

With respect to what I think you're getting at, the reason why the Battle of Donbas includes Kharkiv Oblast is because the Russians never really advanced into the north of Kharkiv Oblast and towards the beginning of this battle in mid-April were conducting a large number of operations in Kharkiv Oblast cities that also bordered the Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts - Izium, for example. At the beginning of the battle, Ukrainian sources and Western media counted attacks in Kharkiv as part of the wider battle.

1. Most of the fighting in Kharkiv Oblast is limited to the southern area of the province, in the regions that border Luhansk and Donetsk.
2. Russia's offensive beginning of April 18 was not limited to the geographic areas of Luhansk and Donetsk. It included a massive southward assault from Kharkiv Oblast into the Donbas.
3. The frontline is not constrained by political boundaries. Ukrainian and Western sources both consider the frontline of the battle to stretch along the south of Kharkiv as well as even to the north of Kharkiv in addition to the political boundaries of the contemporary Donbas region to be a part of this overall Russian offensive.

I hope this helps.

-- PilotSheng (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Another major edit

You might see an edit looking like (-16,000 bytes) in the edit history; please, do not be concerned, I consolidated all the civilian casualties into one large table. To do this, I reviewed all the sources, some of which repeated the same information so they were removed. PilotSheng (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

They also called the DPR and LPR forces "puppet forces". While Russia obviously does have a lot of control over these breakaway regions, they were not created by Russia, and are self proclaimed armed forces primarily from the local population, hence the term separatists. Destructor of Capitalism 24 (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

In this diff, the author explains their reasoning. Holzklöppel (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Update needed?

The opening states ‘The offensive is currently taking place along the Rubizhne–Izium–Huliaipole–Mariupol line’

Rubizhne, Izium and Mariupol are now with Russia… idk whether Huliailopole is with Russia or Ukraine but maybe the other 3 should be updated? Severodonetsk I’ve heard about

I would source but there are plenty for everything I wrote on google Angele201002 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Add Kremina to list of cities captured by Russia in outcome

The introductory paragraph to the article specifically names Kremina as one of the cities captured by Russia, indeed it was the first city captured by Russia after it launched the Donbas offensive, initially it was included in the list of captured cities but was later removed for some reason. It should be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:928:5301:65CE:391F:38F6:5AF2 (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

8000 prisoners for the newest Donbass offensive?

That's absurd, that's the equivalent of 2 full brigades, they clearly meant that they have 8000 prisoners from FEBRUARY, not in the last month. And I highly doubt the number since the source is the LPR that has all the interest in lying. If Ukraine lost 8000 prisoners in Donbass alone, the war should have ended already since it would be 5% of their professional army. Should be edited out imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.151.69 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The usage is correct, it details Russian claims of casualties. How true they are is another question, this talk page is not the place to discuss them. Holzklöppel (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, it sounds like that's confirmed. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Holzklöppel is correct. It details Russian claims of casualties. Regardless of how true the claims are, they are still valid claims made by one or multiple national governments (if the LPR is to be considered a government of its own) and should be included in the article. PilotSheng (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

About the number of references in one reference about casualties...

WHAT. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Seriously though, WHAT. That's completely unnecessary and makes it harder for editors. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The references have been curated from all over the internet, have taken much energy to curate, and are 100% necessary until at least the battle is over, because it lists the reliable sources for the information. Under Wikipedia:Reliable sources, we need to have reliable, self-published sources to prove the information being stated in the infobox. Removing the references and simply stating "rather unnecessary" is disruptive editing, as without the sources to prove the figures being stated, all the numbers look rather suspect.

Please refrain from making a large removal of sources like you did today without consulting the talk page first and getting a consensus.

Thank you! PilotSheng (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Casualty figures in infobox

Per this edit, this level of detail does not belong in the infobox. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. For that matter, nor does the detail for the other side in this conflict. This detail belongs in the body - where it exist but is unsourced. That is doing things the wrong way around. We don't write the article in the infobox - it is the otherway around. If we can't come up with a simple range supported by sources, it should be omitted from the infobox or perhaps, have a "see section" link. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Cinderella157, for doing this - I've gone back and put all the necessary info into the body of the article under the "military casualties" section.

I do affirm that we need all those references because without them, the numbers look highly suspect, but you're right about the infobox - which is why I've dispersed them into the article. PilotSheng (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, it is a good start. However, bare URLs shouldn't be used. This should be fixed at some time. I acknowledge that the infobox citations used bare URLs. The infobox should just give totals (a range) for each side. Because there isn't comparable information for wounded and captured, it should probably just report deaths. The other view might be to not report this in the infobox mainly because there is too much nuance, and put a link to the section. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 I am going to work on fixing the bare URLs. As you can see the website https://mil-lnr.su has been taken down, which is where I was sourcing the LPR claims from. I'll have to go back through their telegram channel and see if I can find some references that haven't been taken down yet. PilotSheng (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

ukrainian casualty figures

The new update from Zelenskyy says 60-100 soldiers are killed and 500+ wounded each day in the Donbas. I think this should fit somewhere either in the infobox or in the casualty table. Any thoughts? PilotSheng (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Not in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:13, 3 June 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: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Per MOS:CAPS, the burden is to show that capitalisation is necessary in accordance with the criteria of MOS:CAPS. Looking at news sources here, it appears to be capitalised about half the time or perhaps a little more. It appears to fall well short of the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

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

LightandDark2000, the burden per MOS:CAPS is to show that capitalisation is necessary. The term does not appear to meet the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

EkoGraf, the burden per MOS:CAPS is to show that capitalisation is necessary. The That's what some are actually calling it does not appear to meet the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 That's the common name that has been also sourced. And the WP guideline says "capitalization is primarily needed for proper names". So SavageBWiki and LightandDark2000 are right in this regard. But I am not going to argue the matter further. EkoGraf (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

EkoGraf, FYI the guidance (MOS:CAPS) is not just that it can be sourced, but that (paraphrasing the guideline) there is a strong consensus in the sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Use lower-case per MOS:CAPS, as sources do not consistently capitalize this as a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

TheBestEditorInEngland, the burden per MOS:CAPS is to show that capitalisation is necessary. The terms do not appear to meet the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS.

PilotSheng, the burden per MOS:CAPS is to show that capitalisation is necessary. The terms do not appear to meet the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, the burden per MOS:CAPS is to show that capitalisation is necessary. The term does not appear to meet the high threshold set by MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Are we putting commanders or not?

Overnight, the list of commanders on both sides of the battle disappeared. Is there any reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebiguess (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox summarises key points of the article. Save one, none of the commanders listed in the article had any mention in the article that would support their inclusion and the one that did had only a single passing mention. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I just input a commander with an article stating he was killed during the battle (Kutuzov). Others, such as Dvornikov, Gerasimov, Pushilin, Pasechnik, Haidai, Kyrylenko, and Zaluzhnyi were input (I believe) because they are major leaders commanding or participating in the battle. Regarding Betishev, Kyshchyk, Khodakovsky, and Agranovich, I will try to find better sources for their participation and if not let's delete them. Jebiguess (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in the body of the article that would support the inclusion of any of the commanders in the list. It is not simply a matter of sourcing. The death of a sergeant hardly warrants their inclusion in the infobox, let alone the article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Not. I took them out again, per Cinderella. Put them into the article if sourced; if some of these become notable, or in some way important, we can consider an infobox mention later, but for now I'm not seeing it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Merging discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article covers literally all of the scope of the Eastern Ukraine offensive, except the Battle of Kharkiv. Fighting in Izium aims to surround Ukrainian troops in Donbas [3]. This is supposed to be some kind of suboperation of the offensive, but it's literally all that's going on in this offensive right now. I don't see the point of having two articles with almost the same scope separate. Not for saying that it makes it look like no fighting or serious operations started in Donbas before 18 April, which is false. The name of this article is also subpar, "Battle of Donbas", which can further confuse editors into thinking that no fighting happened there before. And this article has problems anyway. It has become exactly the same the main page of the invasion once was, a timeline article. We already have both Timeline of the war in Donbas (2022) and Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to saturate pages with this type of information. I don't see what information could I hope to see here that could not possibly be integrated into another page on Wikipedia. And anyways, isn't this "Battle of Donbas" just some kind of scapegoat for Putin to reduce his objectives in Ukraine in face of the Russian public? Has anything really changed? Some villages and a town were taken, and fighting is tougher than before, what else? It's also worth mentioning that the main engagements in this "battle", in Izium (Russian forces going north to south to surround Ukrainians) and Popasna (Russians going south to north for this), started before 18 April [4] [5] [6].

I have thus proposed merging this into the Eastern Ukraine offensive, although I am not sure if editors are going to agree. But we should change something. Maybe we could rename it to "Second phase of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", and give it an approach that is both literal (we explain the fighting) and more about the concept (Putin failed to take Kyiv, so he announced a "second phase" and new objectives in Southern Ukraine, and he may have decided to do this because etc etc). But I don't think that this second phase thing should have a separate article on Wikipedia anyway. Super Ψ Dro 08:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to add as another issue that editors are getting confused with whether a battle is part of the "Battle of Donbas" or not. See this edit from a user who classified the battle of Popasna as part of the "Battle of Donbas" [7]. The former started on 18 March (ending in 7 May) and the latter started in 18 April. It means that most of the battle in Popasna, supposedly part of this Battle of Donbas, developed when it had not started yet. Besides, what did exactly change in Popasna from 18 April onwards? Its article itself says that not much changed in that day. This all shows the artificiality of this split and the problems it carries in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Another comment, the author of the article has compressed the article from a timeline to a normal page. But the info it has now is not too different from Eastern Ukraine offensive#Russian push to fully capture Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. It all could easily fit there if merged. Super Ψ Dro 15:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose and Alternatives name the Eastern Ukraine offensive Battle of Donbass (insert dates here) then from when they began attempting to capture all donbass, Battle of Donbass (date-present) or add dates in the titles. Dawsongfg (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Highly disagree with merging into Eastern Ukraine offensive. All media is referring to it as a "battle," including both Ukrainian and Russian authorities.

I do think that we need to do something about the timeline, the Invasion page was once a timeline in its beginning stages - I need some help with other editors to refine the article and make it more professional looking. PilotSheng (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether sources call it a battle (which doesn't mean we should have a different article for the same thing only for that reason), what can this article offer us that the Eastern Ukraine offensive can't? Super Ψ Dro 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the necropost, but it offers newer information. Dawsongfg (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Too big of a page. Also, this is about the, like, way bigger operation. Dawsongfg (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not everything should be merged into the Eastern Ukraine offensive article. This page shouldn't be this long for starters. Super Ψ Dro 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  • • • DISREGARD THIS ONE*** Dawsongfg (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• When this page was created, I thought it should have been merged with Eastern Ukraine offensive, but I'm less sure now.

Also Siege of Mariupol is not covered in this article, or is it?

Also, if fighting ever heats up near Huliaipole, a lot of the previous fighting in Zaporizhzhia Oblast was covered in Southern Ukraine offensive.

So I have no thoughts right now. Cononsense (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't really understand you, but per this article, "The offensive is currently taking place along the Rubizhne–Izium–Huliaipole–Mariupol line". This is by the way the same extent of the Eastern Ukraine offensive except for Kharkiv. Battles in Huliaipole and in Zaporizhzhia Oblast are indeed covered in the Southern Ukraine offensive. Super Ψ Dro 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Merge and rename Donbas offensive (2022) as other request. The "Battle of Donbas" comprises of many small fronts: Izium, Severodonetsk, Popasna... meanwhile Donbas offensive and Eastern offensive are the same. Sgnpkd (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Kharkiv can't be considered part of Donbas though, and operations in Kharkiv Oblast are or have been strongly interrelated to operations in Donbas. Izium itself is in Kharkiv Oblast. Donbas and Kharkiv Oblast do form a single united area, called Eastern Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The military operations of the Battle of Donbas that began on April 18 shouldn't be confused with the operations that began prior to that, such as the battle of Kharkiv and the siege of Mariupol. I think the current situation is fine. The Battle of Donbas is a part of the greater Eastern Ukrainian offensive, but not synonymous with it. We can look at other pages and see that this is how individual battles are mentioned as part of larger offensives, namely the operations related to the Battle of Kursk. For that military event, we have a page for the greater battle, as well as pages for individual phases of the battle, including the German attack in Operation Citadel and the Battle of Prokhorovka, as well as Soviet counterattacks in the Belgorod–Kharkov offensive operation and Operation Kutuzov. Regardless of a Ukrainian or Russian victory, we have no idea if the Battle of Donbas will be the last major operation in eastern Ukraine, or if there will be more in the future (such as a renewed attack after a lull of fighting), and since the page for the battle is long enough already, I think we should not merge the pages. DishonorableKnight (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's a great point, after the battle ends there may still be future operations in Eastern Ukraine that are part of the offensive but not part of the battle. Additionally, the events of 24 Feb-18 April are part of the offensive but not a part of the battle. PilotSheng (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What military operations began on 18 April? On that day, the battles that were being fought in Donbas were Popasna (started on 18 March), Avdiivka (started on 20 February), Mariupol (started on 24 February) and Rubizhne (started on 15 March). We only have pages for two battles in Donbas that started during this "battle", the one at the Donets river and the one at Sievierodonetsk. And they all started weeks after 18 April, in 5 May and 6 May respectively. So what changed in 18 April? The same battles that had been being fought kept being fought. You also claim that the Eastern Ukraine offensive and this battle are not synonymous. In what do they differ? The battle in Kharkiv is over, and all operations in Kharkiv Oblast now have an aim of surrounding Ukrainian troops in Donbas. The Eastern Ukraine offensive does not go westwards beyond Kharkiv and Mariupol. And there's no need to worry about lenght, since the Eastern Ukraine offensive page already has a very similar section which covers most of what this page does, see here [8]. Super Ψ Dro 08:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Great Mercian (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose because the Eastern Ukraine Offensive contains 2 months of fighting prior to the Battle of Donbas. Also we don't know if the Eastern Ukraine offensive will end when the Battle of Donbas ends. We should keep the pages separate for now. 67.175.216.62 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

One of the main points of this merging discussion is whether if something actually changed from 17 April to 18 April. I say no, just fighting got heavier progressively as more Russian troops came in, but it was the same battles that had been being fought in Donbas prior to this battle, and some that started way after 18 April. It's also irrelevant if both offensives end at the same time, although we can say they will, since the Battle of Kharkiv is over and now their scopes are the exact same. Super Ψ Dro 08:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Support per nom, and the ontological argument about the Battle of Popasna. All these battles that are supposedly part of the "Battle of Donbas" are just battles from the Eastern Ukraine offensive which merely intensified in mid-April. It makes zero sense to split two phases of the same offensive into two different articles, because it just makes it harder for readers to follow the events by making them switch between two different pages to get the full information. Naming by sources aside, what exactly is so different about this stage of the offensive that it needs to be forked? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Event notable enough to warrant its own article. EkoGraf (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

If we split the Eastern Ukraine offensive into a new article going from 4 March to 13 April, that would also be a notable amount of events, but is it justified to keep it separate? Super Ψ Dro 13:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This is like the timeline article. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There's Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for that. And also Eastern Ukraine offensive#Russian push to fully capture Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Super Ψ Dro 20:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's time to close this discussion. 5/8 of the commenters oppose, which at the very least is not a consensus. It's been sitting here for over a month and no new points have been made in 2 weeks. PilotSheng (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Who's able to mark this thing? Dawsongfg (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2022 (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.

Map update

It’s been three weeks since the map depicting the military situation has been updated, any chance of an update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:928:5301:1CEF:4BCD:B81D:B6AF (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, about time someone actualizes it Penedo173e788949 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Enough with the cities in the lead

There’s no need to list out every city or town that’s fallen. It’s written in the article, as well as in the info box (although it shouldn’t even be there).

I’m leaving Mariupol, Lyman, Sievierodonetsk, and Rubizhne, because those are the most prominent cities to fall. When the fall of Lysychansk is confirmed we can add that too.

But seriously — putting cities like Sviatohirsk in the lead is excessive. It literally has 4,000 inhabitants and is not a major anchor city like the four I’ve listed above. If anyone has an argument to include others that have been captured, like Kreminna, put it here.

Also pinging @Cinderella157 because the list of cities in the info box is totally excessive. PilotSheng (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

PilotSheng I was just about to raise something along these lines. Yes, I agree that the list in the infobox is now unnecessary intricate detail per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and similarly in the lead per WP:LEAD. The area captured is the more significant metric. As for the cities you left (Mariupol, Lyman, Sievierodonetsk, Rubizhne), only Mariupol appears to be of such significance as to objectively warrant inclusion in the lead. It occurred over a protracted period, it has a population significantly greater than the others. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 I think we should replace the cities in the info box with the claims of territorial changes (100% of Luhansk, 60-ish% of Donetsk).

As for the lead, with the fall of Lysychansk I’d argue that we should leave Mariupol, Sievierodonetsk, and Lysychansk, with the latter two being included due to the extensive media coverage that the battles for the two cities have received. PilotSheng (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If Russia controls Luhansk, then mentions of Sievierodonetsk, and Lysychansk are a bit redundent. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes so we only need to mention Mariupol and Lyman (which gives Russians a route). Dawsongfg (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We are starting to write the article in the infobox, which is quite contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. as for a prose list in the laed, it is written without context that would reasonably establish any significance for the cities listed in the lead. The infobox is also inconsistent with the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Russian operational pause

Has this actually happened? Ukraine doesn't think so.

Russia is continuing its offensive into Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region after capturing almost the entire neighbouring Luhansk region, according to the head of Ukraine-controlled Luhansk’s regional civil administration.

Serhiy Haidai told Ukraine’s United News he did not agree with recent western assessments that Russia had paused its offensive and was resting to regroup. The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based thinktank, and British military intelligence have both said in recent days that Russian forces are resting and taking time to reposition themselves for the next offensive.

“There has not been any kind of operational pause or reduction in shelling,” said Haidai. “Their attempts to advance forward are constant. They are putting in new units, including tank units.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/russia-has-not-paused-its-donbas-offensive-says-ukraine-official YantarCoast (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What does it mean? Withdrawal from Snake Island and attack on Sloviansk? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2022

"On 10 July, a Russian rocket attack in Chasiv Yar struck a multi-story residential building..." Please change 10 July to 9 July. It happened on 9 July, at approx. 21.17 local time. Anyway, the article on the incident says so as well. Thanks. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:2DFC:12E2:9912:8373 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Minimal grammar edit

Shouldn't there be an "or" here:

Now

Federal News Agency (FAN) stated that Ukrainian forces can only withdraw to the northwest of Novoluhanske to Semihirya.

With edit

Federal News Agency (FAN) stated that Ukrainian forces can only withdraw to the northwest of Novoluhanske or to Semihirya. DuckTheDucker (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Deleting Paragraph Discussion

Hello the last paragraph in the lead is incredibly redundant, they also captured other cities and donetsk oblast and it's already stated that they captured all of the luhansk oblast. Dawsongfg (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Avdiivka

was taken by russian forces july31 2600:1700:E881:4550:AC97:5BBA:5DD7:FBE8 (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

BS. That is not true, Avdiivka remains under Ukrainian control, according to an overwhelming number of ISW reports since then. Yavneh (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The Donbas

The correct English translation is "the Donbas", short for "the Donets Coal Basin" (in Russian), analogous to "the Middle West" or "the South" of the U.S. or "the Middle East". This should be corrected throughout WP after suitable discussion. In Slavic languages like Russian and Ukrainian there is no word for "the" (or "a") so those languages say "Donbas", but that should not mislead translators. Zaslav (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Is 'battle' the right terminology?

When we say that there is a 'battle of siversk', I agree that this is correct. But when describing an area hundreds of miles across with multiple battles along its respective frontline, from siversk, to bakhmut to the outskirts of donetsk, etc. is it correct to call this a battle? To say that there is battles within battles or a battle of battles doesn't really make sense. Nor does it make sense to imagine the frontline as a continuous, singular phenomena? I hope you can see what I'm getting at here, another term should be applied, like theatre, invasion or something else. 86.1.33.129 (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The right title is Donbas offensive. Also, it contains absolutely zero information about recent Ukrainian gains in the Donbas (e.g, Bilohorivka, Sviatohirsk, and far northern Donetsk Oblast) and that Russians have made very few advancements since trying to seize Siversk). 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Donbas is over

Some could argue that the battle ended the day that the Ukrainians began the 2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive. Just unclear about the result and how we would adjust the article.

Please discuss. Pinging some editors. @EkoGraf @Mr.User200 PilotSheng (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Could be to early to declare the campaign over, some fighting is still being reported in Bakhmut and Soledar, regarding the Ukrainian Counter-offensive in general it's divided in Kherson and Kharkiv, plus some advances on Donbas from the forces that came from Kharkiv. The current version of the article is ok for me. We should wait some weeks, is posible that a Russian breakout near Bakhmut materialize. We should wait some weeks.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The scope of this article is a complete mess in general, and I agree that it really needs to be defined better. Are all operations in east Ukraine after April 2022 part of the "Battle of Donbas", despite big gaps between offensives? No one's been calling the campaign a "battle" in a non-figurative way since mid-2022 apart from Wikipedia.

I've always been for merging this into Eastern Ukraine offensive, seeing as how this covers literally all of that article's scope, minus a couple of months at the very beginning of the war. If there's a scope that makes sense for this article, it's the Russian push in the Donbas in summer 2022, which ended after the Battle of Lysychansk. It lines up pretty well with "phase 2" in the "phase" terminology that's been emerging in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and actually has a meaning distinct from the wider campaign. HappyWith (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Arestovych is not Ukrainian MOD or Ukrainian Central Command

We need Reliable Sources for inclusion, please take into account too, that Presidential Advisor Arestovych is not the Ukrainian MOD or Ukrainian Central Command. Don't use url links to attempt to claim Ukrainian MOD have reported those numbers. Use only Primary and Secondary sources of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine for the content of the article. Mr.User200 (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC in progress

There is an RFC in progress on Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. HappyWith (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone wrote that Syria is involved in the battle via mercenaries and the source he used to justify it LITERALLY SAYS OPPOSITE

Someone clearly didn't read the article they cited as a source, because the article claims the following: "Despite the mobilization efforts of the Damascus government and private partners, Russia’s goal to flood Ukraine with foreign fighters failed. U.S. Marine Corps General McKenzie confirmed that there has not been a flow of Syrian fighters up to this point." The source does not say anywhere that Syrian mercenaries were involved in the fighting, it says that Moscow only tried and failed. According to that article, there are no Syrian mercenaries in Ukraine, and therefore Syria should be deleted from the "Belligerents" section, because this is an unsubstantiated claim, even disinformation. Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Good catch! I already started an RFC at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine where editors are voting to remove Syria as a belligerent from all the articles related to the war. Hopefully this kind of thing can be gotten rid of. HappyWith (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The RFC has closed and the closer has said that Syria shouldn't be added at this time. As such, I have proceeded to remove Syria. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Requested move 23 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus not to move the article (closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 22:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Battle of Donbas (2022–present) → War in Donbas (2022–present) – This new title would maintain consistency with War in Donbas (2014-2022), per MOS:CONSISTENCY. I think this move would be good. How says everyone? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Delete article. This is exactly the same as Eastern Ukraine campaign right now. There is no need for this page. Or for the other maybe. Super Ψ Dro 22:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep current title. You have a fair point about the name consistency, but changing 'Battle' to 'War' can give the impression it is a separate conflict from the larger ukraine invasion, when it is now sub-conflict of a larger ground invasion. The war was subsumed by a larger invasion and donbas became a battle for the region, therefore this article is just a progression. The current title gets the job done. If it is not broken, do not fix it. I also disagree that this article is redundant or superfluous. The Eastern ukraine campaign page includes all of eastern ukraine, while this article covers the fighting in the Donbas specifically, in more detail. They are not equivalent in scope. Leave this article alone for now. RopeTricks (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Consistency is not warranted because this is not a conflict analogous to the other article’s subject, nor is it a continuation of the other. For eight years the Donbas War comprised the only active theatre of kinetic warfare, and could be considered a war/the war as such. The 2022 battle of the Donbas (sometimes considered two battles separated by a pause), is a major operation in a broader war. Changing to parallel naming would obscure the defining differences rather than clarifying anything.  —Michael Z. 11:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Move to Donbas campaign (2022–present). As several people have pointed out since this article's creation, this isn't a single "battle" but a series of offensives and battles in the region, i.e. a campaign, much like the larger eastern Ukraine campaign it is part of. Lightspecs (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:SURPRISE - implies there is a different war when it's all part of the same war. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Per Michael Z, It shouldn't be consistent because it's not analogous. That would be confusing. HappyWith (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2023 (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.

Requested move 27 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) MaterialWorks (contribs) 21:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Battle of Donbas (2022–present) → Donbas campaign – This isn't a single "battle" but a series of offensives and battles in the region, i.e. a campaign, a major operation in a broader war. Skovl (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 17:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It’s is made up of dozens of offensives, battles and other smaller engagements, which I think more than qualifies it as a campaign. Tomissonneil (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Strictly speaking, the eastern campaign includes the beginning of the 2022 invasion chronologically, the Kharkiv oblast geographically, a major siege and Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kharkiv oblast in terms of operations, and changing Russian objectives in terms of strategy. The Battle of the Donbas is more restricted in scope, although it remains very large, having long ago become Russia’s main effort. I still think these are two different subjects, and the two respective articles should be retained, and pared down if there is too much overlap (at a glance, I don’t believe there is).  —Michael Z. 14:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Could we say Russia ever tried to actually capture Kharkiv? They thought Chernihiv, Sumy and Kharkiv would fall quickly after the invasion, but weren't Russian soldiers there ultimately aimed at Kyiv? I believe operations east of Kharkiv city can be safely included within a Donbas-aimed campaign. Kupiansk was a logistics hub that also benefited Russian troops in Donbas, and from Izium Russians were supposed to either surround Donbas or attack Sloviansk (this is what I remember most Western analysists were saying at the time). Super Ψ Dro 09:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete article this move will make this article 100% identical to Eastern Ukraine campaign. Operations that took place in Kharkiv Oblast were also aimed at encircling Donbas or just attacking Sloviansk eventually. Though the title is indeed better so I support it. Super Ψ Dro 17:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you, but I think it would be best to just make a separate AfD/Merge request rather than just saying it should be deleted at every RM, as I don’t think a merge will be able to gather support without a well-formed proposal explaining the complete overlap. HappyWith (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the name should be changed. The eastern ukraine campaign article details events from the start of the invasion, while this one only from 2022 April, so the two would not be identical. 188.143.117.183 (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• I Agree, although most news soources call it "Battle of Donbass", but Donbas campaign sounds better tbh --Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose you should not forget about WWII; such as Donbas strategic offensive (August 1943) -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose move, this would be much too vague, per IP 65.92.244.249. There have been other campaigns in the Donbas, and whatever noun we're using, we need to have a date to disambig. HappyWith (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose having 'battle' in the name does not automatically mean something refers to a single battle as long as RS refer to it as such; ie Battle of France, Battle of the Pacific, etc. Yeoutie (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

"Russian forces had began" → "Russian forces had begun" 149.86.189.14 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent with the source in "Strength" section

In "Strength" section from both sources only one talks about number of Russians and the article claims the following: "Western officials estimate that Russia now has about 76 Battalion Tactical Groups in the region - each of which has about 800 men." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61217528 This gives a number of about 60,000 Russian soldiers, not 120,000 - 150,000 as it is written in section.

The Battle of Donbas will be over when the Battle of Bakhmut is over

The last ongoing battle that is a part of the Battle of Donbas is the ongoing Battle of Bakhmut. When the fighting in/around Bakhmut is over, we can close this article. PilotSheng (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t Avdiivka in the Donbas? That battle's still ongoing. HappyWith (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian forces Haven't captured Bakhmut

as titled above. See Battle of Bakhmut DitorWiki (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - Request withdrawn by Nom. (non-admin closure) Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

---

• Battle of Donbas (2022–present) → Battle of Donbas
• Battle of Donbas → Battle of Donbas (disambiguation)

We do not have an article with the name, for example, Battle of Donbas (2006). The Wikipedia article on the 2003–2011 armed conflict in Iraq is called the Iraq War, not the Iraq War (2003–2011), although the conflict is still ongoing. Parham wiki (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:TITLEDAB, disambiguation is only necessary when there is otherwise an actual conflict in article titles. No such conflict in titles exists. Per WP:AT, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I missed Battle for the Donbas (1919). It does need disambiguation of one or both. One would need to be a primary topic and there is nothing convincing (nothing at all) as to which that would be. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely not "unnecessary precision". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• • Support Same for War in Donbas (2014–2022). This is just a battle for a region. The War from 2014 to 2022 wasn’t just a battle, it was a war.

  WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Comment: Isn’t Battle for the Donbas (1919) exactly this? HappyWith (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: I lost it too. Close the discussion (I don't know how it closes). Thank you and everyone else. Parham wiki (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose not only is this article unnecessary for overlapping with already existing articles, now we also want to make its title confusing with other articles? I seriously doubt all of the readers are going to recognize the small different nuance in meaning between "Battle of Donbas" and "War in Donbas" and know which article is for what based in their titles. I also imagine many will see one of the two and believe that it covers the whole war since 2014. Also per the comment above there's a third article with a similar article. Temporal disambiguation is very necessary here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

The City of Bakhmut hasn't been captured completely. And also the battle isn't over yet. DitorWiki (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources :

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65657621 DitorWiki (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan747 (talk • contribs) 17:19, July 14, 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan747 (talk • contribs) 17:19, July 14, 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

Russian forces Haven't captured Bakhmut. Please change the mistake as fast as possible.

Sources: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/19476&ved=2ahUKEwid3qz18pKAAxV5d2wGHc6TC6cQxfQBKAB6BAgFEAI&usg=AOvVaw1VBvifkOtKrd5kxMcx_kly

And

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65657621 DitorWiki (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

i have already provide you with reliable sources DitorWiki (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

The Russian offensive (April 2022 - May 2023) section is wrong and is overlapping the Ukrainian Fall counteroffensives (September-November 2022). DitorWiki (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Russian offensive (April 2022 - May 2023) section is to be divided like the following.

Section is two divide into two parts.

First Russian offensive (April-August)

Ukrainian counteroffensive

(August - November)

Second Russian offensive (November 2022-June 2023. DitorWiki (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: How to divide it? Where to add the new headers? Lightoil (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed; The article no longer contains info about the counteroffensive as part of its scope. HappyWith (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)