Talk:Synkivka

Use of "would" for past events

"would" is used in the article many times as a past tense. This is not ordinarily done when writing about past events. Nurg (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nurg: First off, thank you for reading the page! In your opinion, what do you suggest I use instead? Johnson524 00:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the page. Instead of "would be captured", "was captured"; "would return" -> "returned"; "would take place" -> "took place", etc.

@Nurg:  Done Johnson524 22:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Captured

@Johnson524 The wording used by the ISW ("indicates that Russian forces [...] seized the settlement") is the same always used for settlement captures, and is the highest degree of confirmation you're going to get. The word "potentially" (which you added) should be reserved for instances of a "indicates that it was likely seized" (the lesser confidence of the two options), which was not employed here. The footage indicated both that Russian forces had advanced and that the village was seized, not that the former indicated the latter; standard practice is if the ISW says (without a "likely") that a settlement was seized, we say the same. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Flemmish Nietzsche, I hope you're doing well 🙂 The ISW has stated that they only have confirmation of Russian forces operating in the southern part of the settlement. Despite what you said about the former indicating the latter, I definitely do not believe this means the village has to under Russian control now, and more than likely remains in some kind of gray zone. As the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense and DeepStateMap have also both not confirmed the capture of the village, just the ISW as of writing, I think the safest choice is just to leave the article saying "potentially placing it under full Russian control" or something along those lines, until greater confirmation can be achieved. I don't want to rely on the highest degree of confirmation I'm going to get from one source if there are other reliable sources which should be cross referenced first? Cheers! Johnson524 03:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm good thanks. But no, I think that saying that the village is "potentially under Russian control" is a misinterpretation of the source; we generally do not "wait" for "confirmation" from any non-ISW sources before declaring in wikivoice, whether by Ukraine or Russia, that a settlement has been taken; DeepState likely did not also report on the village's capture for a reason, as it in some areas gives a delay of a few days so as to not compromise the security of Ukrainian soldiers, and in some cases has waited months to do so when geolocated footage has already confirmed a village seizure. Generally for small settlements there's not going to be any wider reporting from (reliable) sources other than the ISW and DeepState, and as I said it is standard practice that geolocated footage which the ISW says indicates a settlement capture is given the highest weight in terms of inclusion in wikivoice, while DeepState is placed a slot below that. If the ISW actually showed there being some Ukraininan control or "grey zone" , then sure, but the ISW map does show the entire village as having been captured.

My point here is that desiring further confirmation when the ISW says something has been captured is the heterodox way of doing things, as it is usually the other way around that a RMOD claim or DeepState update is confirmed by the ISW (as they are much stricter in only accepting footage for evidence of advances), and thus you're asking (inadvertently) for a change in how much weight or reliability are given to ISW statements, which goes beyond the scope of this article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche: I guess this discussion boils down to the ISW source. I have no problem with the ISW and have cited them many times before, but I am against the fact that they have really become the sole source of information for the status of a lot of these villages. I don’t know when the unwritten rules became this way, but nonetheless they do exist and are enforced.

This is beyond the scope of the article though, and despite my beliefs, I’m fine with marking the village as captured. Thank you for explaining your viewpoint in such detail, I hope that didn’t take to long to write out and I’m sorry if it did 😅 Thank you for all you do in maintaining Ukrainian articles on Wikipedia, cheers! Johnson524 13:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not think this is a valid case for saying that ISW should have total control over if the village is captured or not. Your point about DeepState makes little sense. DS has marked villages as captured by RU even before any geolocated footage of fighting had appeared in those settlements. Questions about their motivations for marking or not marking a settlement as captured has no place here. Barbarbarty (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Barbarbarty: I'm not sure what you're referring to in your example, but I think you're incorrect. The specific layout of the frontline isn't perfect on DeepState, ISW, or any source available to civilians, but each has their own perks. The ISW runs primarily off of geolocated footage made available to the public, which guarantees high factuality, but means they only get their information after a military higher-up approves it for public release. DeepState on the other hand works much more with the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, and likewise gets frontline information sooner than the public. So, while I don't know what you're specifically referring to when you say DeepState marks villages as being under Russian control before they even are, its probably due to this or something similar. Also, while DeepState has also been known to delay the publishing of frontline updates, they have a record of explicitly saying they are doing so like they did in Kursk, and something they have yet to do regarding Synkivka, which is where my initial skepticism came from.

As I said earlier, geolocated footage like that used by the ISW guarantees high factuality of claims, but it was odd to me that DeepState didn't also mark Synkivka as taken on their map too, which almost never happens, so a discussion started and was settled. I hope I answered your concern the best I could, cheers! Johnson524 04:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

My point was to address the contention that “DS wouldn’t mark a captured village as captured because of security concerns” like troop evacuations or something similar. This is why I brought up the fact that there are numerous times where DS has marked a village as captured even before there have been any geolocations for those villages by ISW or any other source. So I did not find that point convincing. There are also conflicting interpretations on what geolocations mean as well - sometimes it is claimed a geolocation is simply showing the result of a “mad dash” by isolated troops and not due to any consolidation of control by either side. This is what DS and Ukrainian sources have stated as the reason why they still have villages like Robotyne contested. Ultimately I am not going to contest any content on this page, but I do not think there is one “right” way to go about determining whether a village is actually captured or not. I was simply addressing the contention that was made about DS purposefully not marking a village as captured despite the purported reality being otherwise. Barbarbarty (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Barbarbarty: I agree with you that there is no one way to determine if a village is actually captured or not, that's why I originally argued there should be some cross referencing to not rely on a single source for the verification of claims, especially when the ISW and DeepState agree so much of the time. I'm sorry you didn't find my point convincing? Ultimately though for reasons that you and Flemmish pointed out, I do agree the ISW is the better of the two sources to use for determining the state of a village in wikivoice. Cheers! Johnson524 04:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I was referring the Flemish’s point. I would not have marked the village as captured, personally. Barbarbarty (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Barbarbarty: That's my bad, I must've misread that. Either way, thank you for your insight in this discussion! This has definitely made me re-evaluate how much I value certain sources over others in these situations. Wishing you the best from North Carolina 🙂 Johnson524 04:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)