Talk:Battle of Marinka (2015)

Claims

What's Wikipedia's policy on obviously false casualty claimes? D3RP4L3RT (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

When both sides claim casualty figures for the other party than we appropriately attribute the claims to the one saying them. However, I've seen the claims made by each side. Rebels claim 400 Ukrainian dead and 1,000 wounded, Ukrainians claim 80 rebel dead. These obviously seem false/propaganda so to maintain quality of the article I would refrain from inserting them in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

One side cannot count the other side's dead, unless the positions were over-run and they were unable to take their dead with them. In artillery battles conducted at some distance, men may be seen to fall, but counts would be impossible. So claims of the other side's losses would be guesses+propaganda. Own side's likely understated for morale/propaganda reasons. Figures from the official spokesmen are more likely to be correct than later statements by politicians (eg the 400/1000 statement was from DPR PM Zakharchenko 2 or 3 days later and may include figures for other areas that week). KoolerStill (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: Ukrainian forces recapture Marinka after it was briefly captured by the separatists

The current infobox of this article reads: Result: Ukrainian forces recapture Marinka after it was briefly captured by the separatists. The reason I deleted this info a few days ago is that I found it hard to believe that the separatists first almost take control of Marinka and at the end of the day Ukrainian forces recapture the town. I found it hard to believe that the separatists simply left or that Ukrainian soldiers had the strength to force the separatists out. Or am I missing something? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Yulia Romero: What you or I think does not really matter. We write per the sources. And here you have one reliable news outlet citing three sources that the rebels took all, or at least most, of the town and that subsequently the town reverted back to Ukrainian Army control. The New York Times cites: a rebel spokesman saying the military withdrew from the town; a Ukrainian MP (also former commander) saying the rebels took 70 percent of the town; the Ukrainian military saying the cease-fire restored their control of the town (which means they lost control at one point). EkoGraf (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

70% claim

Re [1]. Maybe my phrasing that this was just "some dude" was a bit glib. Still, this is just based on a single facebook post by one person. You cannot put this text into an article as if it was a fact, stated in Wikipedia voice, just because some dude, whoever he is, wrote that on his facebook at one point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

First, we are not citing a facebook post but the New York times (highly reliable media outlet). Second, did you even see what I wrote on your talk page? It is not some random dude. He is a Ukrainian member of parliament and a former battalion commander. What you personally think of him is your POV. The combination of who relayed (NYT) it and who he is (Ukrainian MP) makes it reliable enough. And third, one person??? You totally ignored (for the third time) the part where I quoted that the Ukrainian military itself confirmed they lost control at one point, plus (as a bonus) a separatist commander also claimed they withdrew. So, I expect you could say the separatist commander is unreliable, but are you going to tell me the Ukrainian military is unreliable as well? So, the edit is not based on one person, but on THREE sources (a Ukrainian MP, the Ukrainian military and a separatist commander). EkoGraf (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the New York Times DOES NOT say "rebels captured 70% of the town". It says "at one point this dude posted on his facebook page that rebels captured 70% of the town. So you CANNOT say "rebels captured 70% of the town". At best you could say something like "the New York Times reported that at one point, a Ukrainian member of parliament posted on his facebook page a comment that rebels had captured 70% of the town". But that gets us to the issue of WP:UNDUE. As the battle was developing, there were all kinds of things said. Some Ukrainian government officials claimed they had beat back a major offensive and the Russians never entered the town. Rebels commanders were declaring victory and capture of the town. Some people were even talking about an attack on Mariupol. Etc. Like in any confusing situation all kinds of things were said. There is absolutely no reason to single out this one particular person - member of parliament though he may be - and this one particular thing he said at one particular point in time. There is even less (less than "absolutely") reason to put this into the article as some kind of factual claim.

Now you say on my talk page that there are three sources here. Fine. Where are they? They are not citing the text. So either add them in or drop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You may consider him a nobody, but apparently both his statement and him were notable enough to be cited by the New York Times (considered RS by Wikipedia). You have a right to your personal opinion about him, but POV edits are not allowed per WP policy. WP forbids Facebook directly as a source, not RS outlets who cite it. And I already told you where the sources are! All three sources are already cited in the New York Times reference. Source number ONE - A Ukrainian member of Parliament; Source number TWO - A separatist commander; Source number THREE (which you ignored for the fourth time) - The Ukrainian military. The military itself said they restored control thanks to the ceasefire, which means they lost control at one point! PS In regard to your statement Some Ukrainian government officials claimed they had beat back a major offensive and the Russians never entered the town. Well, guess nobody told this to the Ukrainian president who himself said his forces had ousted the rebels from Maryinka [2]. EkoGraf (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I put some compromise wording. EkoGraf (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not say he was a "nobody". I said he was a single person who at one point made a particular post on his facebook page. Since when did facebook comments become official government communiques? Regardless of where they're commented on, they are insufficient for stating claims in Wikipedia voice as if they were facts.

I haven't ignored any other sources either. The text has only one source in citation. If there are other sources, then provide them and we can discuss those.

Your "compromise" isn't much of a compromise as it still violates WP:UNDUE. You're using an offhand comment in an article (in yes, a reliable source) about an offhand comment that an offhand official made in an offhand capacity to state something as if it were true. That's not encyclopedic writing. It may be fine in a news source or something, but not in an encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The text has only one source in citation. I am repeating, for the fifth time, the three sources (Ukrainian MP, Separatist commander, Ukrainian military) are all in the one and the same citation/reference (the New York Times). And I already quoted all three of them for you, more than once. Read the whole New York Times article, and not just that one part about the MP. And that its offhand is your personal opinion, but we write per the sources and this is per the source. Also, violation of WP:UNDUE is when too much detail/depth/text is given to one, possibly minor, viewpoint. Only one sentence is hardly that. I have added even some more compromise wording into the sentence, like reportedly, making the sentence not factual. This is the word we use at the other battles articles, as well as at the Iraq and Syria wars when we describe something that is not definite fact. EkoGraf (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I did read the entire article. In regard to this issue there's only material about the MP posting something on his facebook at one point. It also says "By evening, it was unclear whether Ukraine’s military had lost the towns." - in other words, the source explicitly says, yeah, this guy posted this on facebook but who the hey really knows. There is no statements from Ukrainian military or separatist commanders which state that the rebels took 70% of the town. There is text which reports on the statement by the Ukrainian military that government control was restored. This does not mean rebels captured 70% of the town, or whatever. It means that the situation was contested, then ceased being contested. There is text which reports rebel commanders claiming that Ukrainian military withdrew from the town. This is of course nonsense as the very occurrence of this battle belies the claim. This was obviously just a propaganda cover for the surprise attack. At any rate, the claim does not support the contention that the rebels captured 708% of the town. If there's something else, please point it out specifically.

And yes, WP:UNDUE applies. You're basing a text which makes a factual claim, or even an attributed claim on a single sentence in a single source about what somebody at one point wrote on their facebook. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This is starting to simply be a case of where you don't like what's in the source. And WP has a policy for that. The claim is supported by a reliable source citing a person that is most certainly pro-Ukrainian. I compromised enough. It stays. That you have your personal doubts about the claim is your prerogative. But Wikipedia is based on verifiability and neutrality (including all POVs). Finally, There is no statements from Ukrainian military...that the rebels took 70% of the town. I never said that they claimed 70 percent. But that they lost control of the town or at least part of it is verified with the military's statement in the source where they said the ceasefire helped them restore control of the town (which means they lost it at one point). Plus, you have the Ukrainian president himself saying they ousted the rebels from the town, which means they were in it and had some extent of control. That I removed from the sentence the part about the rebels totally capturing the village (even though that's what the military implied and the separatists claimed) and left only the part about the 70 percent from the MP and used the wording such as reportedly (not making it factual) and attributed it to the MP is pretty fair in my opinion. EkoGraf (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"This is starting to simply be a case of where you don't like what's in the source." - No, this is a case of me objecting to you misrepresenting a source, claiming that it says what it doesn't say, and also inserting dubious claims based on someone's facebook post which was made at one point in time and not in any kind of official capacity.

"I compromised enough." - No, no you haven't compromised at all! How? Where? In what way? A compromise would involve finding another source which gives precise information as to what happened.

"the ceasefire helped them restore control of the town (which means they lost it at one point)" - No, that's your interpretation which is not in the source. In the previous version of this comment (which I was responding to but it got ec'ed) you said " I never said that they claimed 70 percent". A good thing you altered that since you did claim that... in bold. Anyway, "restore control" just means, like I pointed out above, that at one point the control was contested and then it wasn't. No "70%", no "rebels controlled the town", nothing like that in there.

"or at least part of it" - yes but "at least part of it" is not the same thing as "70%". Obviously the rebels attacked the town and control over... at least part of it, was contested. See, here is your opportunity for compromise "the rebels gained control over some portion of the town".

"attributed it to the MP is pretty fair in my opinion" - This is just one MP. If he had said this in some kind of official capacity then MAYBE it'd be notable and not violate WP:UNDUE. But he just made a post on his facebook at one point while the battle was on going and there was fog of war and all that. I have no idea why you want to insist on this 70% where it's obviously weak sauce.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I already removed the part that they took all of the village. That's what's called a compromise. While you have not compromised at all and instead demanded a removal of the sentence the whole time. That's nether compromise or showing good faith. In regard to your comment claiming that it says what it doesn't say, the 70 percent claim is in the source (which is an RS ref) so its verifiable and goes into the article. That you don't like who gave the claim or how he gave it is your personal opinion. I will compromise even further by inserting the wording you just mentioned the rebels gained control over some portion of the town (first time until now you attempted compromise wording), but am still going to mention the report by the MP because its in the source and its verifiable. EkoGraf (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

PS I just compromised further and changed the wording in the results section from Ukrainian forces recapture Marinka after it was briefly captured by the separatists to Ukrainian forces recapture Marinka after a part of it was briefly captured by the separatists. EkoGraf (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You know? It's not worth it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Move?

"Maryinka" seems to be more often used than "Marinka" - D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of this being the case for English language sources, DERPALERT. Could you provide a 'for instance'? A quick Google search yields far more results for "Marinka" in English language sources. The only sources using "Maryinka" are Ukrainian publications translated into English. As a result of your query here, I have noted that the article on Marinka (the city/town) was changed, but have requested that it be moved back because there was no discussion as to a WP:TITLE change, so my thanks for your bringing this to my attention.

Considering that that change to one of the articles disregarded parity between articles such as this one, Marinka Raion, plus where the town and/or Raion are mentioned in articles directly related to the war in Donbass, I would suggest that there is no compelling reason to change the name from Marinka. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

BBC, NYT, and RFERL use "Maryinka" more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=maryinka http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=marinka http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&contentCollection&region=TopBar&WT.nav=searchWidget&module=SearchSubmit&pgtype=Homepage#/maryinka http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&contentCollection&region=TopBar&WT.nav=searchWidget&module=SearchSubmit&pgtype=Homepage#/marinka/ http://www.rferl.org/search/search2.aspx#all%7Cmaryinka%7C0%7Callzones%7Cmin%7Cnow%7Cdate%7Cbanner http://www.rferl.org/search/search2.aspx#all%7Cmarinka%7C0%7Callzones%7Cmin%7Cnow%7Cdate

Washington post uses both: https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=maryinka https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=marinka -D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it's not looking particularly convincing either way, so the transliteration may be preferable. Still, I do think this needs some form of consensus (i.e., if a couple of other editors are willing to commit to one variant over the other). I'm good with either, but as long as the same version is applied to all of the relevant articles... and that edit wars don't start over people getting pernickety over their preference. We have enough headbutting going down without it being over trivia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• See the discussion at Talk:Maryinka. Regardless, this title should rename per WP:UKROM. RGloucester — ☎ 13:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)