Talk:Liberation of Kherson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Content is being changed from liberation to withdrawal

Not sure what to make of it, but there are a lot of edits moving the topic from "liberation" to "withdrawal." I think the former is about the freeing of the people, and also the political dimension of that. The latter has more to do with military developments. My gut is that from a topic standpoint, the withdrawal material is more appropriate to the 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there is some misunderstanding. If you look over the edit history carefully, nobody has 'changed liberation to withdrawal'. The word 'withdrawal' has just been added alongside 'liberation'. These terms balance each other out. I'll restore the text as it was. In the talk section above, we can continue discussing which title is to be preferred. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
. . . but that's what I'm disagreeing with. If there is a general agreement to change the topic from the liberation to the withdrawal, fine. But while the RM is under discussion, I don't think that should be done. I also don't think "liberation of Kherson and Russian withdrawal from Kherson" is an appropriate topic or title. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
there's no way to talk about liberation without the withdrawal. if there was no withdrawal, there would be no liberation. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. We've seen before in other places (e.g. Lyman) that sometimes Russian troops did not try to withdraw, or were not allowed to withdraw, but were ordered to fight to the death (and many of them did). Those that did eventually 'withdraw' from Lyman did so fleeing under heavy fire and taking enormous losses. Because they defended the place far longer that they would have if they had been given permission to withdraw when they requested command to do so, the ZSU would have retaken Lyman much earlier and with muss less fighting. (Incidentally, this is an important reason why we call it the Second Battle of Lyman and not the "liberation of Lyman" nor the "Russian withdrawal from Lyman"). One could argue (probably successfully) that the ZSU would have retaken Kherson eventually anyway even if the RF forces had fought to the death, but the 'liberation' would certainly not have happened on 11 November 2022. but later. And that is the key. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, let me ask you a question: Would you agree that both of them (a Russian withdrawal from Kherson, and a (Ukrainian) liberation of Kherson) happened? If so, would you agree that they were closely intertwined and happened mostly simultaneously, although one started before the other? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Obviously both happened. My feeling is that the Russian withdrawal could be covered as a part of 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. The liberation is more of a political and human story. The liberation is related to the withdrawal, which is related to the counteroffensive. The lines are inherently subjective. I don't really care if a withdrawal article is created as a sub-article of the counteroffensive article or not. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Military stories are just as human, although usually in a negative sense, but still human. There is plenty of room to tell the positive human stories in this article. In fact, I have been writing most of that material in the current article (e.g. about residents celebrating, flag-waving, singing, welcoming the ZSU). I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't be writing about those aspects, but encouraging them to write them! But that is mostly independent of what the article title should be. Except in the sense that, just as the title, all material should comply to WP:NPOV. (e.g. It's generally not okay to say The city has been liberated by the Ukrainian forces. but it is fine to say President Zelenskyy stated: 'The city has been liberated by the Ukrainian forces.'). Quote people who you think accurately describe relevant situations from their own POV, cite the source and you're fine; I've been doing that myself. I'll add some more, and see if there are other photos or perhaps pictures to use as illustration already, because the positive human aspects of this story are certainly relevant to be told. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: you are actually changing the content of the lead section from 'liberation' to 'withdrawal'. Adoring nanny, DinoSoupCanada and I have agreed here that both should be mentioned in the lead section. You shouldn't be changing the text without discussing it with us first. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, I consider you reverting me without explanation but with the mocking statement of 'tentative schmententative' to be WP:DISRUPTIVE. You should conform to behavioral guidelines rather than disrupting the process of consensus-building by pushing your POV. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
You're referring to this diff. I did not delete 'liberation' entirely. I left one mention. That's enough. I later used 'recapture' which is almost the same but more NPOV. What exactly is your problem with that? Where is the consensus — tentative or otherwise — that says you can't use 'recapture' in the lead? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Liberation of the city is the result. What led to it were constant pressure during a ground offensive and a campaign of fires against logistics, command, and control by Ukrainian forces, and a withdrawal by occupying Russian forces. What follows from it is mopping up of any remaining occupation forces, demining, and reconstruction.
We can refer to this entire operation as the liberation, but only one phase of it was a Russian withdrawal.  —Michael Z. 21:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Most of this article is cruft. We've seem many similar articles during this war. All having noble intentions no doubt. But they're mired in minutiae and nationalistic rhetoric. Understandable of course in the circumstances. But still cruft. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Keeping track

Deletion:
Keep - 8
Delete - 3
Rename - 2

Renaming:
Liberation - 4
Withdrawal - 2 DinoSoupCanada (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That's nice, but WP:VOTE. AfDs and renaming discussions are not a headcount, but are about the merits of arguments. It's a bit more complicated to visualise those. Would you like me to try and summarise the arguments given so far by those involved? (I'd have to be very concise). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Arguments for Delete
Arguments for Keep
  • Articles are allowed to start off as a stub
  • It is no longer a stub, the contents have been expanded
  • There is WP:SIGCOV for contents, and per WP:LENGTH it should be split off from 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive
  • It doesn't have to be a battle page per se; the event is significant enough for lots of non-combat aspects (political, cultural, socio-economic etc.) to merit an article.
Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! DinoSoupCanada (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Arguments for "Liberation of Kherson"
  • It's the original name at article creation, we shouldn't be changing the subject/topic/focus.
  • The Russian withdrawal from Kherson is not the same as the (Ukrainian) liberation of Kherson. If we wanted to write something about both, it should be in separate articles, not in a single one. So let's keep this one about the liberation.
  • WP:COMMONNAME
  • 'liberation' is not a WP:POVNAME, therefore there is no need for renaming.
  • Russia illegally invaded, occupied and annexed Kherson, and committed war crimes against its civilians. 'The Russians under Vladimir Putin are the bad guys', 'nobody cares about' what allegedly millions of (pro-)Russians think, so we can ignore their point(s) of view. Supporting self-determination for Ukraine is a neutral point of view. The majority of the population is Ukrainian and happy that the ZSU retook control, and most of the world agrees with them. Therefore, 'liberation' is a neutral / objectively correct word.
Arguments for "Russian withdrawal from Kherson"
  • Article creators do not own articles (WP:OWNERSHIP)
  • The withdrawal and liberation were two distinct but interrelated and almost simultaneously occurring events, and there would have been no liberation without a withdrawal. The question is which of the two should be in the article title.
  • WP:COMMONNAME
  • 'liberation' is a WP:POVNAME, and as such should be used with care (WP:MILNAME) and avoided if possible (WP:NDESC). WP:POVNAMEs are only allowed if they are the WP:COMMONNAME, but both names are about equally common, therefore the NPOV name ("withdrawal from") is to be preferred.
  • Wikipedia is not in the position to say who was right or wrong (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS); arguments about who was right and who was wrong can be cited (if not WP:UNDUE), but Wikipedia itself takes no sides because of WP:NPOV. A rather significant population of presumably millions of people (not all inhabitants of Russia, and not only them, but a loosely defined and diverse group of people broadly supporting Putin's military policies) appears not to regard the events as a 'liberation' (but did regard the Battle of Kherson at the start of the war as a 'liberation'). So unless there is a WP:COMMONNAME to override the objections of WP:NDESC and WP:MILNAME, POV names should be avoided. Besides, even if Wikipedia would accept all the premises as true, none of this makes the name Russian withdrawal from Kherson any less legitimate.
Arguments that do not support either name
  • Putting both names in the title, e.g. 'liberation of Kherson and Russian withdrawal from Kherson' or vice versa, is not a good compromise.
  • 'Kherson' is too vague, we should include something like 'right-bank Kherson/Ukraine' or 'Mykolaiv' or 'Snihurivka' per WP:PRECISE.
  • The article should be deleted anyway, so we might as well give up discussing what to call it.
Hoping to have summarised the arguments fairly and accurately, I hope this helps understanding the situation we're currently in. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
For a summary from a participant, that's one of the better efforts I've seen. I would add that we do have quite a lot of "liberation of" articles, relating to conquered peoples being freed, especially during WW2, but also at least two others:
Adoring nanny (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I presume that in those cases, there is a WP:COMMONNAME which overrides the objections of WP:NDESC and WP:MILNAME. But in other cases, pages that were originally called Liberation of X have been renamed to something like Battle of X. For example, in 2015 I changed 'Liberation of Mosul' to 'Battle of Mosul (2015)' after we reached agreement on Talk:Planned Battle of Mosul (2015)#Isn't this title POV? (that article changed titles many times, it actually split into Mosul offensive (2015) and Battle of Mosul (2016–2017); I had to really search to find this discussion back haha). There are probably several other (better) examples to compare to our situation here; the point is that 'liberation' is often recognised by some users as POV (from people who sympathise with 'the good guys'), while other users argue that the opinion of certain people (who sympathise with 'the bad guys') doesn't matter and therefore 'liberation' is NPOV. In all these cases, I personally agree with who the supposed 'bad guys' and 'good guys' are, but for me the neutrality of Wikipedia takes precedence over telling a story that aligns perfectly with my own opinion. So wherever possible and reasonable, I agree with established policies to make/keep an article title NPOV. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I am actually leaning closer to a delete vote at this point. A couple of users have made a big mess out of this whole situation. It started as a small article about a small topic, which some people wanted to delete. Then, it moved to a scope-expanding project, and then people wanted to change the title (after they had begun editing the contents of the article to change its scope, mind you). In the beginning, I was one of the first people to vote "keep", but at that time, I had no intention to expand the scope of the article nor to retitle the article. My original intention was to leave the article as a small-sized article specifically about the Ukrainian liberation of Kherson City only (similar to what Adoring nanny supports), and then subsequently merge the contents of the article elsewhere if necessary, such as into the article about the city of Kherson itself or into the article about the 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive (or the Russian occupation of Kherson). After all of the shenanigans that have been going on (and the extreme blowing-out-of-proportion), I think the article should just be deleted and its original contents merged into the other articles that I've highlighted. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I second this. I also want to note the potentially dangerous precedent this article sets. I've heard about news saying russia has ordered an evacuation of civilians from southern Kherson Oblast. I cannot find the article but this claim makes you think what will we do if similar articles are created in the future. Will we give articles for every centimeter Russia withdraws from? Most importantly, I still don't understand why do we need an article for the occupied right-bank, as if its information cannot be included somewhere else, when we do not have an article for the russian withdrawal from northern Ukraine, which is comparatively more significant than the right-bank withdrawal due to a number of reasons and possibly could had a bigger volume of information that had to be integrated into the apropriate articles. Super Ψ Dro 08:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Expanding on this point, there's the very grim possibility that Russia might actually take Kherson back at some point later on in the war. Ukrainians are celebrating Kherson's liberation now, but Russia has not rescinded its claim to the city, and Russia intends to eventually return. We might see a Second Battle of Kherson. So, celebrations might be premature whilst Russia still controls a large swathe of Ukrainian territory and whilst Vladimir Putin's government hasn't yet been toppled. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is a serious possibility. We've had enough months to see how laughably incompetent the russian army is. They haven't tried to retake border villages on steppes and plains, they will not try to cross a river, specially after they blew up the bridges. Super Ψ Dro 09:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's likely either, but as I said, the Russians haven't rescinded their claim. So, we can't be 100% certain that Kherson has been liberated until the Kremlin is up in flames and Putin is in The Hague. The only thing that will keep Ukraine safe forever is eliminating the Russian Federation forever. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The city was the only regional capital captured since the start of the invasion. It is an important milestone of the war and is deserving of an article (one that I might add is already better written and fleshed out than many other war articles on wikipedia).
To give up and now and push for deletion because of the tenor the article is taking rather than pushing for changes to improve the article on the talk page is a bit silly.
Also I agree I'd be pretty surprised if Russia took the city back but you never know with WP:CRYSTALBALL and all that. BogLogs (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with BogLogs, we should be improving the contents of this article - which includes updating it - rather than speculating what might happen one day in the future. Citing expert analyses about what might happen in the "Aftermath" section is relevant, however. I've already given some examples of that about mine clearning, wintering conditions in a city deprived of telecommunications, electricity, water and heating infrastructure, and the real risk of Russian artillery shelling from the eastern bank to the western bank. I invite everyone here to add relevant information. Some users here only talk talk talk without trying to improve anything themselves, while Adoring nanny, DinoSoupCanada and I have written 85% of the contents with just the three of us. If you see information missing, add it yourself! :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Nothing wrong on discussing the consequences and precedents this article provokes. Anyway, I will be waiting for Russian withdrawal from left-bank Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts. Super Ψ Dro 12:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry that people wanted to make the article better. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
@Nederlandse Leeuw - You've slightly misquoted me above. In the sentence 'nobody cares about' what millions of (pro-)Russians think, so we can ignore their point(s) of view, I actually specifically said "alleged millions of people (Russophiles)". The word "alleged" is key here, because I believe that the population of pro-Ukrainians around the world is far higher than the population of pro-Russians. The population of pro-Russians is certainly still in the millions, considering that Russia has a population well into the millions, and there's probably many millions more outside of Russia. Nonetheless, whatever the population of pro-Russians is, the population of pro-Ukrainians is probably at least five times that number. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, I also specifically said this sentence immediately after my comment about "alleged millions of people". I said: "The only Russophiles whose opinions might actually matter are those Russophiles who live inside of Ukraine (excluding the ones that were imported into the occupied territories during the ongoing war; i.e. only including the ones that actually lived in Ukraine before the Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014)." This is a very important sentence, because it means that I did acknowledge the views of one group of Russophiles and one group only... the group of Russophiles that is native to Ukraine. And I have specifically excluded all of the Russophiles that live abroad, including in Russia or in various other countries aside from Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Fair point, I added 'allegedly'. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

What even is this?

 —Michael Z. 21:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

someone already told me that. yes, i'm now aware. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
It’s not clear whether there’s an updated summary here that refers to the discussion above. If so or if not, maybe post a prominent note or strike out obsolete text to help us find what’s key here. —Michael Z. 23:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Title

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: No Consensus. As I parsed through the discussion, I find my summary is similiar to Special:Diff/1121570713 on 13 November 2022. The discussion that's between 13 November and when this dicussion is closed does not differ much from the summary. Both sides argued that either titles are NPOV and POV at the same time, and may be biased towards either parties. Both sides also argued that either titles are COMMONNAME. @NL, in their support vote, raised that the GHits is 92,600 (liberation) vs 94,300 (withdrawal) thus a rough indication that the withdrawal is more common. However, together with the list of news articles at the end of the discussion with what both parties try to build to indicate support their arguments, I find that both can be used interchangeably and are understable by everyone to be referring to the same series of events that happened in the area. Thus, I find that there is no one COMMONNAME at the moment. Even though there are 7 oppose (including 1 split that leans to oppose) and 4 support votes, excluding that 1 support and 2 oppose votes struck out for WP:GS/RUSUKR, I look at the arguments (per WP:NOTAVOTE) and conclude that both sides have valid and near equal points. Thus, I key this in as No consensus. As the war is still ongoing and every so fluid, how the world perceives and writes about this flashpoint in history may change. In time, a common name for this topic may emerge. As with WP:NOCON, the article is to remain as where it is currently titled (not because of WP:OWN or RIGHTGREATWRONGS as motioned by the supporting voices)}). I urge that editors to open a new RM discussion only at least after three months, when hopefully there is an emerging consensus that either title or any other title is the common name or that there is circumstances that warrant a more immediate change in the title (i.e. stablising the content and/or resolve the various points of content disputes that has been raised in here and elsewhere on the talk page). (see WP:THREEOUTCOMES: Successful move re-requests generally, though not always, take place at least three months after the previous one. An exception is when the no-consensus move discussion suggests a clear, new course of action.). – robertsky (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


Liberation of Kherson → Russian withdrawal from Kherson

Should we keep the current name, or rename it to Russian withdrawal from Kherson? DinoSoupCanada (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

To clarify: "Liberation of Kherson" refers to the re-establishment of control over the city by Ukraine. On the other hand, "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" refers to Russia's withdrawal from the city; the withdrawal began a few days before the Ukrainian liberation occurred, and the withdrawal is still ongoing a few days after the liberation occurred. The two topics do not refer to the exact same thing, although they are closely interrelated and go hand-in-hand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Therefore, we have four scenarios currently:
1. An article on the Ukrainian liberation of Kherson city.
2. An article on the Ukrainian liberation of right-bank Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts.
3. An article on the Russian withdrawal from Kherson city.
4. An article on the Russian withdrawal from right-bank Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts.
To this we have to add whether we should refer to the right-bank Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts as "Kherson" only as it has been suggested on the AfD. This gives us 6 scenarios. And none is currently fully applied.
We have an article titled as in the Ukrainian liberation of Kherson city about the Russian withdrawal from right-bank Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts currently under both an AfD and a RM. What is this mess? How does anybody expect editors to achieve consensus here? Could we stop unilaterally opening new discussions and changing titles and information as we please? Maybe it is a sign this article should have never existed? Super Ψ Dro 18:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The article describes both phenomena, but more emphasis is put on "withdrawal from" for several reasons mentioned by several people in the AfD, and here as well. As the article currently puts it, the Russian army withdrew from Kherson, and then the Ukrainian army 'liberated' Kherson. That is a fine balance. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
However, the article includes information on localities other than Kherson. How come? Super Ψ Dro 19:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The article is about the withdrawal and liberation of Kherson city, with mainly focusing on the withdrawal of the right bank. Think of it this way: An article about the withdrawal and liberation of Kherson and surrounding areas. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I would be okay with it if the scope was Kherson and surrounding suburbs like Chornobaivka. Not the whole region. Its half a province + a bit of another. Not about a city. Super Ψ Dro 19:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Neither title is suitable in light of the current Articles for Deletion discussion. As I've pointed out above, "Kherson" is the name of the city, but many editors over at the AfD discussion want to expand the scope to cover the entire area on the left of the Dneiper. So, either way, the title is imprecise for the purposes of expanding the scope. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose any title until we agree on what to put on the article. Super Ψ Dro 18:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    This is not a reasonable position. There is a pretty clear consensus emerging that the article should be kept, and most people in the AfD also seem to be in favour of this renaming, with the current title as an alternative name mentioned inside the article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
It is reasonable as long as the scope of the article is contrary to the title, both current and proposed. I will not support a city-focused title for an article dealing with dozens of villages and towns. Another solution is restoring the old, city-only scope. Super Ψ Dro 19:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
It's about the city and surrounding areas. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The "surrounding areas" are approximately 30 times larger than the city. Kherson covers around 2-3% of the liberated area. This horrible imbalance of representation is unprecedented in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 19:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support Russian withdrawal from Kherson is a more accurate and NPOV description of the events, complying with WP:NDESC, WP:MILNAME and other relevant policies. Secondly, a Google search for "Liberation of Kherson" results 92,600 hits, while "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" has 94,300 hits, giving a rough indication that the latter should be the title per WP:COMMONNAME. Liberation of Kherson is acceptable to be mentioned as an alternative name, e.g. in the opening sentence of the article, in the infobox, and perhaps elsewhere in the article if relevant and appropriate; but generally speaking, non-neutral terms such as 'liberation' should be avoided. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    Um, if you got that number of hits for each title, then don't you think that they are closer to identical rather than one being clearly preferred over the other? Both titles are getting a nearly equal number of hits. Also, as I've pointed out, they don't refer to the exact same thing. The Russian withdrawal began around two days before the Ukrainian liberation occurred. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that they do not refer to the exact same thing (I've said that in other comments below), but because they are so closely intertwined, it makes sense to talk about both in a single article. The question then is which of them should be the title, and which the alternative name. Because of WP:NPOV (and related policies such as WP:NDESC and WP:MILNAME), the neutral name should be preferred over a non-neutral, judgemental title if there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME, which appears to be the case as both names are about equally common. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    I dispute the notion that the Ukrainian "liberation of Kherson" is non-neutral. Kherson is a Ukrainian city. It has always been Ukrainian, and Russia's invasion and occupation of the city in 2022 did not change that. Neither did Russia's declared annexation. The international community is mostly in agreement about this. Only the failed state of Russia (who was so weak that they could not retain control of the city) and its sycophants disagree with this view. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if we should use Liberation or Withdrawal. But I also dispute Liberation being POV in this context. I believe its appropriate. Super Ψ Dro 08:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Nederlandse Leeuw, I am severely unconvinced that "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" mostly refers to the whole right-bank region and not to the city itself. Sources such as these [1] [2] [3] clearly talk about the city with the phrase "Russian withdrawal from Kherson". Super Ψ Dro 19:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the terms "withdrawal from" and "liberation of" apply to the same territory, regardless of whether we mean just the city of Kherson, or also mean the surrounding right-bank area of Kherson (including parts of Mykolaiv Oblast, and just use "Kherson" as a pars pro toto for that area; the latter is what RS seem to be doing). That probably won't effect our decision. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
the latter is what RS seem to be doing I don't think so. I send the two (so as not to spend a lot of time into this) first articles that show to me on Google when searching "Liberation of Kherson": [4] and [5]. If you read them, you will see both of these articles are clearly city-focused. Distinctions are made between Kherson city and the whole liberated area. The same happens with "Russian withdrawal of Kherson": [6] and [7]. The first is still clearly city-focused while the second doesn't clarify if it means the city or the whole area with Kherson. Though, it is not surprising, as most people would assume it means the city. Evidence will have to be provided to prove that Kherson is used as a general name for the whole right-bank area. Super Ψ Dro 08:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per copious sourcing, which I will put into a separate section below. In addition to the word itself, I think words like "euphoria", "dancing", "singing the Ukrainian national anthem", and so forth are evidence for WP:COMMONNAME in favor of the term "liberation". See the list below. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    Unfortunately that argument runs contrary to WP:SYNTH. Personal interpretations of such words shouldn't be added. Unless RS actually use the word 'liberation' or a derivative thereof (of which there are probably enough anyway), we shouldn't be assuming that. Plus, as I indicated above, "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" appears to be a more WP:COMMONNAME than "Liberation of Kherson", and it is NPOV. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    Based on the statistics that were gathered by you yourself, that would appear to actually not be the case. Your own data contradicts your position. The split is roughly 50/50, slightly in favour of the withdrawal title. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    Worth noting that I was not searching on the word "liberation". I don't believe that this kind of thing should come down to people searching for things that support only their preferred choice. I see my sources have been moved to "liberation of Kherson", but they are not all that. I will keep searching for "Kherson" in various languages and keep putting whatever comes up in high-ranking hits. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    Good luck! I keep adding examples of "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" in my list. Many of the news services you have cited as examples of "liberation of" have also used "Russian withdrawal from" in other examples that I have found. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    But that's the point! For example, I just did an Italian search on "Cherson", came across a "withdrawal" source, and added it. I am not just searching on "liberation". If you search on just "liberation", you could grow that list all day too, but it's the wrong way to go about it. Somebody had changed the title on my list of sources to "liberation of Kherson". But that's not what it is. I corrected the title. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    Also worth noting that the word "liberation" can also be expressed in other grammatical forms such as "liberating", "liberated", "liberates", and "liberate". Not to mention that there are synonyms such as "free" to consider. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    Obviously. I already said that: the word 'liberation' or a derivative thereof. But the same goes for 'withdrawal', withdrew, withdrawn, withdrawing, withdraw, retreat, retreated, etc. so I don't think that argument really helps either side. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The article talks more about the withdrawal than the liberation. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC) (@DinoSoupCanada: Thank you, but WP:GS/RUSUKR should be enforced here. No hard feelings, and a weird one too given that you started the conversation. Someone should work on that GS banner. Striking for clearer picture of the ultimate consensus. – robertsky (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC))
  • Oppose I see multiple international RS sources saying both. As the only oblast capital captured, it has a different "classification" than standard cities. Similar to the Liberation of Paris. Albeit, that was a military engagement, but I believe the same idea still applies since the city was captured through a military engagement had has been involved in military actions for months (like airstrikes and general assassinations). Keep it as Liberation of Kherson. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment - Both names are fine for me, whichever is chosen the other should be a redirect to the main page and can be written into the intro as well.
If we are really going to get into the weeds we could say if the article highlights the city's freeing it should be called a liberation but if it focuses more on the military aspects it should be called a withdrawal. But again both titles are fine for me. BogLogs (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I see a lot of edits to the article with the general effect of moving the topic from the human story of liberation, which was the original focus, towards the military story of withdrawal. I've already put in my oppose opinion above, so the closer should not count me twice. But I do want to note that the original topic was the liberation. It seems that what we have here is both a move proposal and some repurposing of the content. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • This seems a bit of a false dichotomy to me. As if a withdrawal doesn't involve humans (unless you want to suggest Russian soldiers are not 'humans', but I would presume you think they are).
  • It may well be that you originally named this article "liberation of Kherson", but article creators haven't got any special privileges over what the title of the article they created is going to be in the future (WP:OWNERSHIP).
  • A significant number of users have indicated, here and at the AfD, supported by relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that Russian withdrawal from Kherson is an NPOV title, and Liberation of Kherson could be considered a POV title. As WP:NDESC states, WP:POVNAMEs are allowed if they are the WP:COMMONNAME, but as these two names are both about equally attested in RS (although my list is currently a lot longer than yours, but these lists aren't necessarily representative of all RS yet), we should favour the non-POV name.
  • As I and others have said before, it is fine to use 'liberation of Kherson' as an alternative name in the first sentence, in the infobox, and elsewhere in the article. I think you're right that the two names have a slightly different focus, and one could even argue (as I have done) that they are two very closely related and intertwined phenomena that happened somewhat simultaneously, with the withdrawal commencing on 9 November, and the liberation reaching its peak on 11 November, even though the withdrawal didn't seem to have been fully completed yet. That is why I think both terms should be mentioned alongside each other in the article, to balance each other out. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    The "liberation of Kherson" does not have a problem with neutrality. If Russia invaded Kherson, then Ukraine taking it back is a liberation. Unless you believe that Russia's invasion and annexation of Kherson was totally legal. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an unedifying, unencyclopedic artcile. I've salvaged some paragraphs from it and copied them to the "Abandoment" section of the main Battle of Kherson article. The rest, like the Russian tanks, may be abandoned without a backward glance. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    This discussion is about the title, not the AfD. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Russian retreat from the right bank of the Dnieper River seems to be the appropriate title for the article. Noteworthy is the fact that the withdrawal starts long before the 9th of November. Mawer10 (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    How would we distinguish that from the Russian withdrawal from northwestern Kyiv during the Kyiv offensive (2022) in late March and early April? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    Nederlandse Leeuw I don't know, but I think it's the best title so far. Mawer10 (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    Do RS use this name often? (WP:COMMONNAME) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose  The Russian withdrawal is just one dependent aspect of the entire subject. In military terms, there were Ukrainian shaping operations carrying on since the end of August and constant pressure on Russian lines, including advances towards the city, as well as constant strikes against logistics and command and control, making the Russian occupation of the city untenable, and likely leading to the belated decision to abandon the right-bank city by October 13 when the “not-evacuation evacuation” of civilians was first announced. The process is not complete with the withdrawal of the Russian main force, as the Ukrainian liberation of the city continues with the mopping up of Russian left-behinds and SOF, demining, and restoration of destroyed power, water, and public communications services. —Michael Z. 17:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support, seems to be a more accurate representation of what is happening.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • oppose 'Liberation' is npov given russia invaded—blindlynx 00:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • STRONG OPPOSE per Michael. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 15:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC) (WP:GS/RUSUKR strike. – robertsky (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC))
  • Question There are many discussions about whether "liberation of Kherson" is POV or NPOV, but does anyone think "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" is POV? So far, I've only seen people arguing that it is NPOV. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
    To me the question is “does it indicate what the article is about?”  —Michael Z. 16:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
PS: Perhaps the easiest way to prove that liberation of Kherson is an NPOV name would be by falsification. That is, if generally pro-Russian but reliable sources frequently used the term, it could be considered 'neutral'. Per WP:RSP, the Kommersant seems to be a good candidate for that, as it is widely considered an RS openly publishing news articles about Ukraine. So far, I haven't seen them use liberation of Kherson, but they do say, for example today: "The Crimean authorities will review the measures necessary to ensure the safety of citizens and infrastructure after the withdrawal of the Russian group from the right-bank part of the Kherson region, said Chairman of the State Council of Crimea Vladimir Konstantinov." The Komsomolskaya Pravda is widely considered a pro-Kremlin newspaper, but it is taken seriously by some Western media, at least to see what they are saying (e.g. CNN quoted a Komsomolskaya Pravda journalist as saying that it was the Russians who blew up the Antonovskiy Bridge; probably not something the Kremlin would like to hear.) Whenever the term liberation of Kherson is used on the website of KP, however, it is either in reference to the Soviet conquest of Kherson in 1944, or the phrase is used in a mocking way or between quotation marks: the "liberation" of Kherson or the "liberation of Kherson"; otherwise, the word "liberated" is used in reference to territories of Ukraine currently controlled by the Russian forces, such as Melitopol in southern Zaporizhzhia. Clearly, they see things the other way (personally I think they're wrong, but my personal opinion doesn't matter because of WP:NPOV). I don't know how seriously we need to take the Komsomolskaya Pravda, but at least the Kommersant (which doesn't use liberation of Kherson, but does use Russian withdrawal from Kherson) is considered an RS, and to really demonstrate that the name liberation of Kherson is NPOV, this is the kind of tests that we should conduct. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
That is complete nonsense.
A bunch of Russian-language articles are not sources for an English title.
Editorial staff who are subject to criminal prosecution and 15 years imprisonment for “defaming the Russian armed forces” by Putin’s régime cannot be a reliable source on objective use of English labels related to this war.  —Michael Z. 17:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
You may not like it, but English Wikipedia considers some non-English sources as reliable and usable in English Wikipedia articles, and Kommersant is explicitly listed as one, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_335#RfC:_Kommersant. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Your sources don’t give English names. They say nothing about the English name. They don’t use “Russian withdrawal from Kherson,” but “освобождение Херсона.”
Like it or not.  —Michael Z. 21:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Can you find me an English-language, pro-Russian, reliable source which uses liberation of Kherson for the events of November 2022 in a non-mocking, unironic manner? It would be the easiest way to prove liberation of Kherson is an NPOV name.
  • Those who claim Russian withdrawal from Kherson is an NPOV name in their argument that the article should be renamed have the burden of proof to show all reliable sources, no matter which side they are on, commonly use it. I have done that above with respect to pro-Russian sources, and also below under 'sourcing' for neutral or pro-Ukrainian(-leaning) sources. In all these sources, I found only one which slightly mocked the name by prefacing it with "so-called". Nobody else challenges the term as inaccurate; although many say it was a very poorly organised and chaotic withdrawal, it was nevertheless a withdrawal. The term favours or disfavours no side in the conflict and is therefore NPOV.
  • Those who claim liberation of Kherson is an NPOV name in their argument that the article should not be renamed have the burden of proof to show all reliable sources, no matter which side they are on, commonly use it. Nobody has yet proven anything about pro-Russian reliable sources to that effect. And I have given some evidence to the contrary that it is POV.
Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
You have not done those things. You say “fair enough” when I point out they can’t be used as sources for the common name in English, then double down on it. I am not going to indulge your argument from the point of view that you have proven something and your way is the right way unless I can meet some vague threshold of something.
“English-language, pro-Russian, reliable sources.” If this is not an oxymoron, can you list some of these rare birds as a starting point? It seems to me that any source that is pro the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine replete with mass atrocity crimes including incitement of genocide, then it cannot possibly be an RS. Any source continuing to operate while physically subject to the Kremlin’s draconian censorship laws enforcing its phantasmagorical worldview cannot possibly be an RS on anything related to this war.
That’s as non-mocking as I could manage.  —Michael Z. 19:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Russian TV host Andrei Norkin explicitly admitted as much, saying “If I back the decision to withdraw from Kherson, I'm going to jail for questioning Russia's territorial integrity. And if I oppose it, I'm going to jail for discrediting the armed forces.”[8]  —Michael Z. 20:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I personally do not know of any English-language, pro-Russian, reliable sources. They are either (1) English-speaking and arguably neutral or pro-Ukrainian, but (reasonably) reliable; or (2) in cases such as Kommersant neutral and reliable per WP:RSP, but not English-language; or (3) they are English-language and pro-Russian, but not reasonably reliable (think of TASS, RT, or some radical-right or radical-left publication mentioned as unreliable in WP:RSP). But that doesn't mean they don't exist (and I invite anyone here to suggest one in order to conduct this NPOV test). That leaves people in favour of arguing that liberation of Kherson is an NPOV name with a problem: there is no way to disprove it through falsification, if all pro-Russian sources are disqualified for reasons of being non-English-language or unreliable. We can see that in pro-Russian unreliable sources (of any language), the term liberation of Kherson is avoided or mocked, which does suggest it is a POV name, but it is unclear if we should take that into account or not. Russian withdrawal from Kherson however is used without reservation by pretty much all sources in all languages of all degrees of reliability.
You make an important point that some pro-Russian media inside Russia, including Russian TV host Andrei Norkin, could face penalties for saying something that may discredit the Russian Armed Forces or questions Russia's territorial integrity, but why do you think that is relevant to the name discussion? He uses the term withdrawal from Kherson, so clearly that's something that he is allowed to say. If you are suggesting that he would be thrown in jail if he said liberation of Kherson because that would discredit the Russian Armed Forces or question Russia's territorial integrity, then that proves my point that liberation of Kherson is a pro-Ukrainian POV name that differs from how the Russian government sees things. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
No. Your logic indulges a false balance by integrating a non-neutral POV. You’re saying anything the Russians disapprove of is POV. But the whole point of Russian propaganda and censorship is to move the overton window and make their desired POV look acceptable (or closer to acceptable). They disapprove of neutral POVs to make you accept one closer to theirs, and so non-neutral. You’re falling right into their trap.  —Michael Z. 15:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I will not respond to baseless accusations that have nothing to do with what I have said, or misrepresent what I have said. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, you did write “it is unclear if we should take that into account or not.” I believe it is perfectly clear.  —Michael Z. 17:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but the two concepts of the "Ukrainian liberation of Kherson" and the "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" clearly don't refer to the exact same thing, so this entire discussion about neutral wording is moot on that basis alone. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Whether or not the titles "Liberation of Kherson" and "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" represent a neutral POV is irrelevant because these two titles don't refer to the exact same thing anyway (which, indeed, means that the framing of this rename discussion has been problematic from the outset, which is precisely why I left that "to clarify" comment at the very beginning/top).
There are a couple of words that could replace the word "liberate", such as "recapture", although it would have to be specified by whom. If Russia recaptures Kherson in a hypothetical "Second Battle of Kherson", then the previous Ukrainian recapture of the city would have to be specified as the "Ukrainian recapture". On the other hand, the word "liberation" tends to be less ambiguous as to which side did the liberating... It is presumed that the side that liberated the territory is the side that the territory originally belonged to, having previously been under occupation by a hostile force.
The word liberation does have a bias towards the original occupants of the territory and against the foreign occupiers, but that bias is actually rather helpful in indicating who liberated what. @Nederlandse Leeuw has suggested that the Russians view their capture of Kherson in March 2022 as a "liberation" from the Ukrainian "UkroNazis", but nobody else takes this view seriously aside from Russia and Russophiles, and the vast majority of readers will interpret the word "liberation" as "the Ukrainians took back the city". Very few people are genuinely going to interpret it the other way around. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I haven't used the word "UkroNazis" or anything like that, but that is was a "liberation" (from "Ukrainian Nazis" or some description of that sort in pro-Kremlin propaganda) is roughly how many Russophiles have described the March 2022 Russian capture of Kherson, yes. It's not a description I personally agree with at all (quite the contrary), but again, our personal opinions should not matter; that is the whole point of the WP:NPOV policy.
I cannot agree with the idea that '[the] bias [of the word liberation] is actually rather helpful in indicating who liberated what'; the adjectives Ukrainian and Russian should suffice for indicating the who without Wikipedia taking a side as to who the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys' supposedly are. There is nothing in the words Russian withdrawal from that somehow indicates the Russians are either the 'good guys' or 'bad guys', but liberation of Kherson pretty clearly implies the Ukrainians are the 'good guys'. (Theoretically, I think Ukrainian recapture of Kherson would also be fine as a title, but that only gets about 1,480 results in Google, so it would fail WP:COMMONNAME). Whether the focus of the article should be on the withdrawal or the recapture is a legitimate but separate question from whether 'liberation' is POV; it evidently is. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
As @Mzajac has said above, the idea that we should show any respect to the Russian propaganda narrative is a case of a false balance. One country objectively invading, occupying, and partially annexing another is objectively a bad thing, regardless of the flimsy reasoning given by the invading power, especially when their reasoning has been proven demonstrably false. Russia's reason for invading Ukraine was in order to "de-Nazify" the country, among other preposterous reasons. All of Russia's reasons for invading Ukraine have been proven false. Russia is unequivocally the bad guy in this situation. The United Nations Secretary-General put it best: "Continuing the war in Ukraine is morally unacceptable, politically indefensible, and militarily nonsensical." [9]. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I don’t agree with that assessment. Liberation is an objective term describing the dislodgement of an occupation (also objective). It has nothing to do with good or bad, although it does relate to the objective concepts of legal, criminal, and freedom.
Furthermore, the Russian illegal invasion, numerous atrocity crimes, including attacks against civilians and incitement to genocide are objectively immoral. There is no merit or objectivity in denying good or evil exist whether they do.
“Recapture” is a bit problematic because Ukraine did not previously capture Kherson a first time, and Kherson did not escape to be recaptured.  —Michael Z. 17:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" is better and more neutral than "Liberation of Kherson"
Durranistan (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Please provide a reason for the claim "more neutral than". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
because most sources that calls this event the "Liberation of Kherson" shows favoritism to Ukraine. IMO either "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" or the "Second Battle of Kherson" is better than the current title Durranistan (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you have proof of that claim? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Split but I'd lean more towards oppose. Great Mercian (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support "Withdrawal" is a more NPOV term. EkoGraf (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    Please do not make assertive statements without providing your reasoning. *Why* is the term "withdrawal" more NPOV, and more NPOV than what alternative title, I might add? Be specific. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

Generalized searching -- not restricted to "liberation" or "withdrawal".

Here are some sources. Anyone should feel free to add to the list. I also searched some in other European languages. If anything, it seemed like the use of terms corresponding to "liberation" was greater there than in English-language press.

  • CNN -- No water, power or internet – only euphoria in newly liberated Kherson[10]
  • MSNBC -- Kherson, the only Ukrainian provincial capital captured by Russia, has been liberated.[11]
  • MSNBC again -- They poured onto the streets of Kherson early Saturday, hugging police officers and waving the blue-and-yellow Ukrainian flag to celebrate the city's second day of liberation.
  • The Guardian -- ‘They ran away like goats’: villagers celebrate liberation in Kherson region[12]
  • PBS -- Ukrainian forces swept into the southern city of Kherson today, dealing a major blow to Moscow's war effort. The liberation came after Russia completed its retreat from the region.[13]
  • BBC -- Ukrainian officials have warned "the war is not over" after Russia's withdrawal from Kherson, even as celebrations continue over the weekend., but also "We always believed that we would liberate Kherson," he told . . .[14]
  • NYT -- After months of Russian occupation, residents said the moment recalled being liberated from the Nazis in World War II.[15]
  • WAPO -- The liberation of Kherson city fueled speculation about how much farther Ukraine's military might advance before winter.[16]
  • Agence France Presse -- People In Kherson Dance Around A Fire To Celebrate Ukrainian Forces Entering The City[17]
  • France 24 -- Liberation of Kherson sparks outpouring of joy and tears in Kyiv[18], also "My city, where I was born and where I've lived my whole life, is finally free," said 17-year-old Nastia Stepenska, her eyes welling with tears.
Other languages
Die Region um Cherson ist bekannt für besonders köstliche Wassermelonen doch die waren in der letzten Saison in die Hände der russischen Besatzer gefallen. Nun wird das Obst zum Symbol der wiedergewonnenen Freiheit. ("widergewonnen Freiheit" means "re-won freedom").
  • Tagesschau -- Cherson nach der Rückeroberung but also damit die Bewohner der befreiten Gebiete wieder zuverlässige Informationen über den Verlauf der Militäroperationen erhielten -- effectively supporting both titles
  • Ukrainskaya Pravda -- "Трогательная и радостная встреча: воины ССО Украины в освобожденном Херсоне. ("освобожденном" means "liberated")
  • internazionale -- Il ritiro da Cherson conferma il fallimento della strategia russa[20] ("ritiro" means "withdrawal")
  • oko.press -- Chersoń wolny! Rosjanie wycofali się za Dniepr[oko.press] ("wolny" means "free") (yeah, and "Rosjanie wycofali się za Dniepr" means "Russians withdrew beyond the Dnipro River")

Adoring nanny (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Russian withdrawal from Kherson in English sources

Feel free to add. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Russian withdrawal from Kherson in Ukrainian sources

Feel free to add. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Russian withdrawal from Kherson in Dutch sources

Russian withdrawal from Kherson in French sources

Russian withdrawal from Kherson in German sources

Feel free to add. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Russian withdrawal from Kherson in Portuguese sources

Russian withdrawal from Kherson in Spanish sources

New searching on November 18

I did a Google search just now on "Kherson". I did not search on "liberation" or "withdrawal". These were the top hits:

  • CNN -- Former detainees in liberated Kherson allege Russian brutality, torture under occupation[21]
  • NPR -- Photos: Liberated Kherson celebrates as Ukrainians prepare for an uncertain future [22]
  • The Moscow Times -- Russian Military Dismisses ‘Fake’ Soldiers’ Complaint of Chaotic Kherson Retreat [23]
  • LA Times == Kherson's newly liberated residents wonder: Who collaborated with the Russians? [24]

I am not going to copy more hits. But if one scrolls down, the trend continues -- there is some reference to "withdrawal". But there is more to "Liberation". Adoring nanny (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Adoring nanny (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really impressed by such a tiny sample of 4 headlines on a random day without an effort to zoom in on the events of 9 to 11 November 2022. I'll grant you that after the events, the term 'liberation' and its derives appear to become more popular, but in the months before the events there has long been talk of 'withdrawal' and very little of 'liberation' by comparison. So I don't think this can really solve the issue in terms of sheer numbers, as they still seem to be quite tied. But I appreciate the efforts you have made for your argument. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
To illustrate the point: if I just Google News search 'Kherson + Ukrainian' or 'Kherson + Russian', these two articles both appear in the top 3 of results:
If I Google News search 'Kherson + and', the first article is still the second result, while the 4th and 6th results are this:
It's only the 8th result in that last search that has something with "liberation" in it, and I'm not sure if it's a reliable source (certainly not mainstream):
Now I'm not sure if Google remembers my previous searches and focuses on words such as 'withdrawal' or 'retreat' even though I don't explicitly search for it, but there is no sign of the term 'withdrawal' disappearing and being completely replaced by 'liberation' any time soon. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
That's interesting, I just did a google search to check with the 'Kherson' by itself and for what it's worth the top 3 of the top 4 results included the word 'liberation in the title:
https://jp.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-kherson/in-newly-liberated-kherson-ukrainians-celebrate-but-worry-about-whats-next-idUSKBN2S720J
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/19/surviving-and-escaping-russia-occupied-kherson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4Sx9ILSFvY
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-business-46c1061fc44458c903cf12fa442c57e1
It might indeed be because of your recent searches or google choosing this wording for other reasoning but on my end I see a lot of links featuring the word 'liberation' (Or because I just did a google search instead of a google news search?). BogLogs (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2022 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2022

Add this image into aftermath section. It's Kherson on November 19th, 8 days after liberation.

DinoSoupCanada (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
yay DinoSoupCanada (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberation_of_Kherson/Archive_1&oldid=1137002941"