Talk:Battle of Marinka (2022–2023)

Problems with article substance

I think the main substance of this article is honestly really low-quality. It's basically all just mindless repetitions of scattered claims by both sides with no context, making for a really lackluster reading experience. Are there really no secondary sources that have summaries of the overall battle, or articles that retrospectively cover phases of it and confirm which claims are true and false?

I think there could be a lot improved here. Pretty much all of the "Ukrainian MOD claimed A, Wagner claimed B, milbloggers claimed C" can and should be removed for being unverifiable, for instance. Would any of these tiny events - ex: repelling a single Russian infantry assault on 30 January - even be notable enough to mention if they were confirmed? I honestly don't think so - and this kind of stuff is basically the entire article.

This is obviously an important and notable battle, with tons of coverage, and that's why the article should make that importance clearer, with more of a big-picture view. I'll try to fix these issues myself if I have time, but I generally don't make that many edits regarding war pages nowadays, so it would be great if other editors more familiar with this specific battle take an active role in improving the article too. HappyWith (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Something to consider: do the RS portray the fighting in Marinka as a continuous two-year battle that began with the February 2022 Russian invasion, or is that framing largely an invention of WP editors (and partly reinforced through WP:CIRCULAR sources) ? The start date itself almost certainly is. IMO, there is something of a bad habit on Wiki as it relates to ongoing military conflicts, in that whenever fighting reaches X location, articles titled "Battle of X" are immediately drawn up, despite no such term being commonly used by RS. We have been seeing a lot of this in the Israel/Gaza conflict as well. This phenomenon has resulted in front line cities in Ukraine becoming the sites of some of the longest "battles" in recorded history, because they cannot "end" until control over the city changes. The big flaw in this framing is the prolonged periods of stalemate: for the Second Battle of Avdiivka for instance, there is no notable information to report on for virtually an entire year, as there was a relative lull on the front at the time. In the case of this article on Marinka, there are similar gaps that are filled in with boilerplate reports of routine clashes and shelling. This flies in the face of a sentence we have at List of military engagements during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that being "Battles generally refer to short periods of intense combat localised to a specific area and over a specific period."

Would a better title for this article be something akin to "Marinka during the Russian invasion of Ukraine" or the "Marinka front of the Russian invasion of Ukraine" ?

I admit I might be way off. Just something I wanted to hear other people's opinions on. My best wishes SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You have a point, but "longest battles in recorded history" also typically had long stalemates or lulls. Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should consider that once this article is in a more coherent state, and determine a title based on the content of the article. HappyWith (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

RS do portray the battle as largely continuous since late February 2023. State institution rehashes like Ukrinform report attacks in Marinka generally each week since fighting began, and theres been several reports by larger papers like NYT and Le Monde that have described the fighting as constant but with it's ups and downs. Jebiguess (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Status of the battle

What are you waiting for? We have multiple geolocated proof of russian forces being in control of the whole town. You are waiting for oFfIcIaL cOnFiRmAtIoN?! What does that even mean!? We have literal material proof. Of course ukrainians are never going to admit they lost. Isn't the point of Wikipedia to be objective. This is war, you can't assume that one side is completely genuine in it's statements and the other side is the ultimate evil. If you wait for ukrainians to admit they lost then you will wait for another year. Because of admin's political views this article is no longer factually correct and people in the future will read false information from this website Пиротско-источнопчињски комонвелт (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

We're waiting for the next ISW report, because media have been "playing dumb" recently. Just using geolocated video as citation would be considered WP:ANALYSIS. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6427189 Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

According to most recent official statements by Ukrainian command, the battle for the city continue [1]. "Oleksandr Shtupun, spokesman for the Joint Press Centre of the Tavriia Defence Forces, refuted the Russian propaganda claim that Russian forces have captured the city of Marinka" ... "The commander-in-chief added that Ukrainian troops are still in the northern part of the city as of today, 26 December 2023." [2]. Yes, Zaluzny said the city is completely destroyed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Bruh, this guy said Russian sources are unreliable but it's ok to use Ukrainian sources. You aren't even trying to hide your biasness anymore. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Главком ВСУ подчеркнул, что Украине не стоит зацикливаться и начинать «какое-то шоу или скорбь» вокруг конкретного населенного пункта, оставленного военными. По его словам, боевые действия подчиняются своим законам, которые не зависят от того, «понравится ли это депутатам или журналистам»." Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You are even using Russian in quotation. We can not rely on Russian sources here due to censorship and other issues. Ukrainian sources are better because this is statement by Ukrainian command, and it is correctly cited in English from here:

"The commander-in-chief [Zaluzhny] added that Ukrainian troops are still in the northern part of the city [Mariinka] as of today, 26 December 2023."

This is typical that Russian sources distort statement by Ukrainian command. Besides, you need WP:Consensus to include new info. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainska Pravda is not better then Kommersant, whatever language they use. Especially, as you say, it is in English, not Ukrainian. Anyway, I don't need consensus to include new info. New info (from reliable sources) is sufficient. (Also, if you want to use this: "when asked if the Russians had indeed captured Marinka". Did he say no?) Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it is better - for the statements by Ukrainian command. Kommersant might be better for statements by Russian MoD. Also, it is better because of the official censorship (people go to prison!) in Russia. There is no this in Ukraine yet. Once again, see quotation from the source above.My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

So, did he deny that "the Russians had indeed captured Marinka" in your source? Also, I am questioning your complete removal of references to Zaluzny's statement, even if you (somehow) belive that he said something else. Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The quotation of the source above ("The commander-in-chief [Zaluzhny] added that Ukrainian troops are still in the northern part of the city [Mariinka] as of today, 26 December 2023.") answers your question. I do not believe anything here. This is simply something that source says. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The source says that he didn't answer "no" to the question. Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, a bunch of western sources already go in line with Kommersant, not Pravda, so it's over unless big evidence is shown otherwise. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Your argument about Ukrainian sources being better than Russian is completely inadequate, biased and makes your interpretation of this battle and participation here questionable. If you read WP:RSP you would know that kommersant IS a reliable source and was GREENLIT by Wikepedia, something pravda ISN'T. Therefore you can't use that argument to deny the reliability of Smeagol 17's citation. Furthermore, the pravda quote you wrote isn't a direct quote from Zaluzhny. From what we know, it could very well be a claim/distortion of what he really said. Considering our ignorance, we should trust much more on kommersant's reliability. Also, he doesn't need consensus to add new info from reliable sources. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Btw, do we have the raw interview? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh no, we absolutely can not trust anything that Kommersant (or any other similar source) said after the law of defaming Russian army. Yes, we can cite them (if appropriate), but it has zero credibility on anything related to the war or Russian army. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Cite the wikipedia policy (or "consensus", if you like) that states this. Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a specific issue, one of those to be discussed on WP:RSNB [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"to be" discussed.... Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we now know which source is more reliable regarding statements of Ukrainian officials: ["The Ukrainian military initially denied the Russian claim and Ukrainian military bloggers reported that Ukrainian troops were holding out in a small area of western Mariinka. But speaking during a news conference on Tuesday, the commander of Ukrainian Armed Forces, Gen Valerii Zaluzhnyi confirmed that Ukrainian troops had withdrawn."] Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if Pravda will retract that claim. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Ha.. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, there is clearly a contradiction, but I guess this BBC source clearly outweigh other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• By the way, ISW's map already confirms the geolocated footage and more. The city is not 99.9% controlled by Russians, it's 100%. I wonder where Pravda took that claim that "Ukrainian troops are still in the northern part of the city as of today, 26 December 2023." I hope they weren't considering the dead soldiers... That all seems very 'fishy'... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  The report was actually quite underwhelming. Hardly any new info. They didn't even add markers to the cutout maps, which is very unusual. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

We still need to figure out the proper end date

Sources are widely implying that 25 December was the date the city was captured, but that's only the date that the Russian MoD announced the full capture. In other words, it was when the "dust settled". The last fighting probably took place a bit before. We need to research for when those videos of the final clashes were recorded. It seems 24 December is the true date considering those earliest tweets. Hope the upcoming ISW report sheds some light into this. Otherwise, we'll still need to do some more digging of RS. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, same goes for the start date. HappyWith (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Casualties

Info on the battle-wide casualties are completely missing, with zero summary information in the body on even if it's been a particularly bloody battle. This should be added in, especially now that we have a pretty-well-established start and end date to work with. HappyWith (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

If such information exists in RSs, which is not a given. Even Ukrainians didn't make any claims, afaik... Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This battle was very under-reported by RS's unfortunately, especially the western ones. I plan to flesh out the body and add more (sourced) details, slowly, over time, and encourage other interested editors to attempt to as well. RopeTricks (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree this hasn't been reported on much by Western sources, but I think with Ukrainian and independent Russian sources a lot of the gaps can be filled in. Wish you luck in editing! HappyWith (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• It is impossible to come up with any numbers because the battle did not end. Meaning that Russian forces located in Marinka will be hit by the Ukrainian artillery and vice versa. My very best wishes (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thats neither here not there. The problem is no reliable (or even claimed) numbers, not possible future casualities in the area. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes: "the battle did not end" do you have a source? Panam2014 (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please stop with this argument! It could end up badly for you. This insistence is reminscent to those stubborn IP comments. Your vote at the battle of Bakhmut RfC gets discredited every time you indiscriminately use this argument. Your interpretation of end of battles is WP:OR. People/civilians still die in Donetsk weekly/monthly to this date. You should argue that the battle of Donetsk is still ongoing too. FYI, the western outskirts of Marinka are in a lowland, therefore it makes no sense to perform counterattacks from that direction if the aim of Ukraine's top general was to decrease casualties. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I only said that the shooting between Russian forces located in Marinka and Ukrainian forces continue, and this is something fully supported by sources cited on this talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but considering Ukraine is having to save shells recently, Russian casualties inside Marinka from now on will probably be minimal compared to the past. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: could you give me the source? Panam2014 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

ISW claims warfare in Mariinka was "highly attritional", but I don't know what they are basing that of, given the lack of published claimed numbers, even by their sources, afaik. Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that casualties, or the lack thereof, should be added in. If not, the lack of sourced casualties could be placed in the humanitarian impact section. Jebiguess (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

We can't really do this unless the "lack of sourced casualties" is noted by RSs. Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This tweet should prove the battle ended and there are no Ukrainian troops in the city

https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1739663824196686068

136.143.211.2 (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

We're past that point. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)