Talk:Battle of Krasnohorivka

Battle has begun

Russia has recently entered the city and, this time, it was confirmed by geolocated evidence (unlike the late February – mid March attack). See https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-9-2024 and https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375. Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 20:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

True. Article can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortak42 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

2023 background info

Does anyone else agree that the 2023 background info is unrelated to the current battle? By the way, that is a remnant of the previous iteration of this article. Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 04:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the part about unverified old casualties but kept the info on the capture of the coal mine as it likely served a stepping stone for the latest assaults. That tiny paragraph could still be improved though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 20:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Turtle tanks

Russia has been using "turtle tanks" to mitigate damage from Ukrainian drones. This should be covered in a "Tactics" section. Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 21:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Country flags

@Cinderella157: I would argue that at least country flags serve a purpose in the infobox. Just like a text conveys information, an image can aswell. In fact, an image conveys information (at a glance) faster than text if the reader is familiar with them. Given the Russian and Ukrainian flags are very well known worldwide, pretty much anyone will quickly recognize the combatants when looking at the infobox, which is the aim of an infobox. The same cannot be said about army flags or unit badges. Most people gain no insight from looking at them and, as such, I would agree that those are mostly ornamental. Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 04:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Alexis, I could reasonably argue otherwise regarding the flags for the countries: that the words are sufficient and that the flags are primarily decorative. However, I will not press the issue in this case. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course words words are sufficient, but at least country flags can help a bit in this case. They're engrained in our brains and help with quicker info aquisition. Of course I can't extend this argument to lesser known country flags, which raises an issue of inconsistency. I'm an advocate for consistency, but (for now) I would be satisfied with local consistency, i.e. consistency within all Ukraine war articles, not global. As such and as you implied, I believe we reached a reasonable compromise in this specific case. ;) Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 16:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 should get solid ban for vandalism. Bortak42 (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Turtle tanks reportedly have also been used near Klishchiivka

Would be nice to comment this here or in the Eastern Ukraine campaign page. Just gotta find the source from several days ago. Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 20:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Casualty claims

I once again express my concern with casualty claims in general, especially day-by-day ones. This kind of info suffers from various issues. They are mostly unverifiable, are often used in a propagandistic manner by Ukraine (this is a common theme in their media space, along with human wave stuff), are not encyclopedic (day-by-day numbers), etc. Unless this is an abnormal battle case (very high or very low casualties), such casualty info does not really add to the article. Furthermore, it often raises unbalance issues as the Russians hardly make casualty statements about specific battles (they don't have to anyways). At most, I think we could include total figures at the end of the battle. The further away from the battle end as possible to avoid leaking information warfare claims into the article. Oh, and lastly, sorry, I admit I was a little blunt with the revert summary, but here is the full explanation. Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 17:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the only claim of Russian casualties mentioned from this battle. I can’t see how mentioning 30 Russian losses makes this page "unbalanced". It’s not WP:EXTRAORDINARY, but I feel it’s significant enough to at least mention. It’s far from a total estimate, which is why it’s not in the infobox, or in its own "casualty" section. To your second point, it’s not on Wikipedia if the casualty claims are often lopsided in favor of the Ukrainians when Russia rarely makes claims for specific battles, meanwhile Ukrainian (and sometimes Western) sources do so all the time. We can only rely on information published by each respective side. We shouldn’t have to wait for Russia to publish their own claimed statistics in order to add in Ukrainian or Western ones, especially when there’s no guarantee that they will. Tomissonneil (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I can’t see how mentioning 30 Russian losses makes this page "unbalanced". It begins to make it unbalanced / makes it a bit unbalanced. but I feel it’s significant enough to at least mention. I personally don't think it's relevant, especially in the way it was written. I repeat that a single-day casualty claim must be notable to be included. How did those allegedly happen? Were them in a single building? Was it carried by a single squad in a short period of time (1-2 hrs)? Was it from a notable raid? A notable artillery barrage? Were the victims particularly notable, i.e. elite units? Were them in notable vehicles, i.e. turtle tanks (doesn't make much sense though)? This is the kind of context that would make a casualties episode notable enough to be included standalone in the article, in my opinion. Otherwise it just feels like a random drop of information; out of context.

it’s not on Wikipedia if the casualty claims are often lopsided in favor of the Ukrainians when Russia rarely makes claims for specific battles... You do have a point here, as long as WP:DUE weight is applied, but my main argument still stands above. Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 04:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

On a side note, would you have preferred if I commented out that casualties statement instead of deleting it? Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 04:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Dropping factoids indiscriminately into an article is not how we write an encyclopedic article. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTNEWS applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Indiscriminately? The article and information I added is still on this page, only the casualty figures have been removed. That doesn’t make any sense. It’s the only casualty information about this battle, and it was given by a Ukrainian unit and appeared in a published source. That IS encyclopedic, and I don’t see how it isn’t. Tomissonneil (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Indiscriminately? The recent post by Alexiscoutinho goes a long way to addressing this. Why is thirty Russians reportedly being killed sufficiently notable to report in an encyclopedic article as opposed to a news article? The article would read:

• Between 8 and 9 May, Russian sources said ... Meanwhile, a spokesman for Ukraine's Khortytsia operational-strategic group said that its units, mainly the 59th Brigade, had blocked the Russians inside the refractory plant. They claimed it have killed 30 Russians over the past day.

This would tell us that the Russians were killed inside the brick plant and would tend to imply that they Russians were killed by the 59th Brigade. When did this happen - before on or after 8 or 9 May? The source is on-reporting from a third party source. The source would state:

• "The enemy broke into the city with small assault groups and is now inside the refractory plant. Through the efforts of our units, mainly the 59th Brigade, the enemy was blocked and is still inside the plant. Our defenders fully keep both Krasnohorivka and its outskirts under fire control. Over the past day, the defenders killed about 30 Russians who were approaching the settlement."

The Russians were actually killed somewhere outside the settlement and are described as defenders, which could be anybody. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

New advances to verification

By 17 may 2024 Russian forces cleaned area between road C051130 and 1 May street, Ukrainian forces retreated to hospital buildings and agroturistic university at Nakhimov street. On the south Russian forces cleaned area next to Borisovka where was AFU pluton. In the centre of Sumy street and subburbs of Krasnohorivka refactory plant fighting is lasting. On the east of industry sector Ukrainian forces retreated to raion of streets of Pushkin and Nekrasov.

👌. Today or tomorrow I may take a look. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Damn, can't keep up... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2024

83.253.255.109 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

The main fotot of The battel of Krasnohorivka should be replaced to a more recent foto taken during when the battel is ocuring rather then a old fotot of the city like 2014 or so before the battel ever truly started. Thank you have a nice day

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. PianoDan (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you 83.253.255.109 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle is seemingly over, Russian victory.

It seems Ukraine may still have a presence on the northwestern outskirts but the town is firmly under the control of the Russians. Its at least time to start having this conversation. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-1-2024 Maxsmart50 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Them having a presence only in the northwest is already stated in the article, and "essentially control the whole town" (the wording of the ISW) is not the same as having completely won the battle yet, although it is likely the Russians will establish full control in the coming days. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle is over

The whole city has fallen. Somebody please update. 85.229.111.139 (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

this is not "the whole" city; it is 95%, and Ukraine does not wholly control the 5%, but nevertheless Russia does not entirely control it. We need sources explicitly saying that Russia captured the city or won the battle. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

https://t.me/s/Suriyak_maps

According to Suriyak, it is now 100%, so September 8 or 9 is a good end date. 2601:85:C100:46C0:471:1A15:7E2D:760 (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

According to Suriyak, yes, but according to Wikipedia policies he is not a reliable source. Based off published geolocated footage the city is definitely captured (and fully this time). I think (for any non-IP seeing this) that temporarily citing for a day non-POV-pushing geolocated footage which will be regurgitated (citing the exact same url) by the ISW tomorrow is fine to prove that the battle has concluded. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Updated. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

Its Russian Victory, as of September 8th Russiangeostudier (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ⸺(Random)staplers 17:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)