Talk:Battle of Siversk

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for the article!.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

Severe amounts of edit warring and edit camping (best way I can describe it) are occurring on the page right now. Following Wikipedia naming convention rules, the names of the towns should be in Ukrainian unless otherwise stated on the town’s page to distinguish from similarly-named towns in the Russian Federation proper. Currently, the edit warring over linking Siversk to Seversk is bringing users to the town of Seversk, Russia, instead of the actual city that’s being fought over. Jebiguess (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Status

Should the status be "ongoing (disputed)" or should it be "ongoing" for the time being? Hydrochlorics (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It should only be ongoing, as nothing can be assumed until we have full confirmation of the outcome, as was the case with every other engagement during the war. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there has not been any independent confirmation nor photo/video proof of Siversk falling, so we should just keep it as ongoing unless these come out. Jebiguess (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Battle

No reliable sources (except CNN, only once) have reported anything about this fight. Dawsongfg (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

CNN is not a reliable source. You need to use sources that have no political/National bias. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

What is it with you and stating that at least 80% of the sources in most pages are unreliable? These are kind of all we have. Dawsongfg (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable source

As I said the source you use is not reliable since it tends to be bias towards one side. 24.91.190.77 (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@24.91.190.77: The Washington Post is a reliable source. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No it's not. The washington post is known pro Ukrainian sources. Is the same if I were to use Russian Times as my source for Russian claims. Please use unbiased and independent source. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Then the ISW is not a reliable source because they're more towards pro-Ukrainian. Dawsongfg (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Battle

Okay maybe now's the time to reach a consensus on what to do with this article, seeing as there's barely any sources stating anything (except for a few regarding shelling and such). Dawsongfg (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The battle is still ongoing. Please don't change the status of the Battle unless you have a verified and unbiased source to back it up. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

And where's the parts talking about the RECENT actual fighting? Dawsongfg (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Victory vs Ongoing

Please give your argument here about the status of the Battle of Siversk, and if possible, provide sources. DeepCriticalThinking (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the criteria for a Ukrainian victory? So far, for the past month, Ukraine has held Siversk but neither side has captured land. Most post-July 24 events in the article are shelling or failed Russian attacks.

This recent ISW post also claims Ukrainian control of Hryhorivka, therefore the frontline is no longer in Siversk proper. Jebiguess (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, unfortunately the same IP address user keep putting Ukrainian Victory without any source. At the moment there is still fighting in outskirts of the city but it hasn't push beyond that since early August. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that means that something's gotta be there. We've removed the Battle of Sievierodonetsk page before there was fighting INSIDE the city because there was no fighting in the city (except for that one attempt). Dawsongfg (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Given some of the new information that has come out, I think it is safe to say that the Battle of Siversk is a Ukrainian victory. Of course, a source with more explicit language that points to a victory would be more helpful, but overall, it can still be said that it is a Ukrainian victory, at least for now unless the situation changes. DeepCriticalThinking (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Revival as 2nd Phase Battle of Siversk in 2024 94.41.237.84 (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Battle of Siversk to Battle of Donbas (2022). SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose a merger of encyclopedic content from this page into Battle of Donbas (2022) and particularly the sections: Russian operational pause (4–16 July 2022) and Renewed assault on Donetsk Oblast (17 July–6 September 2022). Reference to foreign nationals as casualties is already mentioned at Battle of Donbas (2022), though whether it should be retained is another thing.

This article is one of many articles that have sprung up because WP:NEWSORG sources happened to mention a particular city/town and fighting in the general vicinity. Google news has no hits for "battle of Siversk" or "battle for Siversk" specifically nor does google scholar (here and here).

Following the Russian capture of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk, a bridgehead across the Donetsk facilitated a general advance westward toward Sloviansk and Bakhmut, conforming to operations more generally to capture Donetsk oblast. Siversk just happened to be in the way and came within artillery range. However (and for what ever reason), the focus of the Russian forces has been elsewhere in Donetsk, while the Ukrainian 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive contested Lyman, to the north, from early September 2022, leaving Siversk on the sideline and a non-event.

The merge discussion may ultimately lead to a delete discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Support, but I would ask you to consider the merits of merging to Eastern Ukraine campaign instead. I find that Battle of Donbas (2022) still has scope/OR issues with respect to how it is defined, especially in the July–September period, and is similarly a product of the NEWSORG effect you've described. If anyone is interested, I've expressed my concerns with the structure of the Battle of Donbas article in the latter part of this talk page discussion. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I now prefer a merge to Battle of Donbas (2022) – I think this information will fit better following a recent restructuring of that article. Specifically, the content on Battle of Siversk should be merged to the section Russian assaults near Bakhmut, Soledar, and the Vuhlehirska power station, which covers nearby combat during the same time period, and can be renamed to include Siversk.

This merge will give us a better picture of the relevant information we have and where it should ultimately go, and is meant to set up a future discussion to reevaluate the scope and role of the Battle of Donbas (2022) article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support merger Here is an analysis of the sources listed in the article:

1. - does not mention Siversk
2. - mentions "concentrating equipment" towards Siversk
3. - does not mention Siversk
4. - reporting that ISW said Russia's "offensive will go through Siversk"
5. - mentions missile attacks on Siversk
6. - mentions continued assaults on Siversk
7. - mentions Siversk is on the front line
8. - mentions continued assaults on Siversk
9. - mentions continued assaults on Siversk
10. - mentions Siversk is on the front line
11. - does not mention Siversk
12. - mentions offensives near Siversk
13. - says Siversk is a "target" of Russia
14. - says the Russians had been trying to capture Siversk since taking Lysychansk
15. - says Siversk is a "battleground town" (but we cannot use this per WP:HEADLINES)
16. - says Russian forces may start deprioritizing Siversk
17. - does not mention Siversk
18. - does not mention Siversk
19. - says Russia was trying to "break through" Siversk
20. - does not mention Siversk
21. - says there were no confirmed ground attacks on Siversk on 6 August 2022
22. - says Siversk has been a "heavily contested" area

None of these sources mention a clear cult "battle of Siversk", so saying it was a battle (let alone one with well-defined start and end dates) seems to be SYNTH. That being said, these sources also make it clear that Siversk was at a time an objective of Russia's, so we should mention that in another article (though it doesn't need its own article). Gödel2200 (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Support merger to a target to be determined thru further discussion. This is another Baba Mica article and there is zero basis in sources for its existence.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2024 (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.

Rename to "First Battle of Siversk"

Second one is seemingly breaking out 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:5DCA:FC45:1199:27ED (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Please provide sources SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)