Talk:Battle of Soledar/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Wagner Group (variant).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated Russian propaganda sources

Re [1]. Sputnik news is a deprecated source, even if it is being laundered through a Pakistani web portal. Volunteer Marek 08:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek Changed to CNN, which is a reliable source Lemonaka (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are you describing an edit by a completely different account? Volunteer Marek 19:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

What? Because I'm interested in helping all articles about Ukrainian-Russo wars. I have done a lot of help of WP:ER about this topic. Lemonaka (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I missed an already Lemonaka (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

oh ok. The response just looked confusing. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Andriy Zhovanyk and Yuriy Yurchik

Given the conclusion of a past discussion in the Mariupol siege article, should they be in the infobox, given that their only mention in the article is their death? Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

See, for example, this.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

Vandalism with regards to the outcome of the Battle of Soledar. Another user - 5 minutes ago, as of writing - edited the battle’s result as “Russian victory”, despite insufficient evidence to support such a claim. Request: Change the status of the Battle from “Russian victory” to “Ongoing”. 87.50.164.147 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done! I wouldn't say the edits were vandalism, as Russia has captured almost all of Soledar, but I agree that it is too early to say that the battle is completely over. Physeters^✉ 08:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Battle has ended

Russian troops have captured the city as claimed by the Wagner group 105.100.244.180 (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No, they haven't. Northern part is still contested.

We will wait for further information RandomPotato123 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wagner group claimed the city as taken 3 separate times on the 10th, 11th and 12th, each time being disproved. Giving them the benefit of the doubt would be the wrong course of action. Until an independent third party like the ISW confirms the battle is over we should keep it listed as on going. Scu ba (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Town? City? Settlement?

I would just like to make a clarification and standardize how Soledar is addressed. It has been interchangeably called a town settlement and city. I think we should just pick one of these and use it throughout for all references to Soledar. Officially Ukraine has it as an urban-type settlement so I think we should use settlement, however, I would like to reach some form of consensus around this before changing the article. Scu ba (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely say settlement as there are many ways to call it but it seems the most formal and best to describe it, also after the "Russian victory". NYMan6 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

okay so I'm going to go ahead and change all references of City and Town to Settlement in the article and provide a link to Urban-Type settlements at it's first mention. Scu ba (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine MoD admits Soledar in Russian control

Now that Ukraine has admitted to the lost of Soledar, please change to the status to Russian Victory 32.220.149.32 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't find any source for this, but I did find a source for the opposite here Scu ba (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Source? RandomPotato123 (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

https://t.me/rybar/42717 32.220.149.32 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Rybar is known to be pro-Russian. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:40BE:CDE:AA06:D186 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

And? Only pro ukrainian sources are allowed? DeiDrah23 (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be best for all of you to only use objective, free-press western sources. They delight in telling bad news, so the Russian/Putin-supporters on here should be fine with them. 2603:6080:21F0:7880:6CA3:8805:72AB:6B1C (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The battle is not over

According to the speaker of the Eastern Group of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Serhiy Cherevaty, as of 17:30 16 January, the battle is still ongoing, Ukrainian soldiers are fighting in the city, so it's too early to say that Russia captured Soledar. ZxcvU (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

But Ukrainian troops on the groud say different story. (check new article from kyiv independent)

also today Wagner pmc captured Sil thus completing the capture of Soledar. As a proof they released a picture of them in front a building which was geolocated to Sil by the German journalist Julian Röpcke RandomPotato123 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

wiki editors are not in position to judge if battle is over or not. Based on this or that criteria. Including if somebody has captured something. Reliable sources needed. Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

yes, you are right but sources say Russia controls

RandomPotato123 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/russian/live/news-64082274 Украинское командование утверждает, что Соледар еще не сдан Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, this source is unreliable, because its statement "the Ukrainian Armed Forces said in a statement" is just wrong. Siradan (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

i wouldn't say that on it's own makes it unreliable Genabab (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Quotes from Prighozin

Why exactly are we serving as a mouthpiece for the head of the Wagner Group? Volunteer Marek 02:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This logic is poor. I agree with the fact that he is not a good guy as you stated earlier in an edit summary.But, if quoting a bad guy is equivalent to Wikipedia being his mouthpiece then you should consider all the articles where bad guys are quoted.

I mean this is not practical. This is more like poor logic from your side on this issue. RandomPotato123 (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well first off the quote has been added on Jan 18th [2] and per WP:CONSENSUS if somebody disagrees, and an edit has been reverted, it should be discussed before added back. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the quote was added on January 13. And was first removed on January 18.

For 5 days, the quote stayed there and no one had any problem other than Volunteer Marek. So what you're saying isn't applicable RandomPotato123 (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Usually, I support the inclusion of quotes, but in this case I feel like Prighozin's statement does not add anything of value to the article. His claim was not independently notable; rather, it was typical for Russian claims during any battle of the invasion. Applodion (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, all sides POV needs to be presented for the sake of balance and one POV can not be excluded, while the other remains. If we remove the Prighozin claim about "The whole city is littered with the corpses of Ukrainian soldiers", then the Ukrainian claim about Russians advancing over the corpses of their comrades should be removed as well. So either leave both, or remove both. Wikipedia does not present (push) only one narrative. I'm fine if we remove the sentence, as Applodion says its nothing notable in itself, but only if the equivalent Ukrainian claim is removed as well then. Otherwise leave both. EkoGraf (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. We should remove both. Applodion (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think you can put Prighozin and U MoD on the same level. That’s false equivalence. Neutrality does NOT require “all sides to be presented”. It requires all sides to be presented in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. However, if the majority preference is for removing both quotes, I’m fine with that. Volunteer Marek 18:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The motivation "Just remove both for NPOV" lacks agrumentation. We should represent POVs as per secondary RS represent them.

Now, if we look at the source for both quotes ( www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-wagner-group-says-soledar-liberated-around-500-ukrainians-killed-2023-01-11/ ) , its just news article without any analysis, so its not a secondary source. Now, both quotes have no notability above news article, because no secondary RS gives any attention to them (so far). So, both quotes should be removed because of that (until secondary RS is presented for one or another). Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Both are just quoting and not providing any analysis. EkoGraf (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• WP:GEVAL please. These claims and sources are very different, and no, these are not just two sources. Prigozhin was caught lying numerous times, most recently as he claimed Soledar to be completely taken by his forces at certain date; that was disproved by everyone including even Russian Ministry of Defense. Therefore, any claims by Prigozin should be given an extremely low priority/due weight. On the other hand, the claim about the corpses of Russian soldiers was cited by numerous RS, and therefore must be included. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What the primary and non-primary sources are should not be mixed and confused. The primary sources for both claims are a source within the Russian side and a source within the Ukrainian side. Both inherently unreliable as belligerents in the conflict. The non-primary sources for both are RS... Yes, including for Prighozin's claim which was reported on by Reuters, which as far as I last checked is considered RS. Maybe even more so than the secondary source for the Ukrainian claim (Voice of America - state-owned USA network). In any case, both sources which reported the claims are generally considered reliable. So either remove both sentences, or leave both since they are properly cited to reliable sources. What we personally think about what the sources report is irrelevant. EkoGraf (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

In any event, please do not use TASS for sourcing on these pages per Perennial_sources]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@EkoGraf@My very best wishes Please read:

I have replaced TASS with two Russian-language sources with the same claim. The claim of 25,000 isn't original reporting by TASS, it is citing a LPR official. The two claims are the exact same in nature: the Ukrainian claim of 10-20,000 killed in Soledar and Bakhmut was made by a Ukrainian presidential advisor, and the Russian claim of 25,000 casualties in Soledar was made by a current advisor to the Head of the LPR and former LPR ambassador to Russia.

Both are claims by individual government officials. It just so happens in the circumstances of this war that the media that Westerners see is more inclined to cite the Ukrainian claim and not the Russian claim. The fact that Western RS cited the Ukrainian claim is not a factor of the truth or lack thereof of the Russian claim (both could possibly be inflated), it has been established that throughout the Russo-Ukrainian War, Western media has been heavily biased towards Ukraine ([3][4][5][6][7]) and they may have overlooked the Russian claim. We live in the West, so it's easy to accept Western sources as fact, whereas people in Russia may be quick to accept their own sources as right.

The bottom line, is both claims are made by individual high-ranking officials within the respective governments, and the lack of RS coverage for the Russian claim should not be a judgment of its accuracy but rather of the information campaign going on. I have reinstated the claim with self-published sources with no type of Wikipedia banner red flagging its trustworthiness.

In the West, there is an information campaign boosting Ukraine, in Russia, Iran, China, and many other parts of the world, there is an information campaign boosting Russia. Who is to say one is right and the other is not? Thus treating one claim as more reliable than other is inherently a bias towards the other side given the circumstances. Therefore the claims should be treated as equal in nature and in trustworthiness (or lack thereof): either both stay, or both are removed. -- PilotSheng (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And if you have any qualms about the sources I've used to cite the Russian claim, take a look at the source used for the Ukrainian claim: the New Voice of Ukraine -- a borderline propaganda organ itself. PilotSheng (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edits, where you replace Reuters with unreliable sources, could not be accepted.

If there are other unreliable sources, you can remove them. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with everything stated by @PilotSheng. EkoGraf (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

According to both sources (and TASS), this is a claim by Rodion Miroshnik (Родион Мирошник) who is currently just a private person. He was in the past an ambassador of LNR (which no longer exist) to Russia. Why his personal view should be at all included to the page? My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

In other words, this is not "Russian claim", but a claim by Rodion Miroshnik who is nobody. How did he arrive to such number? The sources do not say it. He is no longer even an LNR official. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If it were a reliably sourced official estimate, for example, by Russian ministry of defense, then it would be indeed "Russian claim" and could be included as such to the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

Under the 'Casualty' header

Christopher Parry has not been confirmed as a casualty. For the respect of his friends and family can I kindly ask an admin to remove the last line of the opening paragraph. The sentence has reference [82]. BrokenRobot95 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Really appreciate it BrokenRobot95 (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we please…

…stop trying to do play by play of these battles with every rumor and telegram post getting added in a gross violation of WP:NOTNEWS [8]? A whole bunch of related articles suffer from this problem and weeks later they all end up looking like shit because of outdated recentism and rumors which were “hot” at one point and then ended up to be just that. Rumors. Wagner, or “Russian military bloggers” on behalf of Wagner, claim to have taken stuff around Soledad and Bakhmut like once or twice a week. When stuffs confirmed then we can put it in.

We’re a freaking encyclopedia not an OSINT aggregator.

And before someone tries to play the “but ISW is a RS and they reported on it” card - so what? Having an RS is a *necessary*, not a sufficient condition for inclusion. Volunteer Marek 08:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly a lot of these articles (“Battle of…”) are in bad need of a chainsaw. Volunteer Marek 08:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Also “Russian winter offensive” is pure OR - this has been going on since May (I remember seeing claims from those very same “Russian military bloggers” back then that Soledar was being taken) and afaik no source uses such phrasing. Volunteer Marek 08:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Similarly, can we also get rid of the paragraphs upon paragraphs of "X claimed the battle was over, but Y said it was still ongoing, but the ISW said..., but Prigozhin said..."? No one will care about the debate in ten years. It should be summarized in a single paragraph, if that, along the lines of "after weeks of uncertainty, it was confirmed Russian forces took Soledar". HappyWith (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)