This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 30 days

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024), along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions
Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 8 March 2022 by reviewer ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk · contribs).

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

‹ The template below (WikiProject Russia) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

Russia: Military Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 26 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Battle of Avdiivka (2022–2023) to Battle of Avdiivka (2022–present). The result of the discussion was moved.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Southern Ukraine campaign#2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive|Zaporizhia front]] The anchor (2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Shouldn't it be "pyrrhic victory"?[edit]

Considering the losses of Russian army and exhausted (for now) advancement potential, shouldn't be the result changed to a "pyrrhic victory" instead? 37.55.114.124 (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cope more (Redacted)

cope 2A02:E0:A50B:E900:2D5D:3657:43A3:85FE (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, per longstanding Wikipedia policy not to add such adjectives to results. Also, I don't think there are RSs that call it that. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per definition a Pyrrhic Victory is one that inflicts a toll onto the Victor which is tantamount to defeat which clearly is not the case here. The Russians can and still are conducting offensive operations and the Ukrainians are still on the defensive, there was no real change except that Avdiivka has now been taken and the frontline moved. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its ukraine, not russia getting attrited according to mainstream sources

“One of the key events from 2023 was that Russia was able to recruit a large number of volunteers,” said Rob Lee, a senior fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, which is based in Philadelphia. :“The flip side is that this is happening right as Ukraine is facing mobilization problems.”

"Ukrainian leaders responded to the gathering pressure by rushing in a medley of special units and the Third Separate Assault Brigade, an experienced infantry unit with a far-right heritage, to plug the gap and eventually help the retreat. A soldier with the brigade said they had been taken off the front line around the eastern city of Bakhmut in recent months and had only a short time to recuperate before being sent to Avdiivka as firefighters."

"The exhausting of one of Ukraine’s best units during a time of crisis, military analysts said, points to a growing problem in Ukrainian ranks: There are simply not enough troops to go around on the front."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/world/europe/ukraine-russia-strategy-avdiivka.html

The idea that the side dropping dozens of FABS with 5x the artillery is getting attrited faster than the smaller force that isnt is absurd. Do ukrainais seriously believe their killing 10x the russians for every Ukranian KIA? How? With drones and snipers? Russia has more of those than Ukraine too.

I am getting pretty annoyed that every Russian victory is being claimed as "Pyrrhic". I agree with the anons here. This is pure cope. The reality is that the Russians still have the tempo and are currently assaulting Robotyne right now. Speaking of Robotyne. You know what actually counts as a Pyyrhic victory? Ukraine 'claiming' the small village of Robotyne during the Ukrainian Counteroffensive. Because Ukraine wasted the majority of its remaining elite forces, armoured columns and ammunition to capture a tiny, irrelevant village that so happens to be a salient surrounded by Russian forces on the high ground on all sides. And now? They are losing the only 'victory' they had during the Counteroffensive after losing their most fortified city in the entirety of Ukraine. That is Pyrrhic. 42Grunt (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that actually makes a lot of sense now that you are laying it out like this, you could add it Here if there are sources agreeing. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats some premium copium right here, Theres simply nothing left of Avdiivka, Russia spent decade trying to capture it and wasted thousands of cannon fodder for a piece of rubble, if that's not pyrrhic victory then I don't know what it is. 128.124.140.40 (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cope Mordanist (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Cope there my guy BarakHussan (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol 77.46.212.180 (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Given the change of article scope, the top image probably neds to be changed, given that it is from May. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Per anonymous Russian military source"[edit]

Such references have no place in Wikipedia: all information must come from verifiable reliable sources. I am surprized editors who edit such sensitive areas do not know this most basic rule of Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 16:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox position[edit]

Nobody will notice the navbox at the very bottom, because nobody will scroll down the enormous list of references (including myself :-). Therefore I placed it under the "See also", which is a natural position: the navbox is the list of pages to "see also". - Altenmann >talk 16:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX - place at bottom of article after other standard article appendices (see also MOS:LAYOUT). Also, your edit left two navboxes in the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the usage of white phosphorus[edit]

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024). (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

I would change the following description of the second picture in the article from:

Avdiivka's School No. 1 shelled by white phosphorus munitions.

to:

Avdiivka's School No. 1 destroyed by artillery fire including incendiary munitions.

It is not confirmed, that russia used WP munitions. Imagery of shells airbursting clearly depict 9M22S Grad shells beeing used. Zootier (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2024[edit]

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024). (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

This answer uses the same source to state what Ukraine states are Russian losses repeatedly. No estimate of Ukrainain losses is provided, only a discussion of if there were POWs? Then it skips right to alleging war crimes? Obviously there were substantial losses for Ukraine, likely higher than for Russia, as Russia had encircled the city, and Ukraine lost a bunch of armor to relieve them. If we dont have an accurate count of casualties, then just say, it was very costly for both sides. These constant statements that Russia is looking thousands of troops every day while Ukraine is not losing any is silly. We know from the Donbas war, where the AFU fought irregular guerillas, the casualty rates were about the same for both sides. Then we have Zelensky saying that: 'The ratio of Ukrainian and Russian military personnel losses at this stage of the war is one to six, President Volodymyr Zelensky said on June 30 in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer. "Indeed, they (Russian forces) have much more people, and indeed we care for our people more. We will not have more people than Russia (on the battlefield)," Zelensky said. Zelensky added that the ratio was one to four earlier, but now it is six to one, considering the situation in the directions of the cities of Pokrovsk and Kharkiv. Russia has lost over 540,000 troops in Ukraine since the beginning of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, according to Ukraine's General Staff. This number includes both killed and injured.' That would suggest that Ukraine's KIA, MIA, injuries were only 90,000? However, in 2021, 'Initially, the known number of Ukrainian military casualties varied widely due to the Ukrainian Army drastically understating its casualties,[16] as reported by medics, activists and soldiers on the ground, as well as at least one lawmaker.[16][17][18][19] Several medical officials reported they were overstretched due to the drastic number of casualties.[16] Eventually, the Ukrainian Defence Ministry stated that the numbers recorded by the National Museum of Military History were the official ones, although still incomplete,[20] with 4,638 deaths (4,500 identified and 138 unidentified) cataloged by 1 December 2021.[9][10]' So we really don't have any idea how many died for Ukraine in that war, only that the Govt of Ukraine has failed to provide proper statistics since at least 2014. 207.148.176.87 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]