Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Result of the battle

I propose to clarify the wording of the result of the battle. The defeat of Ukrainian army was caused by Russian military and it is extremely inaccurate to describe it as DPR victory. And second, it was the major advance of joint pro-Russian forces and Russian military on three directions (Luhansk, Ilovaisk and Mariupol) in August-September 2014 that lead together to the signing of the ceasefire agreement, not the Ilovaisk defeat alone. --VoidWanderer (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem with the part about the ceasefire agreement. However, Russian presence never concretely confirmed, and was denied by Russia. Also, however way you turn it, it was ultimately a victory for the DPR, which was confirmed to be one of the belligerents. EkoGraf (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean Russian presence wasn't confirmed? Confirmed by whom? Correct me if I'm wrong, but battle's result has nothing to do with Russian denial. --VoidWanderer (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The Russian military presence was almost exclusively claimed by Ukrainian or Russian opposition sources (unreliable) and not verifiably confirmed by independent sources. And even if they were, again, the main fighting force on the pro-Russian side for most of the battle were the insurgents. EkoGraf (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you tell me what sources may be called independent? There're studies that confirm Russian troops taking part in combat, investigations based entirely on open-source data, witnesses' testimonies, military intelligence/HQ staff reports, NATO satellite photos and claims, captured and destroyed Russian armor and military personnel. What have I forgot?

As for fighting, the DPR forces had only held the city. There's no evidence they had contributed for encirclement of Ukrainian troops and the final massacre during breakthrough attempt. --VoidWanderer (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability regarding Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. EkoGraf (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain myself once again. We have a situation where 2 sides claim the opposite:

• Russian and pro-Russian sources completely deny Russian military involvement, claiming all the fights were performed by DPR forces, thus it's DPR victory
• Ukrainian sources and numerous other mentioned earlier claim it was Russian military that defeated Ukrainian forces near Ilovaisk

In this circumstances, trying to provide the neutral wording (according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), I've rephrased the result of the battle in the way both sides agree: Major defeat of Ukrainian forces. This wording is present in at least two neutral sources already mentioned in the article:

1. Ukraine: A Catastrophic Defeat
2. Ukraine Suffers Harsh Defeat in Eastern Town

So I find it appropriate to use the wording proposed. --VoidWanderer (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The established template in most Wikipedia battle articles is that we state who won, not who was defeated. I again ask that you please provide 3rd party independent/neutral sources regarding the Russians. If you do manage to find some, then we can place it as a DPR/Russian victory. EkoGraf (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

As for your request for 3rd party source:

• The battle of Ilovaisk: details of a massacre inside rebel-held Eastern Ukraine

It mentions Russian army involvement explicitly. --VoidWanderer (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That source is quoting mostly Ukrainian officials (not neutral) regarding Russian military involvement in Ilovaisk. Also, Newsweek is already known as a anti-Kremlin media outlet. I would suggest we ask other editors (RGloucester, Iryna Harpy, SkoraPobeda) who have been heavily involved in these articles on what they think and can suggest. EkoGraf (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

While the users invited haven't answered yet, I've found a source that should match the criteria you've asked for.

"Various sources show that, in spite of continuing denial by the Russian government,direct Russian military intervention in Donbas began at the end of August 2014. It took the form of incursions by several battalion-size units in order to prevent a defeat of separatist forces and attacks of Donetsk and Luhansk cities. These include a report by the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine in 2015, as well as reports by separatists, videos of Russian military convoys, videos of captured Russian soldiers and equipment, first-hand reports by Western media and eyewitnesses, and released satellite images of Russian military vehicles on the Ukrainian side of the border. They all suggest that the Russian forces, along with the separatist units, took part in combat with the Ukrainian forces and far right-led battalions in the Illovaisk area, encircled many of the Ukrainian units, and killed around 400 of them during their attempt to leave the encirclement." (p. 9-10)

The study of Ivan Katchanovski, I doubt you can name him a Ukrainian sympatheizer. --VoidWanderer (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Checked both sources he cited for his paragraph. One is the Ukrainian MoD (biased/not neutral) and the second is a Sky News report that talks about the video they made of (what they allege) Russian troops, but doesn't mention Ilovaisk anywhere in the report and in fact says they were filmed at Novoazovsk. EkoGraf (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, look. You've asked for a neutral source and I've provided it. The researcher definitely isn't pro-current Ukrainian government. He mentions at least 7 sources that led him to this conclusion about Russian involvement in the battle of Ilovaisk.

And now when your request for a neutral source is fulfilled, you're trying to analyze his study, thus questioning source's WP:RELIABILITY. I'm OK with that, but consider these points:

1. When questioning or trying to interpret source, remember Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guidelines: ".. we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."
2. Do you have the confidence that sources supporting DPR victory version will meet the criteria you're applying for sources supporting Russian involvement version?

First point was mentioned, because the reference of Katchanovski you've used (Sky news) supports only his last phrase: ".. since the end of summer 2014 regular Russian troops in Donbas included, at a minimum, military advisers, operators of advance weapon systems, and military reconnaissance and intelligence units .." There's no evidence this reference was intended to support Ilovaisk events claims. --VoidWanderer (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Listen, Katchanovski is not the one who actually confirmed there were regular Russian forces in Ilovaisk. He claimed it and cited two sources for it in the paragraph where he mentioned Ilovaisk. I checked both, one was the Ukrainian MoD (not neutral) and the second was in fact talking about Russian forces at Novoazovsk, not Ilovaisk. Katchanovski's article falls under the criteria of a tertiary source, which is a publication that summarizes primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia says that tertiary sources may be helpful, but secondary sources are the ones that are given the biggest significance. Also, here we have a tertiary source that is making a summary that is not in line with the source cited (Sky News) or is per a non-neutral source (Ukrainian MoD). And even if we followed that part that you just quoted, Katchanovski himself is stating the possibility the Russians have only a minimal presence (military advisers, operators of advance weapon systems, etc). Which would mean they were not the ones who lead (had a primary role) in the Ilovaisk battle. EkoGraf (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've quoted the part that was related to Sky news reference. It has nothing to do with Ilovaisk. Wasn't I clear enough? --VoidWanderer (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

As for the sources, in his claim about Ilovaisk he names at least seven that led him to conclusion about the battle, not providing links to all seven though.

1. report by the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine in 2015
2. reports by separatists
3. videos of Russian military convoys
4. videos of captured Russian soldiers and equipment
5. first-hand reports by Western media ..
6. .. and eyewitnesses
7. released satellite images of Russian military vehicles on the Ukrainian side of the border

As you can see, 6 out of 7 sources are primary. So when you name a historian's study a tertiary source, I suspect you're falsely evaluating it. It matches a secondary source's criteria. See for yourself: WP:PSTS. --VoidWanderer (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

He said those were his sources but when it came down to citing them he cited only 2 of the 7. EkoGraf (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It weren't 2 of the 7. It were 2 references for the whole text block. That text block described a lot of events:

1. cross-border artillery shelling
2. battle of Ilovaisk
3. fall 2014 battles (I suppose, it's the battle of 31st checkpoint)
4. battle of Debaltseve
5. participation of military reconnaissance and intelligence units

Sky news reference is supporting the latter claim — we can see a reconnaissance unit on the video near Novoazovsk. So, are we clear with Katchanovski's study? --VoidWanderer (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

G'day, if a succinct summary isn't possible in the infobox due to lack of consensus, potentially just saying "See aftermath" (or something similar) and linking to that section might be a possible compromise solution. I have seen that used in other situations. (This would then potentially require the expansion of that section to include a discussion of what the various sources claim was the result. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

AustralianRupert, thanks for your input. EkoGraf, what's your opinion on a new approach suggested? --VoidWanderer (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If we had a situation where the result is openly disputed by everyone (example, both sides claiming victory) then yes, linking to an aftermath section would be appropriate. However, this is not the case. If you want I can agree to compromise wording where we write Decisive DPR/Russian victory if you are still set on discussing it. EkoGraf (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let's agree on compromise wording. --VoidWanderer (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Last sentence of the introduction.

I don't understand - does nobody care about real life anymore? There are videos and plenty of other sources that unequivocally confirm that there absolutely was no agreement about coming out of the "kettle" with heavy weaponry. It was supposedly being worked on, but when commanding general of the encircled forces was asked to wait 15 more minutes, he refused and ordered a fighting breakout. I can provide videos and sources to that effect, Ukrainian ones at that.

The current wording definitely blames the rebel side for not honouring the agreement, and if I don't see serious arguments otherwise, that part will be removed. Feel free to lie when it's at least questionable, but don't do it with regards to historical facts. Commissar of His Imperial Majesty, Metropolitan of the Politbureau CK CPSU, Serene Prince of the Council of People's Commissars - idio3. (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@IDiO: A reminder of discussions involving you as to WP:POV changes to the article here. A reminder that this is a talk page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. Where are your reliable sources for changing the current consensus version? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This whole article is Unfounded

The sources used are hardly unbiased! Western media and Bellingcat (what a joke!) are hardly suitable as sources for an encyclopedia. The OSCE have been unable to support these claims. Acorn897 (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove mention of Putin from intro

I’ve just removed the mention of Russian President Putin from the intro, as it doesn’t add anything there.

Normally I wouldn’t report such a simple change on the talk page, but as this may be a sensitive thing for some users, I’m open to discussion.--Geke (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

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:

• Protiútok povstalců na Ukrajině 16. července.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"Government forces"

I suggest to clarify the terms used in the article and replace "Government forces" with "Ukrainian forces". There are several reasons to do it.

1. There were forces of 2 governments that fought in the battle: Ukrainian and Russian.
2. Pro-Russian rebels never declared themselves Ukrainian in any aspect. A large part of them were not even from Ukraine. They fought under Russian banners, for semi-Russian states they declared, and for the Russian cause.
3. The sources, even those with a clear anti-Ukrainian / pro-Russian bias like Ivan Katchanovski do not use this term. They use Ukrainian forces and Russian forces for regular armies.

VoidWanderer (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)