Talk:Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Battle of Kherson which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle of Avdiivka"

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) 04:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ping User talk:2600:387:C:6D11:0:0:0:5, , 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) 04:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Starting date of this battle

When did this battle start? On 20 February or 21 February? The article contradicts itself on several parts. Super Ψ Dro 23:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Casualty Count 🙄

Casualty count is bullshit. CANNOT be verified. Unknown would be more appropriate.... 2600:1700:21F8:6080:CF67:4095:3B6E:7DAB (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Arestovych is a Ukrainian presidential advisor, who hosts a war podcast. WarTranslated just translates what he and other Russian and Ukrainian war bloggers and podcasters into English. While his numbers are probably too high, it’s the only source about Russian casualties that we have. Until new sources come out, please leave it as is. Don’t remove a sourced figure and replace it with nothing because you don’t think it’s accurate, please. If you have a better source that contradicts this one, you are more than welcome to include it. Tomissonneil (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Should this be considered a siege?

I'm not exactly the most qualified person to comment on the classification of this engagement however considering if this continues to next month it will officially overtake The Battle of Verdun as the longest battle in history. Yet according to front lines and the contents of this article it seems more as if the Ukrainian Army has entrenched itself and Russian & DPR forces are attempting to encircle the city and cut off supplies, which is a popular siege tactic. if possible please explain to me why it cannot be called a siege a Rookie editor of This Emporium of Knowledge, SirColdcrown (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected-edit request 3 January

A report from 18 July by Oleksii Arestovych stated that the Russian/separatist forces lost 30,000 casualties, including 10,000 killed. While these numbers are indeed suspect, I think that we should at least make a note of it, to keep a record of what some Ukrainian sources are claiming about Russian losses, and to compare it to any futures Russian casualty claims.

Link: https://wartranslated.com/day-145-july-18-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast/ Tomissonneil (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Battle of Avdiivka (2022–2023) → Battle of Avdiivka (2022–present) – Based on when the United States was involved in the war in Afghanistan, the Wikipedia article reads (2001–present), since the battle is still ongoing, it should be read as Battle of Avdioka (2022–present) because readers will compare that article to They get the wrong conclusion that the battle is over. Parham wiki (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. It more clearly conveys the fact the battle is not ended, and per the proposal better satisfies the WP:CRITERION of consistency.  —Michael Z. 17:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

For the record, my first rationale means the proposed title better serves the CRITERIA of recognizability and precision, by identifying the subject as the battle in progress and not one that’s over.  —Michael Z. 18:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Obvious support matches other articles. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Support, obviously. Should be the same with Battle of Marinka (2022–2023) too. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I also gave requested move there. Parham wiki (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 12:48, 1 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.

Andriivka now in Ukraine’s control

I am unable to update the article as it is locked. According to Forbes Andriivka was taken into Ukrainian control on the 14th or 15th of September 2023 https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/09/16/an-elite-ukrainian-brigade-just-annihilated-a-russian-brigade-near-bakhmut/?sh=712e769b5195 TuscanSteve (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, looks like I don’t know my Andriivka from my Avdiivka TuscanSteve (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Broken link

The note relative to: "with 33-36 armored vehicles and 15 tanks destroyed" erroneously points to http://dev-isw.bivings.com/ 87.4.211.49 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Cinderella157 (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Exteme bias

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.

---

Why is every wiki page about this conflict just paragraph after paragraph of unverified claims of russians being essentially slaughtered. Wiki mods trying to shape a narrative. Of 50 references, 45 will be Ukrainian and 5 will be russian. Calebman127 (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! Not only there are more active pro-Ukrainian editors, but it's also much easier to find pro-Ukrainian sources as WP:RS/P gives them a "carte blanche". I'll add a {{Biased-section}} notice. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

If you think the whole article is problematic, you can move the template to the #top. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh come on. There’s a ton of footage of destroyed Russian vehicles that are in the supplied sources. Most of them, by the way, aren’t written by Ukrainians. If many different analysts and observers are all saying the same thing, there’s probably some truth to it. And the reason why there’s only a few Russian sources is because they’ve largely stopped talking about it, which happens all the time a Russian offensive fails. Putin and Shoigu have hardly said anything about the battles of the Sieversky Donets, Vuhledar, or really of their bungled attacks that resulted in terrible losses for little gain, and they’re not going to unless they manage to drive the Ukrainians out of the town. Tomissonneil (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

There is hardly any (if any) mention of the territorial changes. So it makes it feel like an accepted suicide. If there isn't much to say besides the heavy losses, then we don't need 5+ paragraphs talking about the same thing. One short paragraph synthesising casualties on both sides would get the message across without being biased/unbalanced. Besides, compare the difference in tone given to the bloody Ukrainian assault on Robotyne and Verbove... There is very little emphasis on the terrible losses for little gain. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That's because Ukrainian forces do not conduct human wave attacks like Russia does, and work to minimize casualties. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard and just proves my original point of extreme bias. No wonder why people think Wikipedia is a joke. Calebman127 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If that were true, we'd be seeing more evidence physical of these massive casualties from the Russian side, and as of right now there is no evidence right now of these casualties. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason why Wikipedia tends to have a pro-Ukrainian bias is due to reliability of sourcing. Ukrainian sources like Euromaidan Press, Kyiv Post, and Kyiv Independent (to name a few), are independent of the Ukrainian government and allow independent media within their borders to report. Russian media, including RT, Novaya Gazeta, and Sputnik, all are owned or heavily edited by the Russian government, so much of the reporting is either blatantly false or extremely skewed and consequently unreliable. Jebiguess (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

How are they independent? I've recently raised a topic on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the impression was that those Ukrainian sources you mentioned need to be checked on a case by case basis, preferably with other more reliable sources. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

On being checked by a case by case basis, this September 2023 and this March 2022 both assess that the Kyiv Independent is generally reliable, albeit with a pro-Ukrainian skew regarding news in Ukraine. Euromaidan Press is still a hot topic, but it appears to be independent with a slight bias in favor of Ukraine and should be used at the user's discretion. You mentioned in the argument at the noticeboard that because Ukraine is under martial law, all Ukrainian news agencies must be looked at skeptically. That's not necessarily true. This Reuters piece states that Euromaidan Press in particular receives funding from the International Renaissance Foundation, and is not affiliated with the Ukrainian government.

For the topic of the article - the course and casualties of the Battle of Avdiivka - Ukrainian news agencies are more reliable than Russian news agencies for the sole purpose of who is allowed to go to the front. This recent AP article states that Russian government creates the claims that appear in Russian newspapers and routinely produce disinformation, rather than the statements coming from at the front as often seen in Ukrainian newspapers. When the aforementioned sites conduct interviews with or recite claims of Ukrainian military and government officials, they should and often are mentioned (Shtupun is cited several times as the source of the claims along with footage). This NYT article from just a few days ago also cites Ukrainian soldiers in the battle at Avdiivka itself as it was occurring. Attempting to "both-sides" Russian and Ukrainian sources' reliability, especially those provided, ignores the content of both sides' reporting. While it's important to dissect the bias from the facts, WP:BIASED establishes that a biased, in his case, pro-Ukrainian, source doesn't necessarily mean the information is unreliable. Jebiguess (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the relevant links. I didn't mean that those sources are all unreliable, I said they were quite biased, and the way that that section is written emphasizes that bias even more. Even if those sources were usually reliable in the recent years, we should be extra skeptical about their reporting on this battle (Avdiivka) because Ukraine is just coming out of a very disapponting offensive. Therefore, it's only natural that they want to make the Russian offensives look even worse than theirs. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yet Ukraine's offensive is still ongoing, with things like the crossing of the Dnieper river and such. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The point is still the same, it's not going well, to put it mildly. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You cannot say for certain until it is actually over, such as during last year when people said that the Kherson counter offensive was a failure, only for it to end up succeeding in the end. We could see something similar happen in the current counter offensive, just pointing that out. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

you don't even realise how biased you are it actually looks like a parody. If we go by your logic we can say the same about the Russians, their offensive may have failed but let's see what happens. Inflating casualties from an extremely biased source (like everything you mentioned above) doesn't help your narrative. Calebman127 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

How about you try and keep an open mind, you only created this account yesterday to complain about what you call "bias" and you haven't made any real edits on Wikipedia at all. And please don't act all aggressive like that, it's unprofessional. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That's why I said it's not going well, present tense... This is going off topic though. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War, Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Calebman127 looks very much like a WP:SPA and the comments offer no remedy to a problem they perceive. This discussion is fairly clearly WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX, and should be closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:20, 26 October 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.

Proposed merge of Battles of the Donetsk suburbs into Battle of Avdiivka (2022–present)

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.

There was unanimous consensus to merge or delete, but rougher consensus for the target. Editors generally supported merging relevant material into relevant articles like Battle of Avdiivka (2022–present) and Battle of Donbas (2022–present), and deleting anything that wasn't relevant. HappyWith (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

---

These are treated as the same battle by every source I've seen (including Wikipedia itself; note how the infobox of Battle of Avdiivka (2022–present) specifies that battle takes place in Avdiivka "and surrounding villages".) The Institute for the Study of War consistently groups together info about Vodiane, Pervomaiske, and Avdiivka into what it variously calls "the Avdiivka area" [1] and "the Avdiivka-Donetsk City front" [2] [3]. Not to mention the fact that Avdiivka itself is a "Donetsk suburb", making the scope of the suburbs battle article very unclear. There aren't any articles or analyses I know of that consider "the suburbs front" as its own unique thing separate from the battles for the major cities and towns the villages are on the outskirts of.

It might appear that the suburbs article is too long to merge into Avdiivka, and has enough to stand on its own, but that's not actually the case. Like a lot of these non-notable battle articles, there is a lot of fluff in the "suburbs" article, with lots of sentences like "Russian forces made unspecified gains in Opytne", descriptions of vague actions "with unclear results", or claims attributed to massively biased pro-Russian bloggers with zero independent confirmation. HappyWith (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge, neutral on proposed target. We also have an article on the battle of another suburb of Donetsk, Battle of Pisky. As far as I know that was a notable battle that should have an article. So we have to chose. The infobox of the article that has been proposed for merger here includes "Nevelske, Pervomaiske, Vodiane, Netailove, and Opytne" as the location. Fighting in Opytne and Vodiane can be argued to be part of fighting for Avdiivka as their areas currently constitute one of the two salients next to the town and Russia is probably aiming to encircle Avdiivka as it tried with Bakhmut. But Pervomaiske and specially Nevelske and Netailove are (relatively) far from Avdiivka and fighting there doesn't seem to aim to be for Avdiivka. They seem immediate continuations of the battle of Pisky. And Pisky is closer to Avdiivka than Netailove is. We can't connect it to the fighting at Avdiivka. I think this article should be deleted altogether to avoid remaining with a problematic redirect. If not possible, merging to Battle of Donbas (2022–present) would be uncontroversial. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  These are really well-put concerns. Now I'm not sure about the target either, tbh. Maybe we could copy different relevant parts into different relevant articles that they pertain to, then delete the article to avoid dealing with the redirect issue? HappyWith (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'd fully agree with that outcome. We will have to determine what info goes where. I propose that fighting in Opytne and Vodiane is covered here and fighting in Nevelske and Netailove is covered at the battle of Pisky. Pervomaiske is a bit tricky. Its capture would not contribute too much to the encirclement of Avdiivka but it's being attacked from Vodiane (or that's what it looks like when looking at DeepStateMap). Still Pervomaiske is connected to Pisky through a road and between Avdiivka and Pervomaiske there's a stream and a couple of lakes (though so is there between Vodiane and Avdiivka, but they're closer to each other). I'd say to include it in Pisky's article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree on deleting the article as is, or merging the information into the Battle of Donbas or Eastern Ukraine offensive, as it's impossible to dictate where the battle of Avdiivka ends and begins, along with the outskirts of Pisky. Merging all the content into the battle of Avdiivka negates the context required for battles in Pervomaiske and Vodiane, even if they are not notable. The battle of Avdiivka is better kept within Avdiivka limits - towns like Kam'yanka, Lastochkyne, and Krasnohorivka (north of Avdiivka) and of course Avdiivka - instead of adding miscellaneous towns unrelated to the battle.

This article was created to embellish battles with little to no information, much less reliable information, about them. Keeping it as is is just polishing a turd, and the amount of sourcing that could go into the battle of Pisky or Avdiivka is so minimal its near irrelevant. Jebiguess (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the best idea, with good supporting arguments. I’m with the proposal to merge all of it straight to Battle of Donbas, then copy over/split stuff to Avdiivka if it applies. HappyWith (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge As a general observation, we have way too many articles that keep popping up like mushrooms as soon as somebody can think of a new title. This is an issue with writing "history articles" on contemporary issues. If I have this correct, the objective of the Battle of Avdiivka (2022–present) is the recapture of the city of Donetsk (the ultimate target) and Avdiivka is just a suburb of greater Donetsk. Battle of Avdiivka (2022–present) is probably the best target at the moment. It may also be appropriate to consider renaming the article inline with reflecting a broader scope, the fighting for Donetsk city. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

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:

• Battle of Avdiivka.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2023

ADD "As of March 6, 2023 the town remains in Ukrainian hands" (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/5/ukraine-says-russia-pursuing-attempts-to-encircle-bakhmut) Ntean (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. M.Bitton (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Use of indiscriminate weapons

Russian "Izvestya" published an interview with commanders of Russian units participating in siege of Adviivka where they quite openly admit to using "Uragan" MLRS and "Tyulpan" heavy mortars against the town, which I believe is quite notable as Russia in a few months will switch to denying any responsibility in ruining the town as they did in Mariupol.[4] Santorini36 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Battle Section Update

The battle Section should be updated to include developments that have taken place in 2023, like an escalation in fighting and the Russians beginning a similar encirclement-like maneuver to the one they've used in Bakhmut. GramCanMineAway (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This is now the longest battle in history. It should be reflected as such.

An update to the article is required, I am not one of you so I hope someone can reflect this in upcoming changes. 72.213.180.165 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That can't be, right? What about the siege of Candia? HappyWith (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

To be a siege, one has to have nowhere to retreat to. Hence why Verdun was previously the longest. 72.213.180.165 (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Artem Murakhovskyi

Artem Murakhovskyi never was a Azov Battalion commander, he used to be a member of this battalion, but then leaved the army. When war started he joined a 25th Airborne brigade. He was an activist and famous person, but he never was an Azov commander ( he only had a private first class rank). So I'm asking for redaction Kolenikua (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Potential change of name for the article?

I believe that it might be a bit more sensical for the article to be renamed as the Second Battle of Avdiivka. Considering the sequences of other battles in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, such as the battles for Donetsk Airport, it becomes somewhat sensical to propose this idea.

The current article states that the Battle of Avdiivka spanning between 2022 and present began on February 21, 2022, preceeding three days before the official Russian invasion of Ukraine. This therefore technically makes this battle part of both conflicts, and should follow the pattern of battles seen in the War in Donbas such as the First and Second Battle of Donetsk Airport. It seems logical and consistent to consider renaming this article as the Second Battle of Avdiivka, this would also enhance clarity for those reading the page to understand the sequence of events that are constantly changing in the region.

I thought that sharing my proposal would be a good way for discourse or discussion to occur and hear insightful ideas from other writers on Wikipedia, I don't think I am in any position to change the name of the article (neither do I actually know how to) and wish to hear others opinions. Thank you for reading, I look forward to hearing potential objections or support, have a good day. Davomme (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The notion that the collection of intermittent clashes in the general Avdiivka area since the start of full-scale war ought to be framed as a continuous 1.5-year long battle is questionable to me. In particular, the complete absence of any activity in this article over a four-month span during the past winter and the lack of regular meaningful reports throughout all of 2023 until the most recent escalation leads me to believe a more suitable title for this article would be something following the format of the Dnieper campaign (2022-present) and the Luhansk Oblast campaign. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

technically makes this battle part of both conflicts

technically it was part of just one conflict, the Russo-Ukrainian War. Im not sure if I fully understand what you are asking, if you are asking to make a second article about more recent stuff and naming that the Second battle of Avdiivka and keeping this article around as a first battle. or if you want to rename this article to the Second battle of Avdiivka and rename Battle of Avdiivka (2017) to the Second battle of Avdiivka. Scu ba (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

To make it clear, I wrote this proposition prior to the escalation in the Avdiivka area. Therefore I am unsure how you came to this conclusion since the date of this proposal was wrote on 20 September 2023, almost two to three weeks prior to the unexpected Russian assault on Avdiivka that we have seen from 10 October onwards.

The Battle of Avdiivka in 2017 article I feel should be renamed to the First Battle of Avdiivka as part of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, and then the Battle of Avdiivka from 2022 to present should be renamed the Second Battele of Avdiivka. The reasoning for doing this is mentioned in my previous proposal. Davomme (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit to infobox

Scu ba, in this edit you added a note against the Donetsk People's Republic: An unrecognized Russian breakaway state claiming the Donetsk Oblast. Russia would illegally annex the territory on 30 September 2022 after an unrecognized and illegal sham election, where previously it simply said: "until 30 September". Your edit was challenged here, by amending it to, Russia would annex this and other territories on 30 September 2022 after a controvertial referendum, with the edit summary: Too many POV loaded terms, which are unsourced and have too much nuance to have a place in this article, let alone a note in the infobox. We should not be making such unattributed opinionated statements in a Wiki voice. I have reduce this to a simple, uncontroversial statement of fact appropriate for this article. You have reinstated your version here with the edit summary: The referendums were illegal under international law, the annexation was also illegal under international law. the annexations have not been recognized by the international community. It's not a POV, it is a reflection of reality.

Per my edit summary, none of what you have written is supported by a citation. The legality is opinion unless it is determined to be a fact by virtue of a decision by a competent court. It was once the prevailing view that the earth was flat but that doesn't make that point of view a fact. Sham is clearly a POV loaded description and WP:EDITORIALIZING. I don't disagree with what you have written but ... We are not here to WP:SOAPBOX or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We are not here to express our opinions, which we may hold to be facts in a Wiki voice. We should be writing at arms length from the subject and attributing opinion. This article is not about the annexations. Leave the POV stuff for articles where it is relevant and can be presented in detail - not in a footnote in an infobox! If anything, the original version was more than adequate and represents the status quo. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The legality is opinion unless it is determined to be a fact by virtue of a decision by a competent court.

Yeah the UN weighted in, called it illegal, the only countries to object were Syria and Nicaragua. The UN which I feel is pretty competent said that the referendums, and the annexations were illegal under international law. That is very cut and dry.

Sham is the proper term, because the elections were faked. Do you really think 90+% of a territory with an active partisan war would not only show up to the polls, but vote to be annexed by their occupier?

Saying that the annexations were not illegal, and the elections were not fake is pro-Russian propaganda, and a rejection of reality. Therefore, supporting Russia, and being Pro-Kremlin WP:EDITORIALIZING, it is not a POV, it is what the UN said, unless you think Wikipedia shouldn't include statements backed by the UN. Scu ba (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the legitimacy of the referendum or of the legality under international law of the annexations to this particular article? We are talking about a single bullet point in the "belligerents" section of the infobox here; no more is needed than a simple explanation that from September 30, 2022, forward, the Donetsk People's Republic ceased to exist as an independent entity from Russia in any sense following its annexation, with the relevant article hyperlinked. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of Newsweek

Per WP:NEWSWEEK, stop any further use of Newsweek. Since 2013 the site loss it's credibility, it also uses clickbaits and sensationalism on their content. Use other RS instead. Mr.User200 (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually had no idea about that, but I’ll refrain from using it from here on out. Tomissonneil (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Tom Cooper citations

@Tomissonneil, Scu ba, and Mr.User200: I thought we had accepted in the 2023 counteroffensive article that he was a "subject-matter expert" and, as such, wouldn't fall prey to WP:SPS and WP:BLOG. Has he been interviewed by non-self published reliable sources after all?

Previous discussion. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPS Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.

Scu ba (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This have been discussed before, the problem with Tom Cooper is that he doesnt have a historic blackground, his work is mostly known by blogs, some of their books have issues with the publisher company (i.e Helion and Company) . Is fishy enough to avoid it in controversial claims.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually disagree. He’s a historian? And written quite a few books, with his main focus being on Cold War/Middle Eastern conflicts. In fact, he is currently working on a series about the Iran-Iraq War. In addition, his claims are fairly consistent with information released by both Western and Ukrainian officials, such as estimated casualties and the names of both Russian and Ukrainian units involved in the battle. Tomissonneil (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

My view is that we are dealing with an WP:SPS and WP:BLOG and a person lacking in particular credentials that this might be added as their particular opinion. Their publishing record does not make them appear particularly auspicious. As they appear to have been used elsewhere, it may be worth taking this to RSN to get a definitive answer. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Seconding an RSN discussion. Tom Cooper hasn't been wrong with his reporting, but he is heavily cited and a second RSN would be the best way to go about establishing his credibility. Jebiguess (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Improvements in the article

Thank you Mr.User200 for your recent improvements to the article. Feel free to remove the "unbalanced" template from that section when you feel it is adequate. I'll trust your judgement. ;) Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

LPR in infobox

@Salfanto: Do you have a source that says that the LPR participated in the Battle of Avdiivka in 2022? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if LPR units participate now, I would actually call them "ex" LPR units. Otherwise we would be implying that the LPR still exists. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

that's why i put until september 30th like with the DPR Salfanto (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

But then it doesn't make sense since the ISW report you linked in the other page talks about their involvement now, not last year. When I look at the combatants section I think about who's fighting who, so like Ukraine vs Russia, or Ukraine vs Russia and DPR. But if we put the LPR there, it makes it seem like Ukraine is currently fighting Russia and the LPR. Actually, considering you wrote "until september 30th", it makes it seem like Ukraine fought against Russia, DPR and LPR around Avdiivka last year, which was not your intention as you are talking about the current renewed offensive. I wouldn't mind if you included just the specific LPR unit though, maybe with a footnote though explaining that the unit was formed in the LPR but was incorporated into Russia since "september 30th". Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The ISW Salfanto (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Salfanto Can you link? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure they're talking about this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Encirclement

Is it time to begin the perennial favorite discussion about renaming this article Siege of Avdiivka? Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually encircled. I know The Independent [5] has used the word "encirclement", but that's not what the quoted official said in the interview. Reuters [6] also reported on the "from all sides/directions" interview, but notably did not use the word "encirclement" at all. ABC News also has an article from today [7] which says "encircled Avdiivka from the east, north and south for months", but noted that supplies are still able to pass from the west. And, of course, primary sources also don't support the conclusion of encirclement, though we don't really use those here. Either way, I don't think the claim of encirclement holds up and should be removed or at the very least qualified (i.e. "reportedly" or something like that). Kdroo (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Fully agreed, and I would use the case of Mariupol for a canonical case of "encirclement" and subsequent "siege". There are obvious differences between that, and Bakhmut, where Ukrainian forces gradually retreated without being encircled. Avdiivka is still quite far from that. Cloud200 (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

When there is a consensus in reliable sources indicating that the title should be changed, then we can address this. Anything else is WP:OR. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Simplification of the units in the info box

Considering the fact that there are too many units of both the Ukrainian and Russian Armed Forces, similar to Bakhmut, fighting around Avdiivka - it would make more sense to list just the two armed forces rather than manually adding and trying to confirm every unit. Units such as the Polish and Russian Volunteer Corps are deployed to Avdiivka, as seen by combat footage assaulting Russian positions near the area, but are absent from the list. There are many other units such as the Abkhaz-Donetsk Battalion of the Russian Armed Forces which simply do not have a respective page and are still absent.

Therefore, I would like to begin discourse on whether this would be appropriate to do considering that many units are absent or do not have respective pages on Wikipedia, if people are interested in figuring out which units fought in the battle then would it make more sense to read more into those brigades or into the article itself where we list individual units or combat engagements between certain units? Davomme (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it has occurred to me that there are issues with populating the units parameter across almost all of the individual articles for the invasion. A big one is the use of individual insignia, which is contrary to MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS. The infobox is also not the place for intricate detail. I have been thinking that there probably needs to be a centralised discussion for this. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe some units can be detailed, however, it becomes clustered and unappealing for all the unit insignia to be displayed. It would make more sense if it were to encompass the entirety of the Armed Forces, and denote specific parts of the Armed Forces such as the Ground Forces of respective nation and then Territorial Defence for Ukraine etc. I think it should be left at that simply, and further individual brigades can be discussed in the article - which I previously mentioned. Overall I agree with you, it shouldn't be too detailed. Davomme (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Units in infoboxes for campaign and battle articles. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Someone archieved it. Smeagol 17 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently nobody had any comment to offer. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Russian Losses from US Intelligence

I think we should include the recent Russian losses around Avdiivka from US intelligence report to the article, since we already have a section about casualties, and it seems odd not to include it. Source: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4356154-russia-ukraine-declassified-us-assessment/ 72.229.242.36 (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any estimates on Ukrainian losses? It seems we do have a lot of verified sources now on how many losses Russia has taken though Sunnyediting99 (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but it is still worth mentioning that Russia took around 13,000 casualties in their renewed attempts to take Avdiivka. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it is very important to add how many lifes of their servicemen Ukrainian leadership had to sacrifice to hold Avdiivka until now. It should be added ASAP. 92.78.102.74 (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Casualties

In the first sentence on that subsection it states that since the start of the invasion there have been 50 deaths. Is this still accurate? Is there a newer source, or any source at all? Der Overmind (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In the "quick facts" section it seemingly sites "BNN" on Russian casualties. It also says "per Ukraine" which is false since "BNN" is not the Ukrainian govt. BNN could be a reliable source but I think we should instead put the US estimate in that box. In the sub category "Western estimates of Ukrainian and Russian casualties" it says the US estimate for Russian casualties in Avdivka. It also seems very unlikely that Russia has suffered 30,000 killed in Avdivka alone. The latest US estimate from November said Russia had suffered ~315,000 casualties with ~120,000 killed. According to "BNN" estimate that would mean 25% of all Russian deaths happened in Avdivka. That seems impossible. 30,000 casualities would be a far fetched but much more reasonable estimate but I don't know if you could find a reliable source that says that. Hope someone wil make this edit soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request to add Redut PMC to the infobox as involved unit

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is the same request as at Eastern Ukraine campaign, which is contested. Instead of issuing multiple requests across different articles, it would be nice if you could centralize this request in a single article and inform editors of all the pages you wish to make this change. Xan747 (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add the private military company Redut (company) to the info box list of pro-Russian involved unit. The intelligence firm Grey Dynamics reported that the ISW designated Redut formation "Veterany" conducted offensive operations in the Battle of Avdiivka (2022–present). The same with the ISW designated Redut formation "Don and the Union of Donbas Volunteers"/"Don Brigade", which also operated in the battle. Zerbrxsler (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Why no estimation of losses from Russian sources? Why no information or images of Ukrainian losses??

The purpose of the article is not to propagate the Western/Ukrainian narrative of "horrific Russian losses" while concealing any information on Ukrainian losses. The information from Russian sources about losses -- including Ukrainian losses -- should be added and images of Ukrainian losses should be shown, as it is shown for the Russians. 92.78.102.74 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources please. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Because there are no estimates of Ukrainian losses, at least not from the Russians, and Russia also doesn’t publish casualty figures. Tomissonneil (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

How is it that a published news source that is citing US intelligence estimates is suddenly being removed? Forbes has been used as a source since the beginning of the war, and unilaterally removing it for no reason other than that you think it’s "ridiculous" without providing any evidence or counter-sources is absurd. Tomissonneil (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

My thought process was pretty simple: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", unless it's from an official source, in which case it may be notable for inclusion. The removed text: By 30 January 2024, Forbes estimated that Russian losses had doubled, with "the battle over Avdiivka costing Russia perhaps 10,000 casualties this year". Based on vehicle losses, Russia wears allegedly suffering 13 casualties for each one they inflicted on Ukraine. does not pass that criterion as Forbes, especially David Axe, does not have enough know-how to be making such bold claims, thus making them inadequate for inclusion in this article. Furthermore, it's one thing to cite really high numbers of confirmed vehicle losses, but human losses are another story. For example, Ukraine is not using as many armored vehicles to defend the city, relying more on the powerful fortifications built over the years. Their low vehicle losses don't automatically mean their troop losses are low since it does not really account for the heavy artillery and aerial bombardment with cluster bombs they're suffering. Similar arguments could be made for Russia. There is a lot of nuance when trying to correlate vehicle and personnel losses and such speculation should be avoided.

By the way, quoting RadioactiveBoulevardier: the Forbes source is by David Axe. While as staff he technically passes wp:forbes, his articles on Ukraine tend to vary between POV and overly melodramatic clickbait. Therefore my request for better sources is mostly justified. If better sources are not found, though, for the kept text: By December 2023, the U.S. claimed that Russia had suffered over 13,000 casualties and 220 vehicles in the previous two months near Avdiivka, or 3,000 killed or wounded for every square mile captured. Five battalions were claimed to have been neutralized by U.S. Intelligence up to that point. Ukrainian losses were claimed to be much lower, at "a few thousand"., then I guess reinstating the specific/relevant Forbes links may be acceptable.

Finally, me showing concern with this specific citation does not automatically mean I'm fine with all other Forbes or, in general, bold claims. I, and I believe other observer editors, have given you a lot of liberty to really populate the casualty claims section. It was just that this specific claim I thought was crossing the line... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I get some of the points that you’re making. It’s not entirely accurate to base Ukrainian personnel losses on their vehicle losses, so I could cut that part out, but I will say that Russian personnel losses are mostly proportional to vehicular ones even if the Ukrainians’ aren’t. Back in early December when the US estimated 13,000 Russian casualties, 220 Russian vehicles were estimated to have been lost. However by the end of December, it was visually confirmed to have been 411 vehicles, which is much higher, when Forbes published this recent article, the number was 574, based on visual confirmations from independent analysts. Forbes is using mostly western estimates for their numbers, and the figure of 10,000 casualties comes from Ukrainian claims of “300-400 casualties per day”, which roughly lines up. And as for “giving me a lot of liberty with the casualties section”, I add information that has been published from various different sources, and this is one of the largest battles of the war to date, with new information constantly coming out. Someone needs to catalog it, at least until the battle ends and a “final tally” is released. There’s a lot of video and photographs of Russian casualties during this battle, including piles of vehicles and dead soldiers, and even pro-Russian milbloggers have been commenting on it. But as a compromise I can leave out extrapolating Ukrainian losses from their vehicles, and I’ll see if I can find any Russian claims of Ukrainian losses in the battle, which I agree are also needed. Tomissonneil (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, another user’s criticism of David Axe’s writing style isn’t really too relevant, as that’s subjective and isn’t really applicable to the actual information he provides. Tomissonneil (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, for starters, that user is much more experienced and knowledgeable than me. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Russian personnel losses are mostly proportional to vehicular ones I don't know man... I wouldn't be so sure. Do you have evidence in the form of multiple data points correlating confirmed vehicle and human losses? Forbes is using mostly western estimates for their numbers, and the figure of 10,000 casualties comes from Ukrainian claims of “300-400 casualties per day”, which roughly lines up. [...] There’s a lot of video and photographs of Russian casualties during this battle, including piles of vehicles and dead soldiers, and even pro-Russian milbloggers have been commenting on it. I would still prefer if you stuck to confirmed numbers or official estimates (or at least estimates from the most respected/trustworthy sources such as NYT, WSJ, BBC, etc). There seems to be enough coverage of this battle to do this much, do you agree? Someone needs to catalog it, at least until the battle ends and a “final tally” is released. Yeah, though I think this battle will still grind on for months. Oh, and also very important, I urge you to avoid using non neutral quotes and language in general (such as annihilated, completely destroyed, wiped, slaughtered, etc). This is an encyclopedia for all readers and we don't want to sow hate nor disrespect any future readers. So let's try our best to remain impartial, avoid subjective wording, and mostly stick to the facts. ;) Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

A lot of these seems like conjecture to me. With such a high increase in Russian vehicles losses, it’s reasonable that their personnel losses would also be proportional, especially when there’s multiple published sources that say just that. British intelligence said that this battle resulted in a 90% increase in Russian casualties, and both the Ukrainians and Western analysts have said that the average daily casualty toll for Russia here is greater than at Bakhmut, which is currently the deadliest battle of the war. You haven’t provided any evidence or sources to the contrary. And as for the word “annihilated”, that’s the word US intelligence used, which is why I put it in quotations, as it was a direct quote. That’s not “sowing hate” in any way. As for video and photographs, I think that’s pretty solid evidence that Russia is suffering heavily. Piles of fallen soldiers and destroyed equipment speaks a lot. It’s more than they’ve provided when giving their casualty claims. I also don’t understand how Forbes is less reliable than the NYT or BBC, that seems more like a preference to me. So far, I haven’t seen any reason why this specific article should me removed. You haven’t provided any sources that contradict it, nor that Russian vehicle losses are disproportionate, when every source I’ve seen says the opposite. It might be your opinion, sure, but unless you have any data that backs it up, that shouldn’t be a factor here. Unless any other users have an issue with it, or you provide a source that proves your argument I’ll be putting it back. I can change up the language, and remove the alleged loss ratio between Russia and Ukraine, but the difference evidence currently shows that Russia has suffered huge losses in manpower, with both videos and photographs to back them up. But I do agree that there’s a lot of reporting done on this battle, so this and a report back in November comparing this battle to some others (such as Vuhledar) will probably be the last thing I’ll add, unless there’s a major change or spike, as it’s become pretty static as of late. Tomissonneil (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

And as for the word “annihilated”, that’s the word US intelligence used, which is why I put it in quotations, as it was a direct quote. Then you don't seem to fully understand a core pillar of Wikipedia. As for the rest, you seem to be either disregarding my previous reply or didn't understand it correctly. I'm not saying Russian casualties aren't heavy, I'm asking for better sourcing in general and official estimates are already "better sourcing". And again, it's not just me who shows concerns over David Axe. So far, this is a 2 vs 1, thus changing the "consensus" would be more on you then. Finally, remember casualties are a sensitive topic, therefore I would highly appreciate reporting it with care. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

And don't forget this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Reporting a direct quote is not me “not understanding the a core pillar of Wikipedia”, it’s accurately stating what was said by a US government source. There are numerous quotations of people insulting each other, including Russians and Ukrainians, and the quotes are provided in full, because that’s what was actually said. You insinuating that I’m unable to understand Wikipedia is not only insulting to me, but to the readers, who are probably smart enough to figure out that it’s the opinion of the source, not Wikipedia. And no, I didn’t misunderstand what you said. The other person who has an issue with David Axe isn’t part of this discussion, he’s not commented here, nor has he raised concerns with the information he provides, but rather how he provides it, so it’s not a “2 v 1” issue. Tomissonneil (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let's directly quote all the toxic comments from the US, Ukraine and Russia. This is going to make the articles so much better... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"completely annihilated" is not a direct quote of what was printed. The actual quote being quoted in the article is “complete annihilation of five battalions,” This was not said by a US government source. If something is being quoted, the quote must be attributed where it occurs and not at the end of a paragraph. They should also be cited in the correct format. WP is not an indiscriminant collection of information. These sections read like a news tickertape. WP summarises sources into a cogent story. We are not obliged to use every source, particularly when they fall to WP:NEWSORG. WP qualifies reliance on NEWSORG sources. An encyclopedic article summarises information about the subject. Therefore, when we have many sources saying similar things about the subject, we don't summarise every individual source but provide an overall summary. Per WP:VNOT verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. There is an onus to gain consensus before reinstating challenged material. Consensus is not a vote nor is silence consensus. There is also WP:NODEADLINE. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m confused as to what you’re saying, as in if you’re arguing for or against it. The challenge to the information was that the source wasn’t accurate, fine, but then why are only some articles, all written by the same person, being used? Cherry picking what can and can’t be used from the same author doesn’t really make sense, especially when they don’t contradict each other (which is a sign of unreliability). And his issue wasn’t the semantics of who used the word “annihilated” (as re-reading the source, I realize that I was mistaken about who used it, it was the Ukrainians, not the Americans), but rather the word itself, which he finds offensive. I also don’t understand why this article in particular is being targeted, and not any other. What makes it unreliable? How do we know that it’s not reliable? Are there any sources that prove it’s unreliable? Also, this is an ongoing topic, and information rapidly changes, which is why it reads like a “news article”. The story isn’t complete, and claims and estimates come out all the time, and they differ from each other based on who’s giving them. I’ll also say that I don’t think that all information about casualties necessarily belongs in the “casualties” section”, as some of it could easily fit in the “analysis” section, mainly for the ones that compare and contrast it to other battles and wars, because those are just analyses with numbers. Tomissonneil (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I found another source, this time a Ukrainian one, that backs up the Forbes article. According to a claim made by Oleksandr Musienko, head of the Center for Military-Law Researches, Russian casualties in January had “significantly increased” during recent assaults from the 10,000 that they allegedly suffered in the first month of their offensive, meaning that they must number at least as heavy, which is the number given in Forbes.

Source: https://english.nv.ua/nation/avdiivka-situation-remains-difficult-ukraine-keeps-it-stable-musienko-50389690.html Tomissonneil (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've read the source and dispute your synthesis. It is unclear from when he's refering to when he says "significantly increased". It could very well be from December instead of the first month. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s not unclear at all, really. Here’s the full quote: “ Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s HUR military intelligence service’s chief, declared in January that Russian losses in recent attempts to capture Avdiivka have significantly increased.” It’s pretty clear that he’s referring to (claimed) Russian losses suffered in January. The December fighting isn’t even mentioned in the article. Tomissonneil (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The two statements are separated by a paragraph:

In the first month of active assaults on Avdiivka, the aggressor country lost around 10,000 military personnel, said Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, ValeriiZaluzhnyi.

Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s HUR military intelligence service’s chief, declared in January that Russian losses in recent attempts to capture Avdiivka have significantly increased.

I still don't see the content of both statements directly linked. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph was a claim of 10,000 casualties in the first month, which is followed immediately by another paragraph that says Ukrainian intelligence claims from January that Russian losses had increased. That is the direct correlation. Tomissonneil (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, we fundamentally disagree on this. It could be both interpretations, but I see an inherent lack of clarity. Unless a new argument/source is used, we're just going to wp:bludgeon each other. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this has gone on for a while, and we need at least a third opinion. Tomissonneil (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

but then why are only some articles, all written by the same person, being used? Would you prefer if I added {{bsn}} next to every David Axe article (without deleting the original ref though)? Honestly, another reason why I latched onto this specific case is because I was mostly lazy to spend more time assessing the adequacy of the others... Cherry picking what can and can’t be used from the same author doesn’t really make sense, especially when they don’t contradict each other I view this as a risk you inherently faced (the risk of one day having a contestation) with your recent editing. I don't view my actions here particularly inadequate. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I will try to put this another way then. A WP article is not/should not be an indiscriminant collection of news snippets. Just because WP:NEWSORG articles exist does not mean that we should/must add them to an article. Per WP:NOTNEWS, what may be news worthy/worthy of a news article is not necessarily worthy of incorporating into an encyclopedic article - particularly if there are multiple sources repeating the same sort of stuff (tripe). Please read WP:VNOT. "We don't really know what is going on so we'll just dump in everything we come across" is not a reasonable rationale for adding material. Encyclopedic style is not journalistic hyperbole. It is not just about who used the word "annihilated" but nobody said "completely annihilated". The quote is inaccurate. And should we use it at all, given we are not writing a newspaper. If there is good reason to add something then spend the time to get it right. Get the detail correct. Get the citations right with all the appropriate detail. This is not a competition to see who can add the most in the shortest time. Note though, I did not support the challenge of the material just because the citations weren't correct. This is just an observation. I was really waiting to see if other editors thought there is value in this content and consensus for its addition but chimed-in when you indicated I’ll be putting it back. I think that was a bit premature. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello just chiming in to say David Axe is extremely biased clickbait, bordering on pro Ukraine op-eds with some generic war facts sprinkled in for seasoning. I would remove all of his articles from wikipedia, just saying. It's frustrating i know because he IS prolific, the guy writes an article slamming Russia once per day, but its little more than propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5589:6E00:80CF:D046:B019:AFF0 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC) -----Here's a much better article - it states russia is advancing and ukraine is in danger in avdiivka - but the battle is far from decided. That's the consensus from all ive read https://www.kyivpost.com/post/27639

Thanks for the source. Just thought the indentation of your comment was a bit strange/out of place. Seemed like you weren't replying to anyone in particular so I've moved it to base level. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That article was published after the Forbes one, which was written at the end of January, before the recent Russian breakthrough. There is no precedent to removing all of the articles written by a prolific analyst, especially one who’s been writing articles since long before the Russian Invasion, and even has his own Wikipedia page. In fact, the Kyiv Post, which you linked, uses him as a source.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/27704 Tomissonneil (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure the battle is over yet

While i agree that a victory for Russia is all but inevitable due to the firepower and troop number disparity the Deep State War Map still shows a good deal of Avdiivka still under Ukraines control. Also there are not reliable but still present videos on twitter of Azov units dug into the various heavy factory buildings present in Avdiivka. Ukraine is withdrawing but they are not actually out yet?

Its not much but here is a source showing that fighting is still occuring in Avdiivka

https://unn.ua/en/news/the-situation-in-avdiivka-tarnavsky-reports-on-fire-at-koksokhim-evacuation-of-wounded-and-prisoners

Yeah, the latest I've seen from milbloggers is that there are still pockets of resistance and disorganized fighting. There's also the AKHZ which may continue being held by Ukraine. We need more confirmations. It's still too early to say that the city is cleared and the fighting over. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I would imagine they would've wanted to stay in the coke plant in the north, to hold a stronghold for a bit longer as happened in Soledar. Super Ψ Dro 10:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This isn't turning into another Bakhmut, the battle is over, let it die. 92.40.202.42 (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

the Ukrainian war mapper deep state indicates that both the coke plant and the central citadel have been evacuated 62.4.44.220 (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That's useful info. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian forces are not "completely" retreated yet, for one reason or another

Unlike what the page currently states, there are several confirmed footages of Russian soldiers capturing Ukrainian soldiers. This clearly shows that the announced "withdrawal," which is more likely an unplanned retreat, is happening in an unorganized manner, as the Ukrainian command clearly didn't predict a Russian breakthrough in the north. It's also worth noting that we shouldn't take whatever the Ukrainian generals say to be entirely the truth. Clearly, Syrsky's statement earlier this morning does not reflect a reality where the Ukrainian forces have completely retreated from the city. Moreover, stating in the infobox that it's a Russian victory because "Ukrainian forces withdrew" makes it seem as if it was a decision taken in good faith by Ukraine, when, in fact, they made this decision after the Russians made their situation untenable in the city for the UAF. Mattia332 (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you bring any sources for this? Super Ψ Dro 10:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, its from open military sources, said sources have been proved before to be reliable https://t.me/remylind21/14473 https://t.me/remylind21/14450 https://t.me/ukr_leaks_eng/9915 https://t.me/ukr_leaks_eng/9918 https://t.me/stranaua/143925 Mattia332 (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Just found another one, an ukrainian prisoner stating that he had no idea where he was supposed to go https://t.me/remylind21/14477

I believe we should clearly state that many Ukrainian soldiers have been left behind, and this retreat was not coordinated well at all, given the overwhelming evidence. Mattia332 (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Would videos count as evidence? There are many videos of Ukrainian soldiers fleeing the city on foot. 2A00:23C7:2006:C101:7D26:DE84:891B:5A8F (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not claiming that all of them got captured or surrendered, but there's widespread evidence that a significant part of them did. I think it would be most wise to include a statement such as, 'At the same time, several videos emerged displaying Ukrainian soldiers who had surrendered, been captured, or were left behind, pointing to an uncoordinated retreat.' After all, even Ukrainian General Tarnavskyi acknowledged that some Ukrainian troops had been captured during the retreat (source on the page itself). Mattia332 (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Social media are not generally regarded as reliable sources. This includes Telegram or any other social media platform like Twitter or YouTube. Ideally we would cite articles from newspapers or credible institutions. Super Ψ Dro 16:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

There is significant evidence among social media of a handful of wounded squad and platoon sized Ukranian elements being left to be captured or killed by Russians. I have not seen evidence of company or larger sized elements being captured or left to die. I think the bulk of Ukrainians did successful retreat from the city, albeit with Russians at their heels. Or at least, I have seen no evidence on social media that the bulk of ukranians did not escape to the NW. These are all videos on telegram, most of the mainstream, actually citable, sources seem to say that the city fell but most of the Ukrainians made it out, or at least make no mention of significant WIA captured.

https://www.newsweek.com/avdiivka-fallen-troops-withdraw-russia-ukraine-war-update-1870889 2605:A601:5589:6E00:6CC0:140A:B2B8:97F3 (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wounded Ukrainian soldiers abandoned at Zenith

Here [8], at 1:52, a video is shown of a Ukrainian soldier allegedly not having been able to withdraw from the Zenith southern fortification due to being heavily wounded, claiming six other soldiers in similar situations stayed too. I tried to find newspapers or any kind of source I could cite for this but was not able to find any. Can anyone find some? If not, I guess this shouldn't mentioned. There is the possibility that the video is a hoax. Super Ψ Dro 11:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Source is the telegram footage of the six soldiers of 3rd company of 110th Mechanized Brigade dead in a pool of blood and water in a basement.

Sources here, obvious NSFW warning for closeups of six people who bled to death:

https://t.me/RVvoenkor/62210

https://twitter.com/MaimunkaNews/status/1758579159859683405 Franfran2424 (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been mentioned in Ukrainian news sources, and Tom Cooper also mentioned it in his newsletter, so I’m fairly sure it happened.

Sources:

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/28161https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-war-17-february-2024-melee Tomissonneil (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Kyiv Post is a reliable source per Wikipedia policy. I see that someone already added this information into the article anyway. Super Ψ Dro 19:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

Hollowww (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC) add a line before the result line saying "•Ukranian retreat/withdrawal"

 Already done Already mentioned in "Territorial Changes" ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Involvement of 133 mechanised brigade

The 133 mechanised brigade and azov brigades where also involved in the battle 78.19.191.244 (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

missing units

47th Mechanized Brigade 3rd Assault Brigade both are missing and should be added Jack0jack504 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2024

Request for added topic about evidential russian war crimes in the days after the withdrawl from avdiivka, videos and photos emerging showing russians executing surrendering ukranian soldiers and ukrainian soldiers with their hands tied dead in the streets Albananana (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2024 (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. Polyamorph (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"Main battle"

This section header seems slanted and original research-y to me, arbitrarily suggesting that 1.5 years of bombardment and bloody assaults weren't really part of the "main battle". IMO, we should just combine the "Early battle" and "Main battle" sections unless there are reliable sources that group things in the way they are presently. HappyWith (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

HappyWith, I've proposed redefining the battle as the events from October 2023–February 2024, based on reliable sources' use of the term "battle". Please see the section "Battle of Avdiivka" began in October 2023, page should be renamed to Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024). I always value your input on matters like this. Thanks, SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer! I should have looked more carefully for existing discussion. Ive not been participating too much in RUSUKR-related discussions lately, but I'll def check it out if I have time. HappyWith (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

More Emphasis on UKraine POWs in Aftermath Section?

This article states that several hundred Ukranian POWs could have been captured in the chaotic end stages and that the Russians successfully encircled several units that were left behind (due to delays to evac and bad comms during the coordination). It also frames it in terms of the morale of Ukranians faltering since the "failed" counteroffensive and the difficultly of getting either volunteers or conscripts for Ukraines infantry, with these captures obviously not helping.

"Hundreds of Ukrainian Troops Feared Captured or Missing in Chaotic Retreat" https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/us/politics/ukraine-prisoners-avdiivka-russia.html

Remove and stop using Andrew Perpetua as a source

I get it, only Ukrainian propaganda and whatever the so called reliable western media is acceptable in Wikipedia but to the point of using some random, non credible, and unverified twitter account is just stupid and unhinged. Also can any editor here stop presenting western media claim of Russian casualties as absolute fact? Ukrainian meanwhile facing ammunition and manpower shortage and superior Russian firepower and aerial support, and even their own sobering report of casualties they suffered which contradict the Ukrainian claim that they inflict high casualties on the Russian and the western media report on Russian casualties as a whole.Dauzlee (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Lmao, stop being delusional and go visit telegrams of Russian milbloggers, most of them confirm high losses in area 128.124.144.198 (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Later paragraphs & Changes

In light of statements from pro-Ukrainian sources, including those from reputable outlets such such as the NY Times, acknowledged by Wikipedia as a reliable source [9][10] It has become evident that the purported "withdrawal" of Ukrainian forces was more accurately described as a hastily executed and disordered retreat, resulting in significant casualties for the Ukrainian forces. Numerous reports indicate that several troops were left behind and subsequently captured. Additionally, various online videos depict Russian forces seizing Western ammunition and weapons that were abandoned during the retreat, further substantiating the hurried nature of the Ukrainian withdrawal. [11][12][13][14]

Furthermore, there is compelling footage showing Russian forces capturing multiple Ukrainian soldiers. Given these circumstances, I propose renaming the section titled "Ukrainian withdrawal (14 – 17 February 2024)" to "Ukrainian retreat (14 – 17 February 2024)." To enhance the section, I recommend incorporating the aforementioned facts into the introduction of the page, shedding light on the significance of the chaotic nature of the retreat. Mattia332 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the NYT headline explicitly calls it a retreat makes your claim seem supportable. It seems the Ukrainians were all but routed in the final days based on that article, which cites Western pro ukranian intelligence officials as well as various ukranianian survivors of Avdiivka.

What do the sources call it? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

per google search

"avdiivka withdrawal" - 52,000

"avdiivka retreat" - 256,000

"retreat from avdiivka" - 170,000

"withdrawal from avdiivka" - 108,000

There are numerous mainstream sources that call it a withdrawal and numerous mainstream sources that call it a retreat.

"Ukrainian soldiers recall retreat from Avdiivka – on foot, leaving their wounded behind"

https://kyivindependent.com/avdiivka-defenders-forced-to-leave-wounded-behind-escape-encirclement-by-foot/

"Ukraine is investigating reports Russia executed prisoners of war after Avdiivka withdrawal"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-war-russia-avdiivka-soldiers-execution-b2498936.html 2605:A601:5589:6E00:BDF2:BB23:60B7:DD4F (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Casualties section is ridiculous

why is there a huge paragraph of unverified claims of russian casualties, and virtually nothing on Ukrainian ones? Even the "Western estimates of Ukrainian and Russian casualties" section just continues on about unverified claims of Russians being slaughtered. Do wiki mods even try hide their bias anymore? This is why everyone is calling Wikipedia a joke these days. Calebman127 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources have not been used? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And where is any evidence of the often claimed Russian human wave assaults? Ukraine supplies drone footage for literally everything on the battlefield but never one for the hundreds of human wave assaults. It would be great PR but is suspiciously absent… 101.115.180.213 (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Human wave assaults have been recorded and shown by drones, often paired with 2 to 3 tanks and numerous APC/IFVs filled with infantry, they dropped of soldiers in the fields and drove off, letting artillery decimate the now defenceless russian soldiers. Albananana (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that all russian assaults have the results in the videos published by the ukrainians. This is something Ukrainians do too and its common. Drop infantry from APC/IFVs into a trench or position, and make the vehicles leave. The russians don't care about losing equipment if they can advance, so later they can tow the vehicles to repair them or scrap them for parts. 170.239.49.231 (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. This part of the article is very repetitive and there is nothing about Ukrainian casualties. 2A02:FE1:B187:C300:CCDE:3F11:FD58:56B7 (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Small Change: Zaluzhnyi

Current article: (Military Casualties Section)

On 10 November, Ukrainian C-in-C Valerii Zaluzhnyi claimed that his troops had killed 10,000 Russians and destroyed 100 tanks, 250 armored vehicles, 50-100 artillery pieces and seven Su-25 planes. Colonel Shuptun, meanwhile, claimed that Russian casualties average between 400 and 600 casualties per day.

What it should be:

On 10 November, former Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi claimed that his troops had killed 10,000 Russians and destroyed 100 tanks, 250 armored vehicles, 50-100 artillery pieces and seven Su-25 planes. Colonel Shuptun, meanwhile, claimed that Russian casualties average between 400 and 600 casualties per day.

Don't have editing privileges but caught this. Would be great it someone with prilviges could fix it.

CyanCat8991 CyanCat8991 00:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @CyanCat8991, I've changed C-in-C to commander-in-chief, but don't see a strong case to include "former" because Zaluzhnyi was the incumbent commander-in-chief at the time in November. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Potentially commander-in-chief "at the time", given the fact his dismissal is still quite unclear, but I also don't know how relevant the distinction is. CyanCat8991 CyanCat8991 03:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Casualties Box needs clarification

In the casualties box, I think that the Ukrainian casualties, specifically referring to numbers captured, needs to be specified. Right now, it says that casualties are "unknown (presumed heavy)", which is fine, but then right under that it says that there were 800-1000 missing or captured. Although I can't edit the article myself, it might be useful to clarify that those troops were lost in the retreat, as a less knowledgeable reader might think it referred to missing and captured for the entire battle. Maybe like, "800-1000 estimated missing or captured in retreat." Additionally, it could look like that are total casualties for the entire battle, and I was actually confused by it a little at first. Another thing I noticed is that the Russian casualties are strangely exact, it's impossible to know exactly how many vehicles they lost. It might be nice to clarify that these are western intelligence numbers, or something like 'approximately x tanks'. Snailmail07 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I second this. I was just about to add a topic asking for the "800-1000" figure represented losses specifically during the retreat/rout, as per the article. 2601:85:C100:46C0:6C6B:3447:38CF:75E9 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If, as indicated, there is nuance to what is being reported in the infobox, it shouldn't be reported there. The infobox is unsuited to capturing nuance. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I could spam you with “nuanced” info boxes from all over Wikipedia that contain much more information than bogstandard Ukrainian MOD numbers, but then again I expect little from biased editors like you. It is an important detail that 800-1000 Ukrainians went missing/captured in a few days. If at least anybody cared about their lives. 2601:85:C100:46C0:800F:B262:1DBE:6BED (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's already been changed. Calm down. Snailmail07 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I retract the derogatory statements. 2601:85:C100:46C0:800F:B262:1DBE:6BED (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Many wounded soldiers

"Many wounded soldiers were not evacuated" [15] - I don't see this in source. In all, this addition is a vague and one-sided "filled with corpses" according to one witness, an account offering balance got deleted [16] . This edit was added a few days ago, please don't return it without consensus. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The source mentions 300 being left behind mentioning more than 300 would be more appropriate Alex.Wajoe (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

No it's not. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

what exactly would be the "right" interpretation of the amount of people left behind in the source then? Alex.Wajoe (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"the 300 (wounded)" Ukraine: Trapped and left for dead, injured Ukrainian soldiers in Avdiivka exchanged desperate messages as the town fell | CNN is not the amount. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I've readded that statement for balance just now: [17]. Hope it's satisfactory ;). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"Battle of Avdiivka" began in October 2023, page should be renamed to Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024)

Hello all, I hope to hear some of your perspectives on this subject as this page approaches WP:TOOBIG territory. I'm skeptical of the idea that the combat in Avdiivka since February 2022 should be portrayed as a continuous two-year long battle, and I don't think this framing is supported in reliable sources. Reviewing the "early battle" (pre-October 2023) section of the article, you would find that there was occasional shelling, very intermittent fighting, and some villages in the outskirts of the city would change hands every couple of months, but you would be hard-pressed to find sources that refer to this collection of incidents as small parts of a larger ongoing battle for control over the city. On the contrary, a search for the exact strings "Battle of Avdiivka" and "Battle for Avdiivka" returns the following:

The Telegraph, 15 February 2024: "The battle over the town, which is about 12 miles north of the Russian-occupied city of Donetsk, has raged since October"

Financial Times, 15 February 2024: "The battle for the industrial town 20km north of the Russian-occupied city of Donetsk has been raging since October"

BBC, 26 October 2023: "Russian and Ukrainian troops have been locked into a fierce battle for the frontline town since mid-October."

Forbes, 10 November 2023: "...the battle for Avdiivka, which began six weeks ago..."

The Guardian, 16 February 2024: "Fierce battles have been going on around Avdiivka since October."

New York Times, 31 October 2023: "The fight for the battered city of Avdiivka has emerged this fall as the fiercest battle of the war ... Nearly three weeks into the battle, the Russian army has failed to make the swift breakthrough it wanted."

Atlantic Council, 24 October 2023: "While the Battle of Avdiivka is still far from over, things have clearly not gone according to plan for the Kremlin during the initial stages of the campaign. Citing their Ukrainian colleagues, Britain’s Ministry of Defense reported on October 22 that Russian assaults around Avdiivka had resulted in a '90 percent increase in Russian casualties.'" (implies initial stages of what they define as the "Battle of Avdiivka" took place in October)

Note that in the lede we are defining the "Battle of Avdiivka" as "the military engagement ... fought over the city of Avdiivka". I was unable to find any source which supported the idea that the "Battle of Avdiivka" or the "Battle for Avdiivka" actually began in February 2022.

My very best wishes to all. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

We should follow the sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I would support putting the "Early battle" stuff in the background or new prelude section. And trim out information that was irrelevant to the main battle, i.e. keep only the stuff that explains how the original semi-encirclement formed. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If we think some of the other info is interesting, then we could move it elsewhere or comment it out until then. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Alexis Coutinho, my belief is that we do not need to go into extreme detail on the 2022–2023 bombardment of Avdiivka on this page, because the specifics are not directly relevant. I would propose moving all information regarding the shelling of the Avdiivka Coke Plant to the article on the Avdiivka Coke Plant, and some of the most notable bombings of the city to the Avdiivka article, namely those that affected prominent buildings (like the three schools that were destroyed) or use of notable weapons like phosphorus munitions. I don't think Wikipedia should be expected to host an exhaustive list of shellings of Avdiivka over the course of the war – you could probably find at least two or three such incidents every week, but they are not all independently notable.

I believe the same goes for "clashes", "fighting", or a "repelled offensive" that did not have a conclusive result or result in significant casualties. Again, such incidents are quite frequent over the past two years as you would expect of a front line settlement, but not all of them are important in the grand scheme of things. Nearby ground movements and speculation about a Russian encirclement strategy, however, would definitely be directly connected to the subject of this article and there would be a place for them somewhere early on in the page. When looking at the references yesterday I found that most of the combat in places like Novoselivka Druha and Kamianka is contextualized as fighting with the aim of cutting off supply lines to Avdiivka, so I don't think it's OR or SYNTH to argue for their inclusion as long as Avdiivka is mentioned in the original source. Please let me know what you think! My very best wishes SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• What is this proposal about? Exclude anything that happened before October 2023, or just cut some info off it? The fighting before October 2023 led to this encirclement situation being possible, and it is also when russia captured the biggest amount of land, so it is definitively relevant. I'm skeptical of the idea that the combat in Avdiivka since February 2022 should be portrayed as a continuous two-year long battle I do agree with this. I think we could potray the battle as intermittent. Not sure if we have any precedents, I did something unorthodox in 2022 Chornobaivka attacks that could maybe be applied. That, or something like "February-March 2022, July 2022-March 2023, October 2023-17 February 2024" (made up the dates). Super Ψ Dro 10:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Super Dro:

  This proposal is based on my observation above that the terms "battle of Avdiivka" and "battle for Avdiivka" have become well-defined in reliable sources to refer to a period of combat in and around the city starting with the Russian offensive on 10 October and culminating with the Ukrainian withdrawal on 17 February.

  Reviewing search engine results, I've come to the conclusion that the term "battle of Avdiivka" was basically undefined and not used by reliable sources before October 2023. The only website that seemed to be using such terminology at the time was Wikipedia, where editors were using this page as a place to keep track of shelling inside the city and combat around the city, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

  Now that there is a clear definition emerging around what the term "Battle of Avdiivka" means in RS, I'm proposing we redefine the scope of this page to match that.

  Based on the above, my proposal is to make the following changes:

  (1) Change the date parameter in the infobox to "10 October 2023 – 17 February 2024"

  (2) Change the article title to Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024)

  (3) Rename the "main battle" section to "battle"

  (4) Move relevant information from the "early battle" section to either the "background" section or a new section with a name like "prelude". Relevant information includes:

  (a) notable combat which is identified in reliable sources as having the aim of encircling, cutting supply lines, or in some other way related to the city of Avdiivka (e.g. June 2022 combat near Novoselivka Druha and Kamianka, where the DPR cut the highway between Avdiivka and Kostyantynivka, and RS are clear that this combat has implications for Avdiivka itself; there is no shortage of such examples in the current sources, so not much information would be lost.)

  (b) notable information regarding the 2022–2023 bombardment of Avdiivka (e.g. a particular strike that was so notable that it deserves inclusion as background information, or statistics regarding how frequently the city was shelled, the extent of destruction, etc.)

  (5) Move less relevant information to other articles where it is more relevant. Some examples include:

  (a) move detailed information regarding the 2022–2023 bombardment of the city not directly relevant to the military engagement (e.g., the destruction of three schools in 2022) to Avdiivka

  (b) move information regarding the 2022–2023 bombardment of the Avdiivka Coke Plant to Avdiivka Coke Plant

  If it can be demonstrated that there is precedent to refer to earlier clashes as the "Battle of Avdiivka" in RS, I could be more flexible with the cutoff dates.

  SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This proposal is extremely recentist. I do agree with the notion that there was a battle that lasted from 10 October 2023 to 17 February 2024. But that is far from having been the only fighting for defending or conquering the town. On 18 April 2023, Zelenskyy visited Avdiivka, "where Ukrainian and Russian troops have been engaged in fierce fighting for months" [18]. One of the six wounded Ukrainian soldiers abandoned and later killed at Zenith had been fighting in Avdiivka since he was mobilized on 8 March 2022 [19]. Excluding everything before 10 October 2023 would be like cutting off everything before January/February 2023 in Battle of Bakhmut, before russia made any gains within the city of Bakhmut but after having surrounded it from three sides.

I think we should show the battle as intermittent. The fighting that led to the surrounding of the town from the north and south is very important and the battle would have been very different if russia started on 10 October from the 2014 line of contact. Super Ψ Dro 08:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Greetings Super Ψ Dro:

I object to the notion that my proposal would exclude or cut off the information you are concerned about from the article. Certainly, the fighting on the northern and southern flanks is crucially important context to understanding later events, and this information will remain in the body of the article regardless of which path is taken. Please see item 4a in my previous reply.

The fundamental question seems to be whether or not those movements are part of the same battle as the October–February events. This question is not yours or mine to answer. Your proposal to define the Battle of Avdiivka as a series of disjoint events is a valid one supported by sound logic, but the use of terminology by reliable sources should be preferred over one Wikipedia editor's interpretation of events.

The temporal and spatial scope of a "battle" is subjective. In the absence of official military reports and scholarly analysis it is unclear which clashes to include and exclude, and where to draw the line regarding start dates and end dates. These future reports will certainly be preferable as sources compared to articles from WP:NEWSORGs, when available, but in the meantime following the consensus in the press is superior to maintaing the status quo of the artificial battles unilaterally declared by Wikipedia editors in the early days of the war.

My very best wishes SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I do get your point. Sources certainly defend calling the fighting from October 2023 to February 2024 "battle of Avdiivka". This does not necessarily imply reducing the article's scope. I do maintain that we should give relevancy to earlier fighting. It appears though that my stance is in the minority so I'll leave it up to other editors. I would only note not to give earlier fighting a section name like "prelude" because it reduces its importance, that fighting was as much of a battle as the one that started in October 2023. Perhaps "early fighting"? "Background" is not too bad as it is a standard section name. Super Ψ Dro 22:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in here to just say that I totally agree with and support proposals by @Alexiscoutinho and SaintPaulOfTarsus:. Sources primarily point to the Russian offensive launched October 10, 2023, and concluded February 17, 2024, as the battle for control of the city. Anything that came before can be delegated to a prelude/background section. EkoGraf (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong support for reasons and sources already stated by @Alexiscoutinho and @EkoGraf Mattia332 (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I kinda found a counter point. Call what you want RT, but this article divides the battle in several stages (similar to how it is now) since the start of the war. This isn't a matter of reliability, but a matter of interpretation/analysis. There is no fact or lie around defining the start of the battle. We should either systematically quantify the prevalence of each interpretation, quantify prevalence only in higher quality (non-WP:NEWSORG sources), or wait for more consensus. This reminds me of the "battle over" RfC of the Battle of Bakhmut page. This might be RfC turf. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

With that being said though, I'm still in favor of cleaning up some less important info from the "Early battle" section (and Main battle, why not?) and moving it to better places. I would just be wary, as of now, about renaming it and changing the scope/timeframe of the article. I think this, more fundamental, change deserves a more quantitative investigation, akin to what Cinderella did in the "battle over" Bakhmut RfC. 😉 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to the section of the Bakhmut RfC you are referring to? The talk page and the archives are difficult to navigate with all the extensive discussions. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

SaintPaulOfTarsus see Review of sources and what is in the collapsed box. I would have to think some on how we could design an experiment to test this case. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of Twitter and POV issues.

Please, Tomissonneil stop using Twitter as a source for those type of Extraordinary claims, like you did here. Insisting in the "Massive Russian casualties" mantra once again as part of a narrative everywhere in the article dont help. Instead focus in cleaning up the Ukrainian amd Western claims of Russian losses. Mr.User200 (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it is most disconcerting to assert that the Russians have endured "heavy" casualties, particularly when juxtaposed with the Ukrainian losses. Mattia332 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

But claims by a Russian milblogger are okay, and belong in the infobox. Please. And even so, pro-Russian sources indicate heavy casualties, as have non-Ukrainian ones. Ryan O’Leary is an American volunteer, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has served on the Avdiivka front for most of 2023. He’s a primary source, no different from the Ukrainian soldiers who claimed much higher POWs than Ukraine (or even Russia) has admitted to. It’s also why I didn’t add him to the infobox, because he’s a primary source, which don’t belong there. It’s not a “narrative”, or a “mantra” to say that Russia has suffered enormous losses in this battle, it’s what every source has been saying. Of course, that doesn’t mean the Ukrainians didn’t also suffer heavily, because they obviously did. O’Leary himself claimed that he their casualties are “about 65%” of the Russians’, with “10-20k killed”. Tomissonneil (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

First of all we should take out those questionable unverifiable casualty claims from the infobox (including that Russian milblogger one). Then we could discuss about what to include or not in the dedicated casualty claims section, with "due weight", etc. I would also encourage all editors in general to comment out instead of simply deleting disputed content. It just makes discussions much more friendly and also prevents the issue from being potentially forgotten. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that “non-official” sources shouldn’t be in the infobox, and I will say that claims and figures from the men who actually fought in this battle should at least be mentioned, especially from the commanders. Tomissonneil (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not without precedent, by the way. Plenty of social media posts from Russian and Ukrainian soldiers and commentators, mostly on Telegram and Twitter, have been used here during this war. Prigozhin’s infamous admission of 20,000 Wagner’s killed originated from in an interview on Telegram. The claim of 500 Ukrainians killed during the Battle of Pisky came from a post on Facebook from a Ukrainian commander who fought in that battle, which is just like what I’ve added here. Tomissonneil (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Tomissonneil, you have readded text attributed to the twitter account of Ryan O’Leary. You have been told that this is not a WP:RS. There is no consensus here to re-add this. It is not comparable to a Russian milblogger or reported in a secondary source, nor is it equivalent to an official government feed. As for most of what is reported in the infobox, it is detail that doesn't belong in an infobox. Without a consensus to support this material being added, you are editwarring by reinstating it. I would suggest you remove the material before some other action is taken. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Tomissonneil Please stop re-adding non reliable sources, especially those made by random Twitter users.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

He’s not a "random Twitter user", he’s a unit commander, but I guess I’ll concede for now as there’s no corroborating sources. Tomissonneil (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You are not in any position of concede or not. See WP:TWITTER.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic

Given the change of dates, should Donetsk People's Republic be removed from the infobox? Smeagol 17 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The rationale is sound but it requires more action than just removing it from the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Why? I don't think there is much about DPR in body. Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Not much ≠ nothing. Any mention of the DPR that is impacted by the date/scope change should be removed. That is reasonably self-evident. If it doesn't belong in the infobox, it doesn't belong in the rest of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

And because the article wouldn't be ideal, you reverted my improvement? Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I reverted because it was unexplained. It is now explained. But if one is going to do something, then it is worth doing well. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Casualty numbers

There seems to to be aggressively high bias for the Ukrainians on their casualties. If it is to list the Russian casualties to be a marginally higher amount (according Ukraine), there should be some reference from Russian sources to balance things out. Along with that, we should probably change the Unknown (presumed heavy) to heavy, cause there are enough combat footage to show heavy casualties on both sides (see: Telegram Drone Footage). The bias in the article is pretty flawed BarakHussan (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Counting from videos would be origina research, which is not allowed here. If you would find a reliable source mentioning heavy Ukrainian casualities explictly, we will change that. (I tried, but despite seeng that from google, Washington Post changed their article to remove the claim by the time I added it). Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Human wave tactics

There is 0 video evidence of this. Why is it listed as even being credible of "human wave" attacks? Soldiers getting off a transport in a squad isnt a human wave tactic. Also Ukraine does that exact same thing. 145.224.101.25 (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)