Talk:Siege of Mariupol/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rename

Proposing move to Second Battle of Mariupol as both most recent battles in Mariupol took place in the Russo-Ukrainian War. --85.165.55.6 (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, but I would suggest waiting until the fog of war clears. Curbon7 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

We'll figure out the name situation later. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

One thought that occurs to me is that the current conflict really is a siege. It has not been much of a battle, so far.

Within Mariupol it's been a mostly one-way direction of fire, raining down on people hunkered down in their homes.

It's not much of a "battle" so far, it's an endless barrage designed to terrorize and brutalize trapped civilians.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding link to this page

Proposing to add this link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mariupol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plainrock124Fan (talk • contribs) 21:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass casualty event in Mariupol: massive 14 hour shelling has reduced entire neighborhood to rubble

Wikipedia editors are needed to cover this thoroughly, this is highly notable

Hundreds certainly-- possibly over a thousand-- may be dead. Reported today.

See today's BBC News article (linked here) "Ukrainian city of Mariupol 'near to humanitarian catastrophe' after bombardment"

I don't have time to do any more on this. Maybe someone else can.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Add Donetsk militias to the "Units involved" space in infobox

On march section: "On 1 March, Denis Pushilin, the head of the DPR, announced that DPR forces had almost completely surrounded the nearby city of Volnovakha and that they would soon do the same to Mariupol.[22]" This means that the DPR militias are also participating in the siege, right? Then, shouldn't they also be added to the list of units involved? Ridanbp (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to add it to the Infobox. The linked DPR militia Wikipedia article has a flag image for this militia.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I added the DPR armed forces to the infobox by following some other battles' articles. I thought i've seen it as DPR militias somewhere, but all i find was DPR armed forces. Ridanbp (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Blood or transmission fluid?

One of the image captions state:

"A large pool of blood in the aftermath of a Russian airstrike during the ongoing siege, 1 March 2022"

Doesn't look like blood. More likely it's automatic transmission fluid from the cars.

Bydlokurwa (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's way too much liquid to be transmission fuel.

That's not the color of transmission fuel either.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

transmission fluid is a redish color when you mix that with oil and other engine sludge/contaminants you would get something that looks like this. you can see this pool of "blood" is coming out from every car in the line. the chances that every vehicle had people sitting in them at the time that they died and bled out with the blood pooling that far from the car seems highly suspect. 72.209.16.181 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The 2009-2015 Toyota Prius 30 holds 3.4L of automatic transmission fluid for its hybrid transmission.

Automatic transmission fluid is bright red in color when new, and becomes a dark red with use

This is all easily available information.

Bydlokurwa (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you find some more pictures for the article.

If you don't know how to get them onto Wikipedia, post the link here and someone will help you.

They should be non-copyrighted (including federal or military which are not copyrighted). See Twitter as well, or instagram other photo sites, many people post their own photos there.

Maybe there is something from Mariupol.

Thanks

Chesapeake77 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've revised the image caption to remove the misleading "pool of blood" statement, as such a claim is dubious at best given the circumstantial evidence.

Bydlokurwa (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 March 2022

On 15 March around 4,000 vehicles with about 20,000 civilians were able to leave the city on 15 March.

Change to: On 15 March around 4,000 vehicles with about 20,000 civilians were able to leave the city.

Pyotr Andryushchenko, an adviser to the city government, estimated that around 80 percent of the residential housing stock had been destroyed, and that the total number of civilians killed could be as high as 20,000.[94]

This sentence is repeated twice in consecutive paragraphs. It should be deleted from the second paragraph and the two paragraphs should become one. RossOgi (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This article has been made into a mess by multiple editors, including me. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Downgraded back to WP:ECP, so extended-confirmed usres can now edit the page. El_C 17:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Number of refugees

• What I think should be changed: Add to the Background section: 'Prior to the siege, around 100,000 residents left Mariupol according to the city's deputy major.'
• Why it should be changed: Relevant background information about the scale of the number of refugees.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

References

• Downgraded back to WP:ECP, so extended-confirmed users can now edit the page. El_C 17:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Citations to update

I recommend updating the two citations below:

Replace

<ref name=Major>{{Citation |title=Official appeal of Azov commander, the major Denys Prokopenko, to the world community |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajKa2X_-Q74 |access-date=9 March 2022 |archive-date=9 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220309224252/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ajKa2X_-Q74 |url-status=live }}</ref>

with

<ref name=Major>{{cite AV media |date=7 March 2022 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajKa2X_-Q74 |title=Official appeal of Azov commander, the major Denis Prokopenko, to the world community |publisher=Національний Корпус |via=[[YouTube]] |access-date=18 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220317110527/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajKa2X_-Q74 |archive-date=17 March 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Replace

<ref name=Major>{{Citation |title=Official appeal of Azov commander, the major Denys Prokopenko, to the world community |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajKa2X_-Q74 |access-date=9 March 2022 |archive-date=9 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220309224252/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ajKa2X_-Q74 |url-status=live }}</ref>

with

<ref>{{cite tweet |last=Blinken |first=Antony |author-link=Antony Blinken |user=SecBlinken |number=1501674484197208064 |date=9 March 2022 |title=Every Russian has learned about the Siege of Leningrad during World War II. Sadly, history has repeated itself—but now it's the Russian government cruelly starving Ukrainian cities. https://t.co/wjG3IgwAzH |language=en |access-date=18 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220312225222/https://twitter.com/SecBlinken/status/1501674484197208064 |archive-date=12 March 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Thank you. TimSmit (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Downgraded back to WP:ECP, so extended-confirmed users can now edit the page. El_C 17:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Roger that. The change has been made. TimSmit (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Image thumbnail gallery needed at bottom of article

Images of the Mariupol bombardment / shelling, etc,... are needed for this gallery.

I suggest going to Ukraine social media and finding uploaded images (use Google Translate to message the Ukrainian uploader for "Free Use" permission [many Ukrainians also speak pretty good English-- it's widely taught in their schools]).

NOTE: Post the link to the image here-- (**Let an experienced Wikipedia editor handle that, don't message them yourself, unless you have Wikimedia Commons image upload / "Free Use" permissions experience).

See "Wikimedia Commons: Getting Started" for how to bring a photo onto Wikipedia.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Photo of the Mariupol shelling is likely copyright-free but the original needs to be found on Twitter

If anyone finds it, post the URL here, and more experienced Wikipedia Editors will help you to get it onto Wikipedia.

Here is a copy of the photo from the London Times (where they suggest it is uploaded by an individual on Twitter-- and is therefore possibly non-copyrighted).

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The person who uploaded the photo onto Twitter may need to be messaged for permission (**Let an experienced Wikipedia editor handle that, don't message them yourself, unless you have Wikimedia Commons image upload / "Free Use" permissions experience).

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

Add 810th Seperate Naval Infantry Brigade to one of the Russian units fighting in this battle. Thank you! Source: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-16 Js26x (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

On 19 March, DPR forces had cut Mariupol from the port. SavageBWiki (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

References

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia-Syrian use of evacuation in war strategy as opposed to humanitarian acts

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/08/1085097957/what-the-war-in-syria-tells-about-russias-use-of-humanitarian-corridors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.108.94.211 (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Disturbing. Reads just like Mariupol.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Let's see if they will allow the civilians to evacuate to Ukrainian-controlled territory or continue using them as hostages. This is different from Syria though. After transporting them to Russia, these people are going to be brainwashed and used against Ukraine, pretty much as that was done with inhabitants of LNR and DNR. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

they claim the citizens of Mariupol are being held hostage by Ukrainians. TASS just said this in the last 24 hours. Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Would like to add new sources of information on the infobox pertaining to Ukrainian commanders of the city, like Captain Svyatoslav Palamar, deputy commander of Azov, who isn't mentioned. User6619018899273 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Mariupol art school bombing

New stub for expansion: Mariupol art school bombing ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Old discussion re: 1) Other sections / subsections or not 2) How to include humanitarian issues / warnings in article

User:Chesapeake77 you've reverted my edits and are needlessly creating sub-sections for every single thing you can find, even if it's no longer than a small para. Whether it's the city destruction or casualties.

And can you tell me how Maxar Technologies working for US intelligence and military is relevant? They're a private company, unless you're accusing them of possible propaganda.

You're also falsely accusing me of vandalism and threatening me for taking any action against your info. That type of intimidation is not allowed. Please discuss. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You've been warned for being disruptive before. If you don't discuss I'll have to complain you.

And why have you removed my additions to the article like these ones? [1], [2] AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your noted edits have been added back in.

You wrote (on the article "Talk Page")--

"[You]...are needlessly creating sub-sections for every single thing you can find...".

That's a personal attack. Refrain from any further or you will be reported for harassment.

As to the two subsection titles in the article-- 1) "ICRC announcement of major humanitarian crisis" and 2) "Intelligence satellite photos show "extensive damage" to civilian residential areas in Mariupol"

Those subsections (and their titles) are appropriate because they are highly notable.

1) Reducing the article to a run-on chronology, while making no distinction for an extremely important major event-- like the ICRC warning of an immenent mass-catastrophe that could soon kill tens of thousands of people, lacks due perspective.

Similarly, satellite images that show extensive damage to apartments and homes in Mariupol also document mass-shelling (and massive targeting) of residential areas-- with casualties potentially in the tens of thousands.

In both cases, these extremely notable events warrant their own subsections, rather being buried in run-on chronologies with no distinction from far smaller alleged events.

Therefore your persistent removal of such extremely important subsection titles constitutes serious vandalism.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chesapeake77: No, "[You]...are needlessly creating sub-sections for every single thing you can find..." is not a personal attack. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 08:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Prove I am creating subsections "for everything [I] can find". If you can't, then he was harrassing me and perhaps you also, are now, helping him to harrass me.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hyperbole perhaps, a personal attack, definitely not. Are you accusing me of harassing you solely because I've told you something is not a personal attack? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 08:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your characterizing that as mere hyperbole is innapropriate. Can we have another Admin on this issue?

You have just fully locked a current events article about an ongoing mass-war crime event. Daily (hourly) additions to this article are urgently needed. Please instead go to semi-protected status for this article.

Also, prior to the user "AbsolutelyFiring" opening a discussion with you-- I had (twice) (already) posted Warning Templates on his/her Talk Page about vandalism here on Siege of Mariupol. See that persons Talk Page where the vandalisim templates were posted.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to reduce the protection until y'all have sorted this out—if you didn't want full protection, you should have discussed this instead of edit warring 🤷‍♀️ -- TNT (talk • she/her) 08:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

First of all Chesapeake77 "every single thing' wasn't meant to be literal, just saying how what you're posting is not relevant. Secondly while you posted your warnings, you don't mention that I tried to start a discussion with you, you didn't reply at any point until I complained you. Not everything deserves its own section. Especially with a single source and very short amount of information.

Also can you please keep this limited to one talk page and not post the same reply everywhere I mentioned you? 08:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

And Chesapeake77 you only added back part of my edits and that too when I warned you twice. The one about evacuations being attacked by Russian forces wasn't added back.

About the other points. It's not a personal attack to say something that is unnecessary is unnecessary. Yes those sub-sections are unneeded. Not to mention the uncyclopaedic titles like "Intelligence satellite photos show "extensive damage" to civilian residential areas in Mariupol" or "ICRC announcement of major humanitarian crisis". It's like reading news and we are WP:NOTNEWS. Could simply say "Infratsutcure destruction" and "Humanitarian situation".

Next, no one is saying it should be reduced to a chronology. That's not the point here.

The ICRC statement or satellite images about the situation in the city isn't extremely notable, specially the ICRC one. They aren't even that extensively covered and you're only using one organization. And not every notable thing gets its own section. Destruction of cities often happens in battles, nothing new.

Lastly your sections are too short. And rely on one organization only. Whereas there are many others like the city council themselves, news outlets and journalists, video footage have done far more coverage of it. Just take a look at this report from CNN using multiple sources for example [3]. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@TNT: You may have missed this extremely important detail (in what I wrote above)--

You have just fully locked a current events article about an ongoing mass-war crime event. Daily (hourly) additions to this article are urgently needed. Please instead go to semi-protected status for this article.

Thanks,

Chesapeake77 (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually they're not needed. It's only you making daily hourly additions and much of that is statements from various parties or things already mentioned. Any additions can be added later. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chesapeake77: Thankfully I'm fully aware of what I've used my admin tools to do 🙂 you may have missed this important detail though: "if you didn't want full protection, you should have discussed this instead of edit warring" -- TNT (talk • she/her) 09:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@AbsolutelyFiring:

You just referred to "Destruction of cities" but the "Satellite" subsection is referring to mass-destruction (proof of targeting civilian areas and therfore a massive war-crime) of civilian "apartment buildings" and "residential houses". That is highly notable and is far beyond the other far-smaller events in the article.

The "ICRC" section is referring to an urgent ICRC warning about an imminent catastrophe that could soon kill tens of thousands of people in Mariupol. That is also extemely notable and involves massive possible deaths far, far beyond the magnitude of other events in the article.

Therefore a seperate section for both are warranted. Otherwise they will be buried without distinction in the other events. Why does the article have to be pure chronology? There is no such requirement about such articles.

Lastly, you complain about the "small size" of the sections but (above) you just mentioned other sources. It would be far more constructive to add to those sections with the other sources you have mentioned (thereby increasing their size). It is a much better idea to increase the size of those sections.

Although some editors get overly concerned about section size. WP says that if a section is very notable it can also be smaller.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It's actually the same thing. Mass destruction often happens when there's fierce fighting or a long one. And it has been ongoing for a long while, plus other sources have mentioned it too. Is only one of them important?

The part about mass civilian killings and situation in the city is mentioned multiple times. So burial is out of the question. And this is an article about the siege as a whole, not an article about war crimes there. Not to mention what does Maxar working for US intelligence have to do with it and why do you need to mention ICRC statements verbatim?

It's not my job or anyone else's when you can't bother to add other sources to the sections yourselves. The burden is on you as you want it to be created.

Plus I suggest you see MOS:BODY: "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." There's nothing about notability. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No it's not "the same thing". The satellite section details proof of targeting of civilian areas and therfore a massive war-crime) of civilian "apartment buildings" and "residential houses". Possibly meaning tens of thousands of deaths.

You said--

"The part about mass civilian killings and situation in the city is mentioned multiple times."

No it isn't, the other killings are much smaller in number (not tens of thousands of deaths).

These are both seperately notable because they involve tens of thousands of deaths, not "a few" or "hundreds".

Chesapeake77 (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You are saying it like it is very rare when targeting of civilian areas in battle has happened often. Look at Syrian Civil War and Yemeni Civil War for example. Or Iraq and Afghanistan for that matter. Not to mention the destruction happening is already mentioned.

The number of "tens of thousands" is just speculation, and we don't give speculation weight here. So hence not really notable. And there have been high death tolls reported in mass casualty events, whether battlesor riots. You don't see a separate section in them.

Also the other deaths still number in thousands. That's not "much smaller". And speculation isn't a fact. We are an encyclopaedia, not some sensationalist news. See WP:RUMOR. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't you addressing the question of how the fact that US government agencies are customers of Maxar's is relevant to this battle? The satellite photos are relevant, but in the absence of some indication of falsity of the photos, how does Maxar's client list tell us anything about the subject of this article? There seems to be some sort of implication that, because they do business with the US military and US intelligence agencies, the photos shouldn't be trusted to be accurate. The photos are perfectly consistent with photos taken on the ground and eyewitness reports. There is no reason to question their accuracy, let alone to suspect that US agencies induced Maxar to fake them.

Although it might be relevant to an article on Maxar's business, the second sentence of this paragraph does not relate to the Siege or Mariupol and should be deleted from this article:

"On the same day, satellite photos of Mariupol taken the morning of 9 March were reported by the science news outlet, Space.com, to show "extensive damage" to high-rise apartments, residential homes, grocery stores and other civilian infrastructure, based on a comparison of before and after photos. The company operating the space satellite and its cameras works for U.S. intelligence agencies and the US military." The Peanut Gallery (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it happens in other wars has no logical relation to my point. In this article those two sections are very substantially different than other alleged events in this article.

There is no requirement anywhere that an article like this only be dozens of run-on paragraphs with no other sub-sections at all.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It does. The fact that people forget it a few days or months later, and we don't go around creating a section for everything. This isn't going to become an actual Leningrad or Stalingrad in terms of notability.

Regardless, what you're adding is speculation of the death toll by one person. Only one. Not even a confirmed one by the city council or the government. And the parts about destruction and death is already mentioned. Also the ICRC part is again relying on just one source.

You can separate the casualty and destruction in one section. There's enough material. But what you're doing is against Manual of Style. Yes, you should avoid short sections when you can. Wikipedia should read like a prose. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You said "This isn't going to become an actual Leningrad or Stalingrad in terms of notability."

That is speculation on your part. This war is getting far, far more press than any other recent war.

The ICRC warning of impending mass deaths is not a "rumor" as you implied. The ICRC is the International Committee of the Red Cross, the foremost and most important disaster relief organization in the world.

In addition, they (ICRC) have teams on the ground in Mariupol, so they have their own observers there, in the situation.

So a statement from them is not like a rumor - it's highly notable.

The satellite images of mass destruction (of targeted residential areas-- apartment blocks and residential houses) are not rumors either, they are facts. The section has three (3) citations/references confirming that the photos were taken and processed (before and after images) by a company that works for U.S. intelligence agencies and the U.S. military, so that is highly notable and is hardly on the level of "rumor".

Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Speculation only applies as long as it's in the article content. But alright I guess it's my fault for trying to predict how notable it will get. Like the speculation of 20,000 civilians killed you're adding or claiming it has or you claiming it has most press coverage.

But let's talk about notability now, not what it will be. And discard what I say. You're claiming the war is getting far more press. Wrong. Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Mosul, Raqqa, Baghuz, etc many other battles have received more press coverage.

ICRC didn't state anything about mass deaths unlike what you're claiming, it was just about the catastrophic situation. Which is already mentioned. It was a city employee.

And how is it notable that they were processed by a company that works for US intelligence? Can they not be independently reliable? And when did I say the destruction was a rumor? I'm talking of the death toll. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Only Iraq had close to the same coverage-- and in only three (3) weeks-- there have been more deaths in Ukraine than all US deaths in the Iraq war.

The ICRC is noting over a hundred thousand people in Mariupol without enough water. Yes that could mean tens of thousands of dead soon. That is super notable.

Photos from a spy sattelite company that works for the CIA and other intel agencies are very notable.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

We're talking of civilian deaths here, not US deaths. Btw there were reporters camped around in cities of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen during some battles unlike Mariupol.

You're engaging in speculation. People without water doesn't mean they lack all access to water or they can't drink it from somewhere. Besides they're saying extreme or total, not that everyone is without it so or they can't get it at all. For example it says, "People of all ages, including our staff, are sheltering in unheated basements, risking their lives to make short runs outside for food and water." [4]

And why should speculation by one person of 20,000 be given its own sub-section when nobody is backing him up?

How are photos from someone who works for a spy company notable? Is CIA supposed to be a benchmark of notability? How many cite them working for CIA while mentioning their images? Are others not notable because they don't work for CIA? Mariupol's deputy mayor for example today said 80-90% was destroyed. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You said--

"We're talking of civilian deaths here, not US deaths…"

What does their nationality have to do with the notability of a war crime? I find this comment disturbing.

The warning by the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) about looming "Humanitarian Catastrophe" in Mariupol is multi-factor, not only limited to one thing.

Burying such a warning in the run-on paragraphs-- if it was "of no special importance"-- as you have said here, shows a lack of due perspective, regarding notability. How is a "Humanitarian catastrophe" "the same" as the death of a few people in one single attack? It is not the same, by any means.

1) The ICRC is the foremost disaster relief agency in the world. Yes that warning of theirs about Mariupol is therefore extremely notable.

2) Furthermore, the ICRC has teams of it's own people on the ground inside Mariupol.' So they are not "speculating" either. They are experts on humanitarian war-related disasters,' they are in Mariupol and so their warning of a "Humanitarian catastrophe" is hardly speculation.

3) You say I am speculating. I am not. I am saying such a dire and imminent warning from such a highly regarded body as the IRCR about an imminent "Catastrophe" which already has "observer" teams on the ground in Mariupol is especially noteworthy and warrants more attention than single attacks with few deaths.

And so it therefore ALSO warrants it's own subsection, or section.

4) There is no "rule" about articles like this-- that requires everything to be only run-on paragraphs with no subsections at all.

5) Photos from a CIA and military - contracted spy satellite company are professionally evaluated they are highly trained experts in reading such photographs. I know, my father was in Air Force reconnaissance.

It takes highly trained people to do satellite photo evaluation. Therefore such photos, coming from such a source, are HIGHLY noteworthy.

6) You said--

"Are others not notable because they don't work for CIA?"

I never said any such thing. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The US deaths in Iraq or other areas were nearly all in battle.

And what is the ICRC warning about then? You were earlier claiming tens of thousands dying as the reason.

Many people have actually warned and been noted in media, including government officials and those like HRW/Amnesty. Do we include sub-sections for them all? ICRC shouldn't be special.

ICRC being a disaster relief agency matters little when there are other agencies there. Like Ukraine's own agency. As for foremost, do you have a proof it's foremost everywhere? Does that mean others aren't as notable or don't deserve their own sub-sections?

Saying tens of thousands will die is speculation.

Yes there is a rule for articles to be like prose and avoid short paragraphs. See MOS:BODY.

It actually doesn't take highly trained people to take satellite photos. Case in point, there are amateurs on internet who do it [5]. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You said--

"Case in point, there are amateurs on internet who do it ..." ("it" being Satellite photo reconnaisance evaluation).

Just because people on the Internet "do" something does not mean that they are qualified or trustworthy sources.

If very notable organizations like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International have also made warnings, then by all means put them in the same section or subsection as the ICRC warning about imminent humanitarian catastrophe in Mariupol.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me remind you, you said "It takes highly trained people to do satellite photo evaluation." The source I show takes photos and evaluates them. You are pushing the point that they are able to do so because of training.

And like I said previously, you should correct it yourself since you're leaving the short sub-sections there. If all you're here is for adding information you like and not writing encyclopaediac articles, I don't know why you're allowed here. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Although I might add more information, I hope you don't mind that I at least modify the sub-sections, including their titles and making them more than about just ICRC or one company talking about destruction or one person talking about a speculatory death toll. Unless you're willing to compromise, I see no point in further discussion. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've been tied up all day with non-Wikipedia matters.

I agree with your idea of adding other stuff to the ICRC section (adding things from other humanitarian agencies). Thats a good idea.

I also think that then changing the title-- of the subsection makes sense.

I also will go with idea of adding more material to the subsections, so they won't be so small.

So I think we do have a compromise here.

I hope the page can go to Semi-protect soon, from Full-protect. Since this is a current events article, with additions from many people.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chesapeake77: You should remove that part about "works for US intelligence and military etc". We don't value one source over the other as long as they're reliable. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok I'll do that. I just got back BTW, I've got some time now to work on this.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Done.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The article, for no apparent reason, still says: "The company operating the space satellite and its cameras works for U.S. intelligence agencies and the US military." The Peanut Gallery (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone else must have reverted it. It wasn't me.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

Moved from User:Chesapeake77/sandbox

 – Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Add 810th Seperate Naval Infantry Brigade to one of the Russian units fighting in this battle. Thank you! Source: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-16 Js26x (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Just to let you know, though. I added this to the infobox previously (a day or so ago).

Also the commander just died in battle and that was added today.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, this is already on this Talk Page (See above, dated days ago). What you found in my Sandbox was just a copy.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

High-resolution satellite images to corroborate estimates of how much of Mariupol has been destroyed

There are by now some excellent satellite images which show what Mariupol looks like currently, usually attributed to Maxar Technologies. One in particular (third one down at https://www.rferl.org/a/maxar-ukraine-satellite-mariupol-russia-kyiv/31766243.html as of 23.03.2022) shows a large section of the city from an oblique angle. If we could get the original high-resolution version (would probably have to be at least 5 or 10 megapixels to make out damage to individual houses - I managed to find and download a 2.6MP version before it got taken off the internet, but that resolution was insufficient) I think it would be a valuable addition to the article.

However, these images are protected by copyright. Would it be worth me petitioning Maxar Technologies via facebook, twitter, and any other means I can think of to change their copyright on some of the images to allow their use on Wikipedia? Because as Mariupol begins to head the way of Grozny, I think satellite image proof in contrast to subjective estimates from interested parties would be the most appropriate, powerful, and essential form of evidence of how much of the city is destroyed.

If satellite images evidencing the true extent of damage to Mariupol find their way onto English wikipedia they will doubtless find their way onto Russian wikipedia too, perhaps contributing to their desire to end the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.114.228 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: "third one down" should be "fourth one down". 192.41.114.228 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Add Number of Soldiers to Side Bar

Ukraine has 3,500 Russia has 14,000. "Ukrainian forces in Mariupol are vastly outnumbered, with 3,500 soldiers facing 14,000 invaders, around a tenth of the total estimated Russian force in the country." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14c:8781:8774:7534:41a9:2eaa:5acd (talk • contribs) 15:35, March 21, 2022 (UTC)

True, although I have seen a few U.S. generals / colonels on the news recently say that in urban combat (fighting in cities), the defenders typically have a 10 to one advantage over the attackers.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Commanders

Just because a Russian commander was killed in action does not make him notable, and just because he was not killed in action does not make him not notable. In my opinion the list of commanders should be changed to address this whenever possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.23.35 (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

"Later, the government of Greece announced that ten ethnic Greek civilians had been killed by Russian strikes at Mariupol, six in the village of Sartana four in the village of Buhas."

should be

"Later, the government of Greece announced that ten ethnic Greek civilians had been killed by Russian strikes at Mariupol, six in the village of Sartana and four in the village of Buhas." Io267374 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Azovstal Plant under Russian control

Chechen Leader Ramzan Kadyrov has claimed on his Telegram that Chechen troops have successfully captured Azovstal plant, and are now advancing block by block Uzair Ansari333 (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Elijahandskip (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Its on Ramzan's Telegram Чеченские бойцы успешно продвигаются в мариупольском направлении. После взятия и зачистки крупного завода «Азовсталь» они приступили непосредственно к штурму города, освобождая квартал за кварталом. ⠀ Руководит штурмовой операцией мой дорогой БРАТ, депутат Госдумы РФ Адам Делимханов, который находится со мной в постоянном контакте. Благодаря грамотному распределению сил и средств наши бойцы не только успешно ликвидируют огневые позиции, но и обеспечивают надежное прикрытие для своих боевых товарищей из воинских формирований России. ⠀ В ближайшее время мы полностью освободим Мариуполь от украинских националистов и бандеровцев, восстановим безопасность и общественный порядок в городе. Мы не остановимся, пока не призовем к ответу последнего бандеровца и националиста! Uzair Ansari333 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

https://t.me/RKadyrov_95/1556 Uzair Ansari333 (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Using Google Translate (Russian to English) the first part reads:

"Chechen fighters are successfully advancing in the Mariupol direction. After capturing and clearing the large Azovstal plant, they proceeded directly to the assault on the city, freeing quarter after quarter."

The next part reads:

"The assault operation is led by my dear BROTHER, State Duma deputy Adam Delimkhanov, who is in constant contact with me. Thanks to the competent distribution of forces and means, our fighters not only successfully eliminate firing positions, but also provide reliable cover for their comrades from the military formations of Russia."

The last part reads:

In the near future, we will completely liberate Mariupol from Ukrainian nationalists and Bandera, restore security and public order in the city. We will not stop until we call the last Bandera and nationalist to account!

_________________________________________________________End Translate______________________________

Ramzan Kadyrov's personal telegram channel isn't a reliable source for events in Mariupol. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets wait 3 weeks until Ukraine confirms it then. 188.214.108.12 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It could be added in while expressly stating the source is Ramzan Kadyrov. "Ramzan Kadyrov [link] and other Russian sources have claimed that Russia is in control of the Azovstal Plant" or something like that Flamesii (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Still needs a secondary source. Volunteer Marek 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

the image colours

what do each colour mean I assume red= russian

light yellow=ukraine control

dark yellow? Allahbosno77 (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Contested (sort of) Dawsongfg (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

add link to Col. Gen. Mikhail Mizintsev Ivannah (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. SunDawntalk 17:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"The Ukraine"

The correct term is "Ukraine." The prairies, the amazon, and the Ukraine imply regions of a country not a sovereign state. Please someone fix. 76.65.30.9 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There was one such occurrence, now fixed. You are welcome to fix it yourself, next time you notice something like this. Thanks for pointing it out. Mathglot (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, IP can't fix it themselves since the page is ECP. Curbon7 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for that; I should have checked, first. IP 76, once again, thanks for pointing this out; what Curbon7 is referring to is Extended confirmed protection, which limits editing certain articles to those editors with 30 days' tenure and 500 edits. ({{talkback}} added.) If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to go look for the source but I read in the last month that Ukrainians find the old usage "The Ukraine" to be derogatory. I forget exactly why, but the article said it's considered disrespectful to use "The Ukraine" and that only using "Ukraine" was prefered by most Ukrainians.

I'm not trying to take sides on it, but I did read that about 3 - 4 weeks ago somewhere.

It was news to me because when I was growing up, it was always "The Ukraine".

Chesapeake77 (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Use “said” not “claimed”

Just a friendly note from a drive-by editor: Wikipedia discouraged the use of “claimed” since it has a connotation that the statement not be true. I realize that this article probably has a lot of new editors and non-English speakers, so it seems worthwhile to announce this. This doesn’t mean you cannot use the word: I myself am using it elsewhere concerning Russian contentions about the hospital being a base for Nazis and the patients there being crisis actors, for instance, since I cannot repeat them with a straight face. Just be aware that it is not a neutral word, ok fine, going away now. I will fix this where I see it. Doing a fast ce for English problems as I skim for new developmrnts. If nobody has added the residents being sent to Russia yet I will probably add that, but i’m mainly working on another Ukraine articleElinruby (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't know where that is in the article, but I suggest you go a head and change it to "said".

Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The word "claimed" is used in this sentence in the section on the regional theatre bombing, which also has other issues:

"Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba claimed that Russia "could not have not known this was a civilian shelter"."

The sentence also lacks a cite. This would seem to be a decent one: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-feared-buried-after-russia-destroys-mariupol-theater-serving-as-shelter/

Also, because of the double-negative, the quote is a bit confusing to native English speakers.

I'd suggest an edit to say this: "Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba said that Russia could not have failed to know this was a civilian shelter." The Peanut Gallery (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure that is correct. Can you double-check and then link it here?

That's because I read that Russia claimed that, not anyone with the Ukraine government.

Perhaps I was mistaken, but can we get a link to the abovementioned statement?

Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hasn't Mariupol fallen?

Both reports of Russian forces reaching the centre of the city alongside the updated maps on the infobox portray Russia having occupied Mariupol. Shouldn't we say that the siege is now over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab (talk • contribs) 09:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No, sources do not describe Mariupol as having fallen yet. Curbon7 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that Russian troops have began a push into the central areas of the city, but the fight for the whole city's control is still ongoing. See this and this for more info. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

What's the position of Azov battalion in the city, I have seen clips of Azov militants trying to escape the city dressed as Women, but got caught by Russian Troops Uzair Ansari333 (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have searched for those videos you spoke of, they seem to be from Sputnik, which is generally not considered so reliable as a source. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Urban combat is considered one of the most difficult forms of combat. Depending on a variety of factors, the outcome of a battle over a city, even a ruined city, can take a very long time.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 01:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Well looks like I'm wrong. The Mayor of Mariupol has just announced that the city is now in Russian hands.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are no reports stating such that I can find. Could you give me evidence? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Quoted by CNN [6]. But mopping-up operations are probably continuing. EkoGraf (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That article never says Mariupol has been captured, more recent articles have clarified that Mariupol is still under Ukrainian hands. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ramzan Kadyrov uploaded a video of himself visiting Mariupol recently, and he also showed top Russian, DPR and Chechen commanders who are leading there which kinda proves he did visited there, which says Russian Troops Mariupol have strong grip on Mariupol, or else why would be risk visiting it he might have died Uzair Ansari333 (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ramzan Kadyrov uploaded a photo showing himself and few others russians in room with lighting. That means he is not in Mariupol, because there is NO light in the city. 195.205.75.1 (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

Can anybody add this? https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ukrainian-officials-say-troops-took-back-territory-near-mariupol-and-kharkiv/ Dawsongfg (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I can add that. What is the addition that you need? SunDawntalk 16:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

These two places are still fairly far from Mariupol. Volunteer Marek 07:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Different province/region as well. Unrelated to this siege. EkoGraf (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Curbon7 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Redlink: Church of the Intercession in Mariupol

English Wikipedia does not have an article about this church so I have removed the brackets to link it. Wikimedia does have several photos of it if someone would like to add one, or start an article about it. Elinruby (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Over - nearly

There is a small contradiction in the text: in the prologue the article says over 5000 civilians died, while the cited source mention nearly 5000 casualties.--Freewales (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Blood and destruction

The dark red liquid present in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol#/media/File:Blood_and_destruction_to_Ukrainian_civilians_during_the_battle_of_Mariupol.jpg and described as "blood" is not blood but most likely an automatic transmission fluid spill. It clearly originates from under the silver Toyota, LHS where the transversally mounted gearbox would be located, it has the characteristic burnt red color (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE_pi2yyLn8) and the amount visible is consistent with the amount drainable from your typical automatic transmission without also emptying the torque converter, ie 3-4 liters. 208.127.136.43 (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Please see the talk page archive, where this has already been addressed. Curbon7 (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit-C-P request on 31 March

Can anyone add the following for March 31:

Four Ukrainian Mil Mi-8 and one Mil Mi-24 flew on March 31 from Dnipro to the port of Mariupol to deliver ammunition and other supplies to Ukrainian troops. One of the Mil Mi-8 was shot down while carrying wounded Ukrainian soldiers on the way back.

Source is a Ukrainian soldier captured from the downed helicopter: https://twitter.com/NovichokRossiya/status/1509581482851024911?s=20&t=o-L76tFKoAEdhhZWqLZQQQ

Other source is Western officials claiming that Ukrainians were smuggling weapons into Mariupol: https://www.businessinsider.com/ukrainian-troops-taking-ammo-off-russians-hold-out-against-assault-2022-3

Considering this, I believe the Mil Mi-8 downed on March 28 was also carrying supplies into the city rather than trying to evacuate Azov leaders as claimed by Russian sources (In addition, Russian spokesman Igor Konashenkov announced that Russian forces had shot down a Ukrainian Mil Mi-8 that was heading to Mariupol to evacuate leaders of the Azov Battalion).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Capit12 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 

 Not done: Twitter cannot be used as a source, as it is not a reliable sources. Additionally, the Business Insider sources does not mention this specific incident; we cannot synthesize sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated. Curbon7 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The source is the soldier itself which is a primary source/credible eyewitness. Twitter is simply where the video is hosted.

Here is a complete transcript of the video: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/tt3u8q/the_second_survivor_of_the_helicopter_shot_down/i2w8xcd/?context=3.

Western journalists are not on the ground. If you don't allow testimonies from Ukrainian soldiers, this article will be influenced uniquely by Russian propaganda (ie: TASS). Capit12 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Capit12, Please read our policies of reliable sources and why we cannot use primary sources. Also, we do allow the use of non-English sources (WP:NOTENG). Additionally, TASS is not considered a reliable source per previous discussions, so there is no worry about that. Curbon7 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Curbon7 I think if you double-check you will find that sources do not have to be in English. When sources of equal authority are available English is preferred, that is all. However, since there are definitely fake videos and tweets in circulation, I think you are right to say that we cannot accept Twitter on this topic. Unless it’s a verified account of a well-respected journalist perhaps, but I don’t think there is anybody like that In Mariupol any more. Elinruby (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We're in the same page regarding non-English sources, I think you misread my statement. Curbon7 (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Curbon7, Elinruby,

A German journalist working for Bild confirmed that new weapons were delivered via helicopter to Mariupol. This is a verified Twitter account.

https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1511260212510003202 Capit12 (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request: Infobox units

Moved from Talk:Siege of Mariupol/Archive 1

—CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 16:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The Infobox lists the "10th Assault Brigade" among the Ukrainian formations- that should be changed to 10th Mountain Assault Brigade, for which there is also an article. Thanks! SEM (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Open edit requests doesn't belong to archives. Please, consider answering the request before moving to archive. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 16:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Already done SpinningCeres 17:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

edit request to Russians capturing azovstal

New footage emerging of Russians capturing azovstal in mariupol https://twitter.com/MapsUkraine/status/1512446140922445827?t=fB94GmjbPaa1GHS1jbcGoA&s=19 from war gonzo

I feel like this should be updated on the map and article please Allahbosno77 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Allahbosno77, we need reliable sources in order for this to be included. Twitter is not a reliable source. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That's the port, not the Azovstal plant, as the source itself says. Article already updated to reflect the Russians seized the southern part of the port. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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:

• Mariupol hospital destroyed by russians.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for map updates

Hi all The article has several links to reports by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) who are by all accounts a very reliable and reputable organisation, the maps of Mariupol contained in the reports they have published in recent days show a much more up to date portrayal of the extent of the Russian advance so I think it would be very prudent if the main article map was updated in line with the ISW maps. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:928:5301:3905:95B3:6255:6DA7 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi just to let you know. Some individuals dislike ISW and try to sully it's reputation (off of Wikipedia, I'm not talking about anybody on Wikipedia that I know of).

Those attacks on ISW are baseless.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi thanks for getting back, I’m sure some dislike them but that’s to be expected, from what I’ve seen they’re very reputable, there’s always some people who just like to throw smears I’d pay no heed to them and go with ISW.

God bless

Luke 2A00:23C8:928:5301:4575:7A55:5D78:5515 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Estimate of 3,500 Ukrainian troops fighting in Mariupol may be too low

See the recently expanded list of involved Ukrainian fighting forces now noted in the Infobox.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth}

I agree. I have seen some military analysts and specialists claim that the forces in the city may have initially numbered up to 14,000 (from 8,000 to 14,000). a single brigade can range from 3,000 to 5,000 troops. so troops from four brigades plus extra forces make well over "3500", even if they are partial brigades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.150.176 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Over 10,000+ deaths

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.126.133.15 (talk)

Found another source to support: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/11/ukraine-russia-invasion-live-updates/9535346002/ HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The first (National Review) article is simply restating an Associated Press article it links to: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-state-of-the-union-address-zelenskyy-biden-kyiv-7cc069b80178629a60f4f2d166348d45

The Associated Press and USA Today articles appear to be separate corroborating sources, though they're both based on quotes from the same person: Mayor Vadym Boychenko. WWolfsbane (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The 10,000 figure appears to be rounded and, given its source (the mayor of the city), it appears to me that it is very likely inflated to an extent. I by no means underestimate the tragedy at Mariupol, but we need a more neutral source for this. It looks like they are updating in ever increasing steps - 2000, 5000, 10000 etc. Maybe I'm conspiratorial, just my 2 cents. mezil (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You are not, these is clear propaganda created out of thin air inside mind of the mayor...

The whole bombing campaing in 1999 in Serbia killed 1000 people. No chance there already died 10 000 ppl in Mariupol.

What the hell they would have to do with the people to kill as many... 188.214.108.12 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not a very useful comparison, but in any case, how would he know any reliable figures by now? Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, who does the English-language wikipedia like the motherland of democracy not give the opinion of real Mariupol residents what is really going on? This is Putin's blow to the foundations of democracy in Europe and the United States, or such a "democracy" of the United States and Europe.

Against the background of mass censorship in Europe and the USA. And why don't the Asian media bring that here???188.233.120.45 (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Map

An island near Prymorske is colored yellow. Is it deliberate, or did someone miss it when updating the map? Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it still a siege or is it just a battle?

There is currently heavy fighting in the inner city of Mariupol. Wouldn’t it no longer be a siege now? 71.225.3.176 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. We have more than a few examples of siege vs battle (Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sarajevo).

Leaving it like this is inconsistent (I assume it is not a good idea to change Stalingrad articles). Maybe this article should be split in two articles, or two distinct parts, like in many other articles. Nemanja 10:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inemanja (talk • contribs)

Ukrainian captured per Russian claims

Regarding the number of POWs, combining the various Russian claims the number would be around 1,600, including at least 400 wounded. 267 on 5 April (https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/russia-ukraine-war-russian-leader-claims-267-ukraine-marines-surrendered-in-mariupol-articleshow.html), 160 on 12 April (https://24happenings.com/top-world/174750.html), 1,200 including 400 wounded yesterday (according to Pravda article that is already cited). --195.225.41.202 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The Pravda report says 1,100 not 1,200 but it will be taken into account.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Done, 267 from 2 April, 160 from 11 April and 1,160 from 14 April.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Map Change

Russian Ministry of Defense and on-the-ground sources have confirmed the remainder of the Prymorskyi district is now under the control of the D.P.R. 173.71.144.242 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We wait till it's covered by reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 23:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

write Russian victory, the situation on the field alreadt show a decisive Russian victory, with almost all Mariupol in Russia's hands, and mass surrender of Ukrainian armed forces in the city 111.94.33.193 (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

no.

It is not a Russian victory until all of Mariupol surrenders, and the Azovstal plant and some of the port continue to hold out. 71.225.3.176 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It still too early.

No matter if outcome is imminent or not, battle is still ongoing. Nemanja 10:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inemanja (talk • contribs)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

4,000 killed?

I see the Infobox now states that the Russian claim is that over 4,000 Ukrainian troops were killed and 1,464 captured. However the cited source (https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-says-all-urban-areas-of-mariupol-cleared-of-ukrainian-forces/6532471.html) says "In an online post, the ministry said that as of April 16, Ukrainian forces in the besieged port city had lost more than 4,000 people, RIA, the state-owned news agency added. (...) There was no immediate reaction from Kyiv to the statement by the Russian ministry, which also said 1,464 Ukrainian servicemen had surrendered so far." I think that this means that the Russians claim to have inflicted over 4,000 casualties (not exclusively killed), which would include the 1,464 captured. --Potionkin (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Tens of thousands according to mayor of the city (no one knows for sure how many). I just watched his interview (heart-wrenching, in Russian) [7], but there are other sources. 13 mobile crematoria of occupiers [8] are working day and night to dispose the bodies. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the 4,000 killed figure comes out after substracting the 1,500 POWs plus the 2,500 "still alive" Ukrainian forces from the alleged 8,000 Ukrainian soldiers.Mr.User200 (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2022

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: not moved. Unanimous opposition, see snowball clause. (closed by non-admin page mover) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Siege of Mariupol → Battle of Mariupol (2022) – Now a full battle, not a siege. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The battle within the city is merely the final phase of the siege. Plenty of modern city sieges have become urban battles in their final stage, they are still considered sieges: Siege of Marawi, Siege of Budapest, Siege of Odessa (1941), Siege of Sevastopol (1941–1942), etc. --Potionkin (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This Battle have another scope and outcome of the previous engagements fought near of close to the city. It´s a siege for the control of the city not a engagement fought in the city.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose in history, many sieges include a battle, eventually. Also, the battle currently underway in Mariupol is happening while the city is also besieged (encircled by an enemy) at the same time. Chesapeake77 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as per reliable sources which call it a siege. EkoGraf (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Realiable sources call it a siege. Also, the argument is essentially unecessary pedantism (not even correct at that).LordLoko (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not a battle, but a siege. Pretty much like Siege of Leningrad. My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: As the person who originally moved this to the current title of "Siege of Mariupol", I strongly oppose this. Every RS calls this a siege. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: While many reliable sources call it the Battle of Mariupol, Siege of Mariupol is the most common by far. MarioGom (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose —Legoless (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Most sources still use the term "Siege". ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:03, 19 April 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 20 April 2022 (2)

In the box to the right listing commanders, Prokopenko is wrongly identified as the commander of the "Azov Battalion." This should be corrected to "Azov Regiment." The rest of the article uses the correct term "Azov Regiment" --- see, for example, the box listing units. The article on Prokopenko in Wikipedia lists him correctly as the commander of the "Azov Regiment." 169.252.4.23 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Azov battalion is being used throughout the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Baranyuk

I think at this point it would be reasonable to mark Colonel Baranyuk as KIA in the Infobox. The Russians/separatists claim to have killed him on 11/12 April, and there has been no trace of him since then; with Azovstal being the last Ukrainian stronghold in the city and the video message released by the Azov Battalion a few days ago mentioning Major Serhiy Volyna as commander of the marines (while Baranyuk was neither shown nor mentioned), I think this is probably true. There has been no official confirmation by the Ukrainian authorities, but for that matter, the Russians haven't officially confirmed the deaths of most of their generals who have been claimed killed by the Ukrainians and are mentioned as KIA in this and other Infoboxes. --195.225.41.202 (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not true. Sukhovetsky is confirmed (Putin talked about his death), Mityaev is basically confirmed (there was an exchange of his body with the DPR), Paliy is confirmed (a funeral was held for him), Sharov is confirmed by the Governor of Sevastopol ([9]) and, according to Ukrainian state media, DPR forces confirmed the death of Gordienko ([10]). Gordienko and Mityaev could have had a more official confirmation (maybe there is, but I couldn't find it) but their cases and the ones of the other 3 Russian generals that died in the battle are more certain than that of Baranyuk. Our own logical conclusions don't matter, at least this early, see WP:OR. We would require clear evidence from Russian media or Ukrainian confirmation. Super Ψ Dro 21:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

By the way, there already was a claim that Palamar had been killed on 31 March [11]. It seems that it was fake. For example, here is a tweet in which a journalist claims to have talked with him [12]. It doesn't look like many people have been talking about his supposed death after those claims anyway. Super Ψ Dro 21:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Humanitarian crisis > Weeks long blocking of evacuation attempts

Why is the Russian missile strike on a cargo ship here? Does this actually have something to do with evacuation attempts? The Introvert Next To You (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Mariupol is not "completely destroyed"

The infobox states that one of the results of the battle (or siege) is that Mariupol is "completely destroyed." However, the references for that statement do not state that Mariupol is completely destroyed. 2607:FEA8:3EDB:AD00:441:A59:1911:665 (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added this source. Curbon7 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This obviously isn’t a literal statement. If literally everything in the city were destroyed, how would the Ukrainians be hiding out in the Azovstal plant? There is a difference between the city being largely bombed out and "completely destroyed". I'm going to remove the claim. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Happy. Its a loaded term as they say. EkoGraf (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"95% destroyed"

What a difference in perception 5% make. The statement "95% destroyed" looks as if it is broadly credible and objective, but "completely" does not. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I did some digging, and you seem to be right that this is a shaky claim. The referenced CNBC article eventually points back to this tweet from the Ukrainian government, which states Russia invaded, ruined 95% of the city by heavy bombardment. I think someone should find a better source that uses more precise wording before we can repeat the "destroyed" claim in wikivoice throughout the article. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Alikhan Shavkhalov

Various pro-Russian sources and videos state that a Chechen leader named Alikhan Shavkhalov is currently fighting in Mariupol, and this has been stated by Ramzan Kadyrov too. While I am inclined to believe this, I cannot find any independent sources outside of independent tweets and pro-Russian YouTube videos. Does anyone have any information on this?Jebiguess (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

not on this fighter specifically but I *have* read that both sides have Chechen fighters. What are the “independent tweets”? Some Ukrainian journalists are tweeting... this might give you leads on where they are publishing. Elinruby (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

just took a look; I see the issue. The Twitter hits all say the same thing and the YouTube is definitely self-published. Nothing on a quick google that I would call a reliable source. Why did you want to include something about this specific fighter, if I may ask? Elinruby (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Split the article?

Is it the plan to keep both the military on military actions (Siege section) with the humanitarian suffering in Mariupol (Humanitarian situation and war crimes section) in the article forever? I suspect the article might become quite long in the aftermath of the siege, when we receive a lot more information; can the article handle that, well? If not, should we prepare ourselves now and split it? Also, is it normal for readers to come to the article with the intention of learning about both subjects (military actions/humanitarian suffering)? Is it the best course to split the article into two (only leaving a small portion of the latter: E.g., in a casualties-section) or not? How are similar Siege-related articles doing it? I'm really just being curious. Imonoz (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If the city falls to Russia there will be a coverup and there might not be as much new information.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There will always be new information, at least with time. I suspect that you think it's an unnecessary action to split the article; that was all I wanted to know - I was just curious. Imonoz (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this article reached a length ideal for splitting. It's still pretty readable. Super Ψ Dro 21:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, isn't that great! Imonoz (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Siege of Azovstal

Together with the current split proposal, it might be a good idea to also split fighting for the Azovstal steel plant into a separate article, perhaps titled Siege of Azovstal, or maybe something else (because Azovstal may refer to something else) like Siege of Azovstal iron and steel works (but this sounds too complicated. It would have something like "Part of Siege of Mariupol" in the infobox.

As a reader, I would like to be able to read separately about the whole battle and the important "sub-battle", and, among other things, see key the information of each at a glance in respective infoboxes. Besides, that split would somewhat reduce the size of the main article, making it easier to navigate. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

If it is renamed, then while Azovstal may refer to something else, Siege of Azovstal cannot refer to anything else and is therefore both WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitively not. Ukrainian forces themselves have said that they may not last for more than a few days. The siege of the Azovstal works might not cover more than a few paragraphs in this article. Although I did think that a separate article for the building itself could exist, but it doesn't sound notable at first and I didn't investigate much. Super Ψ Dro 21:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This could continue for more days, but even now it has gained a lot of attention, similar to the other events labeled as "Part of the siege of Mariupol during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", like Mariupol theatre airstrike. Among other things, it is also notable as a prolonged last stand. There should also be some information available on some details that may not fit in this article, but would nicely fill the potential Siege of Azovstal article. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Luhansk PR forces in Mariupol

Russian Wikipedia is reporting that forces of the Luhansk PR are also involved in this siege. It gives this source [13], but I can't access it. Could someone try and see if there's anything useful to add here? Super Ψ Dro 10:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I machine-translated the article: The Ministry of Defense told about the offensive of the DPR and LPR in Mariupol […] The groups of the DPR and LPR continue the offensive, they are supported by the Russian armed forces by fire, DPR units are advancing in the city of Mariupol, the official representative of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Major General Igor Konashenkov. "The forces of the Lugansk and Donetsk people's republics continue to work with fire support of the Russian Armed Forces. The police of the Donetsk Republic are successfully developing an offensive in the city limits of Mariupol from the northwest and eastern direction," he said. Russia launched a military operation in Ukraine early in the morning of February 24. […] With the support of the RF Armed Forces, the onset of the DPR and LPR group is developed. […] "The groups of troops of the Lugansk and Donetsk people's republics, with the fire support of the Russian Armed Forces, continue offensive operations. The units of the People’s Police of the Donetsk Republic successfully develop an offensive in the city limits of Mariupol from the north-west and eastern direction," he said.

I think it’s saying the LPR are involved? Not totally sure, take my Google Translated version with a grain of salt. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it does not say that. It says that they (LNR and DNR) are both advancing, but only DNR is mentioned as advancing in Mariupol. Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia claims victory

It should be noted in the infobox that Russia has claimed Victory in Mariupol.--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:3C61:736D:290C:4212 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it should not because they have no full control of the city yet. And even if they do, one should look what was the outcome, exactly, per sources. Maybe main outcome of the operation will be described in RS not as the "victory", but as a mass murder, just as in the case of Srebrenica massacre. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The Russian/LDPR forces have control of the city. All remaining Ukrainian military forces are in the AzovStal plant, boxed in and withering away. Shooting each other as they run for the door in hopes of living to see their families. The remaining citizens are attempting to return to a normal life, with schools reopening. - D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.128.65 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow the above comment couldn't be more biased. Where are your sources? This is a place for meaning discussion not pedeling propaganda... The Introvert Next To You (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Easy on the emotional uncalled personal attacks. He or she isn't even that far off. Western media is also reporting that Ukrainian military forces are in the AzovStal plant, boxed in and Putin telling troops to seal the entrance. It does seem like the fight there is unlikely to continue, but denial and reluctance to acknowledge that the Ukrainians lost that battle, seems to inhibit editors from adding in that fact. 49.186.225.204 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

And where to get Western sources with total censorship of the West? Some Western journalists who show the real state of things are not assigned here for some reason.195.239.196.154 (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Needs a better source at a minimum

TASS is probably reliable for the spokesman of the Russian Ministry of Defense having said this, but let’s face it, the Russian Ministry of Defense says a lot of things, and especially about the Azov Battalion, whom they have blamed for the catastrophes at the maternity hospital and the theatre, among other things. If an RS can be found, an RS can be found, but we absolutely should not report this as a fact. Alternately, it might be ok if it can be reworded so that it is clear that Wikipedia absolutely does not endorse this claim (assuming no other source can be found, which is what I suspect will be the case.) I am in general opposed to repeating Russian propaganda however, and this is not an article about Russian propaganda... but I am willing to listen to any arguments in favor of doing so here. That said, I flagged this text snd on reflection am moving it here. Elinruby (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is the text: In addition, Russian spokesman [[Igor Konashenkov]] announced that Russian forces had shot down a [[Ukrainian Air Force|Ukrainian]] [[Mil Mi-8]] that was heading to Mariupol to evacuate leaders of the Azov Battalion.<ref name="UkrCas1">{{cite web|url=https://tass.com/politics/1428507|title=Russia says helicopter downed near Mariupol was headed to evacuate Azov unit leaders|language=English|work=Tass Russian News Agency|date=28 March 2022}}</ref>{{rs|date=April 2022}}{{dubious|date=April 2022}} Elinruby (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

First thing that should be noted is we also include Ukrainian government claims from Ukrainian outlets as well, in accordance with WP's guidelines on maintaining neutrality (NPOV). As per WP guidelines, we attribute the claim to its source (which it was) and the source can be used unless its deemed as a deprecated source by Wikipedia (which its not). And we leave it to our readers to let them form their own opinion on the matter, regardless what we may think personally about the information. Removing the claims and sources of one belligerent would then require us to also remove the claims and sources of the other as well (Ukraine), which has also been deemed to be stating propaganda, as any belligerent in a war. To conclude, presenting both sides POV as I mentioned has been enacted by WP editors throughout the 2022 invasion and your same concern was raised a few times at the main article's talk page, with a consensus I just mentioned. For sake of compromise, I have no objection to adding a "better source needed" tag until one is found. Best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The West supplies weapons to Ukraine - the West is also a source of conflict. Hence, the Western media are not neutral. 195.239.196.154 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The West supplies weapons to Ukraine - the West is also a source of conflict. Hence, the Western media are not neutral.195.239.196.154 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to engage with that argument. Per Wikipedia policy, TASS is not reliable for fact. It is possibly truthfully reporting what this man said, but Russian military sources say a LOT of things. There is zero reason to believe that that a Russian military source is speaking truth in this one instance. Elinruby (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Нет основания что западные источники говорят правду особенно после Ирака. 195.239.196.154 (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, they may or may not be telling the truth, but we are still obligated to show both belligerent's POV. And we have not presented the claim as fact, but instead we are attributing it to the Russian military. EkoGraf (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Azovstal Bunker

https://m.bild.de/bild-plus/politik/ausland/politik-ausland/ukraine-kampf-gegen-russische-truppen-letzter-widerstand-im-stahlwerk-von-mariup-79862744 Yug (talk) 🐲 12:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Volodymyr Baranyuk Dead

Commander Volodymyr Baranyuk was kill by DPR forces in an ambush, Videos and photos of his body was uploaded by Russian sources on Telegram.

https://www.ilmessaggero.it/mondo/baranyuk_morto_comandante_mariupol_esercito_ucraina_chi_era_news-6635361.html Kraaken97 (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Also: https://www.corriere.it/esteri/22_aprile_17/comandante-marines-mariupol-morto-8e9a6190-be79-11ec-834d-ead3a2b5b7ee.shtml Cristi767 (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in text, although not in the Infobox. As I said a couple of days ago, I think circumstantial evidence backs the claim in this case (Baranyuk has never been seen or mentioned since the day he was claimed killed, and he does not appear to be in the Azovstal plant, with Major Volyna appearing instead alongside Prokopenko and in other videos and being mentioned as commander of the 36th Brigade). --195.225.41.202 (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast needs some information

The "Russian occupation of (Oblast)" articles have been started including the one for Donetsk Oblast. This is one of the main conflicts within the Oblast, so I am asking editors to help copy information over and fill in the article. The article's scope covers any information taken from a Russian occupied area, that is not full "combat" related. A good sister article to see what is included is the Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit-C-P request on 30 March

Can anyone add the following (plus this reference) to the "Hospital Bombing" section and the city "Theatre-bombing" sections of the article?

Please also include the reference.

The source is the Independent (UK) which is a very respected British paper.

On March 25th, Russian General Mikhail Mizintsev was accused by Ukrainian authorities of ordering the bombings of both the Mariupol Children’s and Maternity Hospital and the city Theatre where 1,200 civilians were sheltering.

And that there is no information that the Mariupol maternity hospital, according to the testimony of witnesses with women in labor, was forcibly evicted by the armed forces of Ukraine, which was publicly confirmed by a fake participant. As well as information that the building of the drama theater was blown up by the Ukrainian military themselves, which is confirmed by many witnesses of the incident? Why is there no information about mass shootings by the Armed Forces of Mariupol residents who tried to get out of the city at the beginning of the operation????188.233.120.45 (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That is, if in Europe And Wikipedia takes into account the fact of total censorship in the Western media?188.233.120.45 (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done (added to § Humanitarian situation and war crimes) instead of duplicating the same sentence in each section. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources do. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

the 'fake partecipant' has been kidnapped by the russian army and was surely held captive in the beginning of April. WHO confirmed attacks with heavy weaponry on the infamous hospital that you shamefully mention as being occupied by the ukranian army, your rethoric is curiously similar to that of this article that sadly fails to mention that the 'interview' was released by Russia's defence ministry, wich is to say the least, very suspicius; not to mention the immorality of allowing the interview of someone that got kidnapped to circulate freely on the internet. The drama theater bombing has no perpetrator other than the russian army, at the moment of the bombing the city was already encircled, it is impossible for ballistic missiles let alone cruise missiles to be fired from inside the city and if fired by ukranian forces from outside they would have needed to elude hundreds of miles of defence systems, impossible even for the most optimistic about ukraine's war capabilities; you rethoric is once again fraud. The russian army killed the civilian sheltering inside that theatre. There is no information about mass shooting by the ukranian army because, again, it never happened; this is the kind of biased pro war information that you get from russian propaganda, placing many question marks after your dubious question doesn't change facts it just underlies that someone like you that gets information only from state propaganda outlets has nothing to do with the wikipedia's encyclopedic quest. KEEP YOUR BLOCK MENTALITY FUELED DISCUSSIONS FOR SOCIAL MEDIA, THEY HAVE NO PLACE INSIDE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ELtorto (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Really? But the witnesses, real people, say that the theater was blown up by the armed forces of Ukraine. What kind of objectivity are you talking about if the Western media are not present in Mariupol and are not witnesses of what is happening except for individual free journalists claiming crimes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and recording them on film. What is the measure of objectivity? Your objectivity? or propaganda, which should be banned in a free society.195.239.196.154 (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC) There are videos of war crimes of the armed forces of Ukraine, including from independent Western journalists, there are witness statements, but you have nothing but words.195.239.196.154 (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

There is evidence of witnesses to the events and not the Western media, which are very far from Mariupol, but the Western journalists present, as well as the Asian media, say the opposite, as well as material evidence, which is very significant than the Western media, which are a party to the conflict and cannot be objective. 176.214.112.202 (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

All the 'witnesses' you refer to are probably those that the fake idependent journalist patrick lancaster interviews, wich curiously enough, are always contradicted by the those that managed to escape. If indeed we are going to scream 'fact' about such interviews you cannot ignore either side. The only journalist reporting on mariupol is not independent and thus not reliable, i advice you to read what his colleagues had to say about him long before the invasion. It goes well with your rethoric aswell as patric's the claim that western media is censored, this is blatantly false, i remind you that it is true that in many occasions the 'west' has been biased and perhaps hypocritical, take iraq's invasion as an example. But 'western media' are the ones free to report on their government decisions and free to express their total and absolute disagreement with the exectuives in their state, mind you that usa media agencies have been reporting for almost a year on the attempted coupe by the previous administration; try to guess what would happen if reports with such political impact as these were to be made in the context of let's say russian or chinese media, you'd probably earn a pass to a political jail. Propaganda is a wording that fits only authoritarian regimes, such as, you have guessed it, russia and china. You can claim western media to be biased sure but bias is another thing from propaganda, bias depends on political views that certain outlets express. You need a further study of enlish lexicon because the wording you use is very poor and does not reflect what you are seeing on Patric Lancaster's youtube channel, he is not an independent journalist, the very fact that he is the only one reporting from mariupol behind russian lines says a lot about his reliability and the questions that he asks are far from those of an independent journalist; but it is only natural for someone so filled with the '50s block mentality to be tricked into thinking that he is untainted by russian propaganda. ELtorto (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There are German, Chinese, Italian, American journalists in general. And what about the video of crimes of the armed forces of Ukraine, can we already say genocide can be faked?195.239.196.154 (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

References

That is, if the armed forces of Ukraine in Mariupol carried out genocide against Mariupol residents, which is confirmed by 0 thousand witnesses of Mariupol residents, then these data do not matter, the main thing is media sources? Where are the Asian media in wikipedia that cite this information in contrast to the West.188.233.154.41 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC) That is, contrary to the rules of Wikipedia, there is strict censorship from the rulers of the West? Do you know what Wikipedia's charter is and how much it is distributed within the framework of the "free Western world"? This is really ridiculous, there is a lot of evidence of crimes of Ukraine, there is not a single proof given here. It's really funny. Evil is afraid of the truth.176.214.112.202 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2022

In the "Mass shelling of residential areas" sections, remove the space before "On 12 April, city officials reported that up to 20,000 civilians had been killed.[56] On the same day, the Mayor of the city reported that about 21,000 civilians had been killed" CR-1-AB (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Drop-down lists in infobox

I think that the infobox could benefit from the usage of drop-down lists, in particular under the "Russian Ground Forces", "Russian Navy", "Rosgvardiya", "DPR People's Militia", "Inside Mariupol", and "Other involved units" sections, so as to compress the display of information. Mupper-san (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Fate of Volodomy Baranyuk

I have checked the article of V. Baranyuk seems someone updated it, he was not MIA or KIA but captured instead. But the source was RT, after thinking about I think we can made a exception and include it since the conflicting reports from Italian media(KIA) and Ukrainia media(MIA) of it's fate are a little misleading and outdated.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainska Pravda also says that "Ukrainian sources" in Mariupol confirmed he was captured.

www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/8/7344802

Plus the man who appears in the RT video definitely looks like Baranyuk.2.36.103.195 (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I'm adding it.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Done, also added the Chief of Staff on the body of the article. It's notable too.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Sheikh Mansur Battalion

According to this source [14], the Sheikh Mansur Battalion has fought alongside Ukrainian forces in Mariupol. Not much has been said about them, I'd assume they retreated once it seemed that the battle would turn into a siege. Should we include them in the infobox? Probably more sources would be ideal. Super Ψ Dro 18:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I added it. Super Ψ Dro 22:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Civilian deaths

In the infobox it says 6,000-21,000 killed... but all sources including the Mayor of Mariupol and the Ukrainian government are reporting that 21,000+ civilians have been killed in the city.

I think we should revise the infobox to 21,000+ killed. Any thoughts? PilotSheng (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The status quo is fine as is. The 6,000 figure comes from the deputy mayor, reporting at the same time as the mayor, who reports 21,000. This obvious discrepancy, as well as the fact that these are both involved sources who are probably inflating the numbers to a degree, means that a range, even one so large, is preferable until there is a neutral assessment. As this source states, it can take years to tally up all of the casualties. Curbon7 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Why are there no data on mass shootings of evacuating residents of Mariupol by nationalist Ukrainians? The materials of the criminal case are openly covered by the Asian media. For example, a story about how a Nazi woman from Azov shot her parents in front of the children and tried to escape with these children under the guise of evacuating refugees?195.239.196.154 (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Please provide your (exact) sources to support your claims of "mass shootings of evacuating residents of Mariupol by nationalist Ukrainians".

You said the sources were "Asian". Did you mean China where all news is state-controlled and known to mimic Russian state-controlled propaganda regarding events in Ukraine? And where the Chinese dictator Xi, is an ally of Russia?

Or did you mean India (which is in South Asia), which is almost completely dependent on Russia for it's military arms and ammunition?

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 16:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Notable deaths

Would it be a good idea to list in the article the “notable deaths” who died in the Siege? Like: Maksym Kagal, Oleg Mityaev (general), Vanda Obiedkova, Yevhen Obedinsky, Andrei Paliy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.174.61.58 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I would include the 11 year old famous Ukrainian gymnasist who was killed by shelling in Mariupol. I forget her name but anyone can Google it, this was covered by major media outlets.

Also there are some who became notable due to news coverage. For example the pregnant woman who was filmed being evacuated while injured after the maternity hospital airstrike. She later died of her injuries and her baby was miscarried.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Siege or Battle?

I would think that this is a battle for the city, they assaulted it immediately. Look at other battles fought in cities in the modern era, they are all called battles by wikipedia. Kyiv was a siege arguably, which failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.184.180.208 (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

An attempted siege that didn't make it into a siege - Kyiv. 64.82.204.2 (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This was already discussed and decided upon. See archives.

It was determined that the vast majority of what happened in Mariupol was siege-related. Also, in history, most sieges always end with attacks, which are historically considered to be a part of the siege. Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Update

Needs to be updated to show a pyrrhic russian victory, Ukraine has confirmed the end of the defence of Mariupol https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61461805 TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian victory would suffice. Pyrrhic is a value judgment that needs some strong sources. --Killuminator (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What would count as a strong source on this. TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources DrYisus (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on proposed split (Creating a new article "Siege of Azovstal")

Wikipedia may gain from a split and the creation of Siege of Azovstal. This lone event is already running for 3 weeks now, and could run further. Giving it a proper article would give it the space and air needed the develop its coverage in an healthier manner. Yug (talk) 🐲 17:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This was already proposed, but it remained largely unnoticed or ignored. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. It's still part of the battle/siege of Mariupol. Single buildings in Stalingrad, for instance, were fought over for a longer time and it's not like we have specific pages for that. --195.225.41.202 (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not a good analogy because the Azovstal area is significantly more notable in this context than any random building during the battle of Stalingrad, regardless of how long it was fought over. It is sufficiently notable to gather a significant portion of this article and it is also a notable last stand that will probably end up in the list of last stands article. There is a whole lot going on there to write about. The same cannot be said for any building during the battle of Stalingrad. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know if potential list membership is a good rationale for creating an article, and certainly WP:CRYSTAL doesn’t support its creation on that basis at this time. —Michael Z. 17:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, the battle for the factories is a part of the overall fight in Mariupol, no need for a split. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:A7:A2AA:C3F7:A3C2 (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Mariupol theatre airstrike is also "Part of the siege of Mariupol during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", which did not stop it from getting a separate article. In fact, this siege itself is "Part of the Eastern Ukraine offensive of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" (as are many others). One thing being a part of another does not mean it should not have a separate article.

Size of the main article is now 185 kB, so (according to WP:SIZESPLIT) some splitting should be done and this proposed split seems natural. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree to this as this in news networks has been called the battle of Azovstal or siege of Azovstal. Cyclonicpotalt (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I support this but not yet.

So far, all that is here is just enough for a section.

In time this topic area will grow and splitting will then make sense. But so far, there isn't enough there to warrant a split.

And the Siege of Mariupol should always have a good-sized section on the Siege of Azovstal (not just a single referal sentence) because the fight at Azovstal is a major event within the siege of the city. So there is significant overlap here.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What's the point? Azovstal is in Mariupol. Super Ψ Dro 13:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So? Donetsk Regional Drama Theatre is also in Mariupol, but this does not prevent Mariupol theatre airstrike from being a separate article from this one (size of which is 185 kB, almost double the maximum recommended size). 193.198.162.14 (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Whelp, someone created it at Battle of Azovstal. Curbon7 (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Huh. Does anyone know what's supposed to happen when someone executes a controversial split/fork like this mid-discussion? I can't find it anywhere in the rules, but I don't think that's supposed to happen, given the similar guidelines for controversial moves. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  perhaps propose a merge of the fork and we can discuss it if there is content worth saving?

  Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger

  I support merging it btw, since the siege is seemingly over. Cononsense (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Good idea, done. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

End of the Siege

It has now been widely reported that the last Ukrainian soldiers have left Azovstal, and ceded control to Russia. Should we change the article to say the siege ended on 16 May? 2600:1700:CB20:8170:54AF:A099:876E:6B9A (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There also been repots that the fighters have been evacuated as well, so its just a question abou if the russians has fully captured the steel plant. However, what can be certain is that the soege of mariupol is over, in Russia's favor. 83.243.133.117 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Link? The news I can see say that 264 soldiers left so far, the rest are still inside even though it is likely the siege will end today or tomorrow. By the way, those 264 should be added to the 'captured' count in the Infobox. --195.225.41.202 (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61461805 ukraine has confirmed that the defence of mariupol is over. Meaning the siege is over TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the end of the Siege, would the end be on the date of the ceasefire (May 16th), or the date in which last Ukrainian soldiers surrender/when Russia takes formal control of the remaining territory (May 17th/18th?) 12.30.127.98 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The battle has ended. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/may/17/russia-ukraine-war-bloodiest-battle-ends-as-ukrainian-fighters-evacuated-from-mariupol-steel-plant-live DrYisus (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian Victory

Why does it have pyrrhic added in? There needs to be some strong evidence to support that claim 120.17.15.69 (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It has already been removed. Curbon7 (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

For future reference for those who want to add it, WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX explicitly says not to use the word pyrrhic. BSMRD (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Update numbers captured

Russia now claims that 959 soldiers have surrendered at Azovstal since Monday, including eighty wounded (Reuters). Should probably included in the text, the Russian claim for troops captured in the Infobox should be likewise updated from 1,729 to 2,423 (adding the 694 that surrendered in the last 24 hours per Russian claim, as the other 265 have already been added). --195.225.41.202 (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Start Date

Genuine question here: did the "Siege" of Mariupol really start on February 24? At least from the text of the article, it took Russian forces over a week from the start of the war to reach the outskirts of the port city, only besieging it in March. What occurred prior is just shelling, which does not really constitute a battle or siege (if shelling was indicative of a battle, we would have a Battle of Lviv article by now). Shouldn't the article reflect a later start date? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:A7:A2AA:C3F7:A3C2 (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The first subsection after "Background" is entitled "Preliminary shelling and advance on the city".

That sufficiently addresses your concern and so, IMO, no changes are needed.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the infobox sets the start date at February 24, and the battle did not start then, only shelling. So a change needs to made in the infobox, my inquiry is directed towards the infobox, not the rest of the article. Shelling does not constitute the beginning of a battle, let alone a siege. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:89E8:7775:A47C:AF93 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

To your point-- "Shelling does not constitute the beginning of a battle, let alone a siege."

Context is everything. In the context of the beginning of the Siege of Mariupol, it does.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 17:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Terrible English.. Why is this Article under edit protection?

As you can see below, these few sentences aren't the best spelling. I can see someone corrected "asks" to past tense "asked" now but still looks ridiculous with "has" before it, obviously this person is not a native English speaker. Also a better word for "asked" would be appealed, called for etc. something like that you would expect in a professionally written article. Anyways the quote should also be put in a separate margin to appear less sloppy, or not included at all, a reference would do. They make appeals every single day, this isn't a rare occurrence.

On 8 May, the commander of the 36th marine infantry brigade, Serhiy Volinski, has asked: “that a higher power find a way to figure out our rescue!”

As to their current conditions:“It feels like I’ve landed in a hellish reality show in which us soldiers fight for our lives and the whole world watches this interesting episode. Pain, suffering, hunger, misery, tears, fears, death. It’s all real,”

President Zelenskyy has promised: “…we are working on evacuating our military,” — Preceding unsigned comment added by User6619018899273 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Try to remember that people edit here from many countries where English is not their first language. Yet many have made very important edits to this article.

A little patience and understanding along with cheerfully contributing some editorial cleanup is a better use of time than complaining about it.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

One can only contribute when they’re allowed to. Remove the protection Ahnaf.eram (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

No. If you wish to contest the protection, go to WP:RPP/D. Curbon7 (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"Evacuation" euphemism...

The following discussion 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.

---

The article uses rather euphemistic language: "Remaining Ukrainian military personnel evacuated from Azovstal to Russian-controlled territory."

There's a plain English word though for when opposing soldiers are "evacuated" at gunpoint to be held in enemy territory. It's called "SURRENDER." These troops SURRENDERED, they were taken as POWs.

So let's call it for what it is. -2003:CA:8701:F48D:A9DD:189B:A9A8:1C71 (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, as I pointed out above. Nobody says that the British were "evacuated" after the siege of Fort William Henry, for instance, even though their post-surrender condition was even better than the one of the Azovstal defenders (well, until the Indians started killing them, at least). Monro and his men surrendered, even though not uncoditionally, and the same is true for the Ukrainians in Azovstal. If they accepted to leave with the condition of being exchanged (which I will believe when it will take place - I very much doubt they will release Azov members...), then it's a conditional surrender, not an "evacuation". Conditional surrender as per defined in the relevant wiki page: When the parties agree to terms, the surrender may be conditional; that is, the surrendering party agrees to submit only after the victor makes certain promises. The leaders of the surrendering group negotiate privileges or compensation for the time, expense and loss of life saved by the victor through the stopping of resistance. --Potionkin (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source calling it a surrender, rather than an evacuation? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Reuters, for instance: [15], [16] --Potionkin (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been completely destroyed by its emphasis on """reliable sources""" 2804:D41:C910:F200:70D3:882B:AC5D:3D5 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, this was my edit. I didn't use the word "surrender" because precisely the term "evacuation" is being used by Western English-language media, for example: YantarCoast (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, I was anticipating something along these lines....Unfortunately, a lot of the sources that Wiki considers "reliable" often prioritize pushing certain narratives over straight forward facts, and in this case many outlets uncritically parroted Kiev's cope/spin "evacuation" rhetoric. Fortunately though, I was able to find some Wiki "RS" which did use the more accurate and straight forward "surrender" wording, including this one from the Guardian: "The fate of hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers who have ended weeks of resistance at the Azovstal steelworks in Mariupol remains unclear, after the fighters surrendered and were transferred to Russian-controlled territory." [17] -2003:CA:8701:F48D:A9DD:189B:A9A8:1C71 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

True, simply and tragically true, and people refuse to acknowledge it. Why should we use not only the facts and figures, but the wording and phrasing exclusively of 'reliable' (read: Western and government-aligned) sources when they put on just as much spin as RT or Xinhua? technicalrestrictions01 15:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

If they were ordered to surrender by their own side then why wouldn't we just say that? (NYT refers as well to their evacuation this way "Ukrainian servicemen in a bus after they were evacuated...") Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Status should be updated

As of 17th May Ukrainian soldiers have "surrendered" to the Russians ending the siege of Mariupol with a Russian victory. This page has not been updated. Also Rubhzine is still being shown as contested city whereas your wiki page clearly states its under russian control.

These two cities need to be updated on their status and on the map respectively.

Thank you 117.99.84.209 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Why does the article says 'evacuated to Russian controlled territory'? There's a term for that, called 'surrender'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.233.8.202 (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

i guess it was there first for medical treatment before being exchanged for russian prisoners of war TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This is highly doubtful. For one, Ukraine does not have enough Russian POWs to exchange all of them; secondly, the speaker of the Duma said that "Nazis" (Azov) should not be exchanged, and indeed it would be very doubtful the Russians are going to exchange Azov members after singling out this regiment as the no.1 enemy in this war. But even if this was the case - this would still be a surrender, even if a conditional one, and the defenders of Azovstal are still prisoners until exchanged. A historical example of conditional surrender: the Siege of Fort William Henry, where the conditions for the surrender were that the besieged garrison would be allowed to reach their own lines rather than held in captivity, without even being exchanged with other prisoners. Still, that was a surrender, and is mentioned as such in the text, and the garrison are mentioned as 'captured' in the Infobox. There really seems to be a taboo about using the words "surrender" and "prisoners" for the Azovstal garrison in the Western press, but this is the reality, however one wants to spin it. --Potionkin (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Prisoner exchange is exactly what they are going to be used for regardless of what certain lawmakers have said or not said. In fact, Putin said that all who surrender will be treated in accordance to law on POWs. 2601:80:C103:A3B0:BDE7:5DD0:EE5E:826F (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Putin also said that Russia would not invade Ukraine... and that no conscripts would be used in the war... On top of that, international laws do not state that belligerents have to exchange POWs. They can keep them in captivity till the end of the hostilities. Anyway, we shall see. --2.36.52.179 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Further update on prisoners

According to Russian sources ([18], [19]) a further 785 soldiers from Azovstal surrendered today. This would bring the total captured per Russian claim in the Infobox to 3,208. --2.36.52.179 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

CNN today is reporting 1,700. Even still that's a lot more than were originally reported.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 20:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

1,730 from Azovstal since 16 May: 959 on the first two days (265 on Monday, 694 on Tuesday), 771 yesterday, which matches the linked sources. That adds to the 1,464 troops (mostly marines from 36th Brigade) previously captured in April (as per linked source), total for all of Mariupol is thus 3,194 as currently reported in Infobox. Actually, by the way, this should be 3,208, as by 21 April the Russian claim for Ukrainian troops captured in Mariupol had risen from 1,464 to 1,478 (see here). --Potionkin (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The retention of Mariupol residents as a human shield by the armed forces of Ukraine.

More than 100 thousand applications from refugees about taking them hostage during the siege of Mariupol by the armed forces of Ukraine. The article should indicate this. As well as other mass crimes of Ukrainian troop195.239.196.154 (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Otherwise, the nature of the fighting in Mariupol will not be disclosed.195.239.196.154 (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The only sources that say these things are controlled by the Russian government. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Some Western media, including German ones, talk about this.195.239.196.154 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC) https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/425938.mariupol-halbe-wahrheit-im-spiegel.html

OK I translated and read the German article about this that you linked to.

First, the article says that Der Spiegel (which is a highly respected German newspaper) took the video down, due to discrepencies.

Here is the translated quote (from the article that you linked to) about this--

"Der Spiegel has temporarily taken the video down "because of discrepancies in content that were subsequently discovered." "

In German (Auf Deutsche) it says, exactly-- "Mittlerweile hat der Spiegel das Video »wegen nachträglich festgestellter inhaltlicher Unstimmigkeiten vorübergehend von der Seite genommen«."

In fact, Western media are not present on the territory of Mariupol. All information comes from the Ukrainian media - the parties to the conflict. Isolated Western independent journalists talk about mass war crimes of Ukraine - by the way, this video was shot by independent Western journalists - about ten of them were interviewed. There are thousands of similar surveys. There is an active collection of materials for the International Court of Crimes of Ukraine - Wikepedia can talk about its independence any way you like, but the fact remains that Wikepedia cannot give objective information while using the totalitarian media of the West.195.239.196.154 (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Second, the article said that the family fled to Russia. So this means that the statement was taken from them in Russia. What does anyone expect them to say in Russia?! They could go to prison-- or be tortured-- or killed-- if they don't say what the Russians tell them to say, while they are in Russia.

Did this family really decide (entscheiden) to go to Russia or did the Russians make them go there-- at the point of a gun? (von einer Russischen Waffe bedroht?)-- And once they were there in Russia what did the Russians tell them that they must (muss) say?

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 14:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Also the newspaper that you linked to is the "Tageszeitung junge Welt". I did a search in German Google and the government of Germany, specifically the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Die Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz) considers Tageszeitung junge Welt to be an extremist (extremistisch) Left-wing newspaper. And not a reliable source.

Was ist los??

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Junge Welt.Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Western media are not present at the scene of the events. All the information is being provided by Ukraine by the interested party, and judging by the videos from really independent Western journalists who are present there, we are talking about war crimes - there are thousands of similar videos in which direct witnesses of what happened talk about war crimes of Ukraine at the level of genocide. Western media cannot be sources of information in this case because they are not neutral - this was perfectly demonstrated by the fake with the maternity hospital and the Mariupol theater. They are already talking about the creation of an international military tribunal for war crimes of Ukraine, as there is a lot of evidence188.233.129.4 (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You are talking about the video that Der Spiegel took down, due to "discrepencies".

There are tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians who were forced by the Russian Army to go to Russia. They must say what their Russian captors want or go to prison or die. Or they can be tortured until they change their words to support of Russian policy.

In the West if you disagree with the government you do not go to jail. In Russia if you do this, you do go to jail.

Wikipedia articles are only for facts, not propaganda.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 08:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it true? And those who fled from totalitarian Ukraine know, right? We are not talking about tens of thousands, but about millions of immigrants to the territory of Russia, and about filing millions of applications for mass crimes of Ukraine against its own citizens, as well as video and physical evidence, This is more than serious and the propaganda of the Western media will no longer help here..195.239.196.154 (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gotten out of hand. IP, do you actually have a WP:RS to support these claims? If not, this discussion should be closed. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Picture in Infobox

Now that the siege is over, perhaps it would be best to replace the - now rather useless - map in the Infobox with a photo showing fighting/damage in Mariupol. This was indeed briefly done yesterday, but then reversed. The map, maybe in timelapse, could be relocated somewhere else in the page. --Potionkin (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Add "One Russian lawmaker said Russia should consider death penalty for the Azov Regiment. An unimportant person (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: Where in the article do you want this prose inserted? —Sirdog (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia has repeatedly given the armed forces of Ukraine a chance to leave Mariupol with weapons in their hands

Russia has repeatedly given the armed forces of Ukraine a chance to leave Mariupol with weapons in their hands. Especially at the beginning of the operation. This is an important clarification that speaks about the nature of the clashes.188.233.128.99 (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Final evacuation?

The term is just Ukrainian spin and propaganda. They simply surrendered to the Russian armed forces. Period. Let´s be serious. --2.138.180.34 (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion in section above, "Evacuation" euphemism...". Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously Ukraine is reluctant to call it a 'surrender' despite there is no other way to describe literally surrendering to the Russians. (Evacuation) feels like a spin and misleading in itself. The undisputed facts are they surrendered and were transferred to Russian-controlled territory. It's just petty to spin it as something else. (Final Evacuation) as a chapter heading is not a neutral term but just (POV-pushing) and siding with one side's spin on surrender. Soyegg2417 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The BBC managed to avoid using the word surrender at all while referring to evacuation multiple times. This looks like an outlier now, afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

BBC is hardly impartial and it's probably embarrassing for them to publish hyped morale articles like saying those defenders vow to never surrender. (Mariupol steelworks fighters vow 'no surrender: 5 May 2022) Only later to see them surrender and be taken prisoners by the Russians. The issue is the word misleads greatly. The word (Evacuation) sounds like those soldiers were actually evacuating to Ukrainian held territory. No, instead they are going to be Russian held prisoners, so it's greatly misleading and just western media/Ukrainian spin on surrender. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61343815 Soyegg2417 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The lead really doesn’t need all the self-conscious discussion of whether this is “evacuation” or “surrender.” The lead can describe the events factually without using either term, and maybe it can say both sides claimed successes, but let’s also see what happens in following days. If a debate really exists outside of Wikipedia editing, it can be mentioned in the body. —Michael Z. 19:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

While I do think that the word surrender would be perfectly fitting for the reasons I have already mentioned, maybe renaming paragraph 4.5 "End of the siege" could work for the moment... --Potionkin (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The NYT is categoric (17 May), both in headline and in content, title is given as "Surrender at Mariupol" and content is given as "More than 200 Ukrainian soldiers in the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol surrendered and were taken into custody by Russian forces." They also report that ..Ukraine’s military ordered them to surrender. The surrender directive, issued late Monday, made the soldiers prisoners and ended the most protracted battle so far of the nearly three-month-old Russian invasion of Ukraine.. I think this is clearcut, they were ordered to surrender and they did. Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian forces continued to bomb Azovstal on 18 May. Is the battle really over? Applodion (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It does seem that something strange is happening, considering this (although I cannot find any other mention of continuing Russian shelling of Azovstal anywhere else), Palamar's latest video message mentioning an unspecified "operation" that would be underway, the fact that none of the senior commanders have left Azovstal so far, and the fact that after a continuous influx of videos of surrendering soldiers from Azovstal and updates on the numbers of prisoners taken there from Monday to Wednesday, yesterday (and today, so far) the Russians have become strangely silent. --Potionkin (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

in the video Palamar gives as current a date after the date on which the video was published. Apparently it's a pre-recorded video. In addition, that same day he surrendered and was seen on video giving some statements 190.6.81.220 (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Svyatoslav Palamar

Video has surfaced today where he declares he is still in Azovstal. The claim he is a POW should be removed. 81.110.178.252 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you post a link to the video? Or the video web address?

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 20:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's a news from the Italian news agency ANSA with Palamar's video and his declarations. --Potionkin (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Potionkin

Thanks! Corrected.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 16:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

in the video Palamar gives as current a date after the date on which the video was published. Apparently it's/was a pre-recorded video. In addition, that next day he surrendered and was seen on video giving some statements 190.6.81.220 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Siege or Battle?

I suggest renaming the siege of Mariupol to "battle" because it was a battle, not a siege, the Russians assaulted the city and did not wait it out. Think Aleppo, Mosul, Baghdad, or Fallujah, or Grozny. They are all called battles. Rename Siege of Mariupol to Battle of Mariupol and rename Battle of Azovtal to Siege of Azovstal as it was a "starve them out while hitting them with artillery until they give up". Ahm1453 (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This was already discussed before. Plenty of sieges eventually turn into urban battles, such as Siege of Budapest, Siege of Odessa (1941), Siege of Breslau and so on. It was decided to leave the term "siege", as it is by far the most widely used to refer to what happened to Mariupol. Battle of Mariupol (2022) already exists, as a redirect to this page. Battle of Azovstal should be merged into this page, as suggested above and supported by a majority. --Potionkin (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes this was already discussed. And nearly all sieges include battles.

Also, for over a month, Russian forces prevented (most) residents from evacuating (breaking numerous "promises"). Only a militarily enforced siege could enforce that.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 16:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think Siege of Mariupol (d:Q111310085) is a part of Battle of Mariupol (d:Q111017791). --Txkk (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Mariupol as part of the Southern Ukraine offensive

The Battle of Kharkiv (2022) is listed as being part both of the Eastern Ukraine and the Northeastern Ukraine offensives. I think this is sensible as troops that tried to attack Kharkiv from the west were more connected and in cooperation with those of the northeastern offensive while those that tried to attack it from the east, with those of the eastern offensive. Likewise, Mariupol was attacked from two sides, from the DPR from the east, and from troops coming from Crimea to the east. Not all troops attacking Mariupol came from mainland Russia and the DPR, and if troops from Crimea did not come to their aid, this could have been a very different battle, so I think it's absurd to ignore the impact the southern offensive had for Mariupol. This division of the invasion into four offensives is artificial and from Wikipedia as far as I know anyway, so there shouldn't be too much problem I believe. By the way, this would also affect the Battle of Volnovakha which left Mariupol alone. Super Ψ Dro 13:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I've read again this comment and realized its point is not very clear. What I proposed is including the Siege of Mariupol and the Battle of Volnovakha as part of the Southern Ukraine offensive as well. Super Ψ Dro 13:41, 23 May 2022 (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:

• Azovstal 05.05.2022.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Update final section

The section "final evacuation" seems to have stopped to 18 May, when the commanders and some hundreds of soldiers were still inside Azovstal. A few lines should be added regarding the final surrender of the last group of defenders on 20 May, including Volyna (for whom there is video evidence), Prokopenko and Palamar.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/05/20/war-in-ukraine-kyiv-orders-azovstal-troops-to-stop-fighting_5984152_4.html

https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-russia-claims-full-control-of-mariupol-steel-plant-as-it-happened/a-61871702

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61529877

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61529877

https://www.rbc.ru/politics/20/05/2022/6287d2e09a7947798d1258b5

--Potionkin (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Strengh

Given claimed enemy casualities by both sides, this part of the infobox should probabaly be revised. Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Ukrainian side, until some time ago the Infobox reported both the Western/Ukrainian claim of 3,500 troops and the Russian one of 8,000 (which matches the Russian claim of 4,000 killed and nearly as many captured), but it seems the latter was removed at some point. --Potionkin (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the figure of 8000 inside the city was closer to reality, and even more so seeing that the sum of the numbers that have been given by the Russian side throughout the siege correspond better to what was seen, don't know why was removed/changed from the infobox. The initial Ukrainian force was given as up to 14,000, with many withdrawing to the north before the encirclement of the city was finally closed. According to the infobox, four brigades, one regiment and additional forces were fully or partially deployed on the Ukrainian side. A typical brigade/regiment consists from 2,000 to 5,000 troops. so, even only 4 partial brigades/regiments are much more than those 3,500 given in the infobox 190.6.81.220 (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see a point of keeping 3,500 number. Kiev confirmed 1000+ surrenders until 10 May. Approximately 2,400 Kiev soldiers surrendered after that according to both Russian and NATO/EU sources. That would mean that out of 3,500 soldiers, 3,400 surrendered, which is highly unlikely, IMHO. StjepanHR (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Even on the Ukrainian side, they are not claiming that they killed almost half of the Russian forces, at least I don’t think so. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

A Pyrrhic Victory

I feel like this is a pyrrhic victory for Russia, as it took way too long for them to capture the city and suffered too many casualties as a result. It also doesn't help that the city is next to worthless now due to the destruction caused by all the fighting going on around there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.242.36 (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Siege of Odessa (1941) took way longer and had 10x as more men than Russia has in Mariupol. Yet it isn't listed as a pyrrhic victory for Germany. I dont think personal opinion should come into play here.--73.5.92.146 (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Except that Odessa was still of some use to the Germans, there is no longer any value in the Russian capture of Mariupol, since they already have established a land bridge before that, and the port is now blocked by a sunken ship and naval mines, making it worthless for now. In the end it wasn't worth it for the Russians to capture Mariupol in its current state. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

certainly the Ukrainians delayed and hurt the Russians significantly, and the destruction of the city is certainly a negative for whatever Russia is planning in the future. But the land itself has value due to its proximity to the sea of Azov, land that Russia now controls in perpetuity. A bitter victory, but not a pyrrhic one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.198.180 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Destroyed or not, this is a pointless topic, wikipedia rely on RS, when some RS call the battle pyrrhic victory, we could talk about the issue, but nowdays no RS call it pyrrhic victory, so is just a Russian Victory. DrYisus (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

They took full control of the city, destroyed every Ukrainian unit in the city, how is that pyrrhic? I would list it as plain "victory". Not decisive neither pyrrhic. Please don't turn Wikipedia into further propaganda. Ahm1453 (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the point of the Ukrainian defense of Mariupol was to delay the Russians from moving up north to engage in their pincer towards Sloviansk, and by the time Mariupol fell it was already too late, as the Ukrainians managed to stop the forces moving south from Izium, making it impossible for Russia to complete the pincer. And that's not mentioning that the Russian forces around Mariupol likely took extremely heavy casualties from trying to take the city, so they won't be of much use for right now. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You people are gonna feel really embarrassed in about a year or so once the dust settles and you've collected yourselves and finally gotten a grip on your fee-fees. 178.221.183.251 (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the "pyrrhic victory" label, we need to consider that Mariupol is a large city - nearly half a million in peacetime, and urban warfare is pretty much always slow, grinding, high-casualty, and highly destructive of the physical infrastructure - especially if there's a rather large well trained, well armed, and fanatical force defending the city. When the US-backed forces defeated ISIS to retake the cities of Raqqa and Mosul, those battles took a long time, there were plenty of casualties on both sides, and much of those cities were destroyed, but few would call them "pyrrhic victories." A "pyrrhic victory" is one that imposes such a great cost, and so weakens the victor, that they're no longer able to achieve their wider goals....The Mariupol battle did tie up quite a lot of the Russian/allied troops, slowing advances on other fronts, but those troops are freed up now, and while Russia/DPR/Chechen forces did suffer significant losses in the campaign, they weren't catastrophic to the point where they can no longer continue other offensive operations. -2003:CA:8701:F48D:A9DD:189B:A9A8:1C71 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, WP infoboxes by consensus only contemplate "X Victory" or "Y Victory", nothing else. So there is nothing more to debate here.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive closure of RfC

I'm sorry but User:Selfstudier is not someone who should be closing RfCs in this topic area, in particular this one. Selfstudier is heavily involved in disputes here and in fact they just tried to move the article to a highly POV weaselly title that violates WP:ALLEGED [20]. The RfC should remain open and should be closed by a neutral outside party. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

See your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Placing Azov commander prominently in the infobox

Is there any reason why Prokopenko is placed above all the other Ukrainian commanders in the infobox? As far as I know, despite their prominence in media, Azov was not numerically "bigger" than all the other Ukrainian units involved here. So it just unseems undue. Rousillon (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I placed him there because he seems to me as the most iconic Ukrainian commander in Mariupol. He's at least the one I've heard the most about on the news since 24 February. I think it makes sense given the importance of Azov in the context of the invasion ("denazification" and other delusions from Putin). I also only started hearing from Volynskyi and Palamar since like April I believe, and the other two commanders are in no way more relevant than any of these. Baranyuk could have been kept above, he certainly is one of the most relevant along Prokopenko, and I would have kept him there if he hadn't been captured in early April, but since this happened, he missed pretty much all the fighting in Azovstal, so in my opinion Prokopenko remains as the most relevant Ukrainian commander in Mariupol. Still, I don't care too much about this. In several editors wish so, they can swap Prokopenko with Baranyuk, although I'd defend keeping both in the first two spots and then in the next two to keep Volynskyi and Palamar, and Shleha in the fifth. Super Ψ Dro 20:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• • Azovstal was only one part of this siege. I think it just seems undue because Azov, from what I've seen, only numbered around 900 soldiers before the invasion, and the level of coverage that they received from the media did not match the situation on the ground, that they were a small and inignificant force. In any case this article says that the total force of Ukrainian Armed Forces in Mariupol, as the Ukrainians themselves claim, was around 3,500 soldiers. The way the infobox is now may give the impression, that because a neo-Nazi is put so prominently, that all the other Ukrainians fighting in Mariupol (those who were not in Azov) were Nazis as well, which is of course wrong. Rousillon (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't say the role of Azov was "insignificant", but I would have left Baranyuk above Prokopenko, as he outranked him. --Potionkin (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Mariupol massacre into Siege of Mariupol

The following discussion 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.

---

There is clear consensus for the merge, the principal support being that the merge candidate is a POV fork and redundancy. As one of the opposing !votes indicated "..of course it's a part of Siege of Mariupol". This does not prevent a new article if future circumstances warrant. Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Edit: The last !vote was added following the close but does not change the overall consensus. It objects on the grounds of toobig which a simple examination shows is not the case. Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Editor removed it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: I've undone this out of process closure since it was done by someone who's heavily involved in disputes in this area. Please wait for a neutral party to close the RfC. In the meantime, how about advertising this RfC more widely? Volunteer Marek 17:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, you CAN'T both first !vote in an RfC and then close it to your linking! Come on, that's like Wikipedia 101. Volunteer Marek 17:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not an RFC and involved editors are allowed to close a merge disussion if there is a rough consensus, here it is virtually WP:SNOW. This is simple disruption by an editor in an obvious minority. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

No. You tried PRODing the article. You then voted in the PM (sorry, not an RfC). You then tried to move the article to a WP:WEASEL POV title (sprinkling in "alleged" throughout). You then closed the PM discussion to your liking. It should be obvious that this is simply not how you do things. This is simple WP:GAMEing. And no, it's not a snow and there's no reason why we can't wait for more uninvolved editors. Volunteer Marek 17:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

See your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Support War crimes against civilians in the Battle of Mariupol are a part of that battle. The article concerning the battle already has a section extensively discussing these war crimes, and I see no reason why the 'Russian War Crimes in Mariupol' article shouldn't be merged into the 'Siege of Mariupol'. Unless new information comes out demonstrating systematic mass-casualty violence in already occupied areas, or something along those lines (much as Bucha Massacre was split from Battle of Bucha), there is no reason to split them off from the article on the battle itself. Thereppy (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This is another redundant content fork from Siege of Mariupol created by IgorTurzh. As far as I can tell, all of the content here is covered in the war crimes section of the main siege page. Additionally, the title "Mariupol massacre" is not supported by any source, nor does it make sense as a descriptive title - the war crimes took place over the course of months, that's not a single "massacre". HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead. More redundant WP:UKRAINEWARCRUFT (I really should get around to finally writing this essay, huh). No demonstration that there is a need for a WP:CFORK yet. Curbon7 (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. POV fringe title, and there's no need for a separate article on the deaths of civilians in Mariupol. I'd recommend being WP:BOLD and not letting this stick too much. There's clearly no need for it. Super Ψ Dro 20:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't actually know how I would go about doing that, now that I've made a merge proposal. Do I need to close this discussion first or something? I'm not familiar with the rules in this kind of edge case. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope. What should be done instead is advertising this discussion more widely. Volunteer Marek 06:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean doing it right now... but the discussion will stall after some days and consensus will not change too much after that. Super Ψ Dro 13:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The content is already covered by Siege of Mariupol , it should be enough. LordLoko (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Unlike the other one, this one isn't really an article idea on it's own, unlike the Bucha massacre CR-1-AB (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - there’s enough material here and it’s likely to expand to justify a standalone article. Volunteer Marek 04:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support The other is a WP:POVFORK, it even has Russian war crimes in Mariupol as an aka. Edit: I PROD'd it fwiw. Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support the siege is so intertwined with the ongoing massacre that both articles would lose something. No doubt that the siege was also a massacre, however. Perhaps the merged article should be renamed to include both words. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support POV fork of Siege of Mariupol where the subject is already extensively covered. EkoGraf (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Too soon. There are enough sources for a stand alone article. The numerous independent reliabe sources from best world agencies like CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR, etc are enough to safe this article, as well as over 20,000 dead Ukrainians. It's a war crime and of course it's a part of Siege of Mariupol. --IgorTurzh (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support makes more sense within the context of the overall battle rather than a standalone article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.198.180 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPA. Volunteer Marek 17:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a sufficiently defined separate subject, a legitimate sub-page of the Siege of Mariupol. It is big enough. Perhaps this page could be renamed to something like Mass murder during the Siege of Mariupol, but the murder of more than 20,000 civilians by Russian forces during the siege definitely deserves a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support More redundant WP:UKRAINEWARCRUFT. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Support. The others above me have already given great reasoning. EliDoesStuff (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Selfstudier, I didn't notice that the discussion was closed. I deleted my edition. --2x2leax (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Np. @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: please perform the merge. I amended the title to Alleged Russian war crimes in Mariupol, after you have merged whatever, make it a redirect in case someone wishes to use it later. Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get to it, but I'm a little busy right now. Anyone can perform the merge, so I've placed a "being merged" template there for now. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Even though a close by myself (or indeed, yourself) is permitted (see WP:MERGECLOSE), please request a formal close so that we can dispense with this issue. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't really know how to do that, sorry. I think anyone can make a request, so can someone else do that? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I requested a close, Wikipedia:Closure requests#Other types of closing requests it might take a while so don't hold your breath. Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope nope nope. I object to this closure by an editor who's involved up to their ears in these controversies. Volunteer Marek 17:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Also weird how several editors are citing the same non-existent "WP:UKRAINEWARCRUFT" policy. What gives? Volunteer Marek 17:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources which use the phrase "Mariupol massacre": [21] [22] [23] [24][25] [26][27] [28]. Volunteer Marek 17:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Your original !vote made no mention of this.Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's mentioned now. Volunteer Marek 18:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Post a close undone by yourself. Sure. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 26 May 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.

Material for possible merge here

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Material copied from Russian war crimes in Mariupol (previously Mariupol massacre) for possible merging into article as necessary:

START COPY

Russian war crimes in Mariupol refers to the mass killings of Ukrainian civilians in Mariupol, Donetsk Oblast, during the Russo-Ukrainian War during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainian officials estimate that more than 20,000 people have died during Russia's siege of Mariupol. Satellite images showed more than 200 mass graves of Ukrainians in Mariupol as of April 2022.

On April 29, city mayor Vadym Boychenko estimated that more than 20,000 civil Ukrainians had died in the city. On April 22, 2022, NPR reported that there were spotted on satellite images another mass grave near Mariupol with nearly 9,000 bodies. On May 12, 2022, satellites recorded an increase in the lengths of mass graves of Ukrainians killed in Mariupol and buried near the city in Staryi Krym and Vynohradne villages.

The shelling of Mariupol

On March 2, Deputy Mayor Serhiy Orlov said that Russian artillery had been continuously shelling the densely populated area of ​​Mariupol for 15 hours. One neighborhood on the left bank of the city was "almost completely destroyed."

Due to constant shelling in the city, the supply of electricity, gas, water and food has disappeared. It was reported that a 6-year-old girl died of dehydration on March 8 near the ruins of her house in Mariupol.

Satellite photographs of Mariupol taken on the morning of March 9 by US military contractor Maxar Technologies showed "significant damage" to high-rise buildings, apartment buildings, grocery stores and other civilian infrastructure. This was determined by comparing before and after photos. It is estimated that approximately 80% to 90% of the city's infrastructure has been significantly damaged by shelling, of which almost 30% is beyond repair. Reuters journalist Pavlo Klimov reported from Mariupol that "blackened shells are around" apartment buildings.

On March 16, BBC News reported that almost constant attacks by Russia had turned residential neighborhoods into a "wasteland". The same day, she said she had received drone footage showing "significant damage, with fire and smoke from apartment buildings, as well as blackened streets in ruins." A city resident told the BBC that "there is not a whole apartment building on the left bank, everything has burned to the ground" and the city center is unrecognizable. On the same day, the Institute for the Study of War reported that Russian troops continued to commit war crimes in Mariupol, including "targeting civilian infrastructure."

On March 18, the British Sky News described the aerial and terrestrial video as "apocalyptic destruction in Mariupol." Sky News also reported that it confirmed the location of both videos in the destroyed residential areas of Mariupol, including some commercial facilities.

On March 19, 2022, a Ukrainian policeman in Mariupol shot a video in which he said: “Children are dying, the elderly. The city is destroyed, it is wiped off the face of the earth. " The video was checked by the Associated Press.

On April 12, city mayor Vadym Boychenko said that more than 10,000 civilians had died in the city since the Russian invasion.

On April 29, Boychenko estimated that more than 20,000 Ukrainian civilians had died in the city.

References

ENDCOPY

Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead and citations

The last sentence of the lead reads:

Some western analysts called the result of the battle a "pyrrhic" or "mostly symbolic" victory and "reputational disaster" for Russia, after the complete destruction of the city, and a tactical defeat but strategic win for Ukrainian forces, which successfully tied up multiple Russian battalion tactical groups for months.

This uses quote marks for particular statements. These should be directly attributed - ie it is not sufficient to provide quotes at the end of the sentence. While "pyrrhic" is reasonably evident, the other quotes are not (though a couple of sources have paywalls). The last part of the sentence states: after the complete destruction of the city, and a tactical defeat but strategic win for Ukrainian forces, which successfully tied up multiple Russian battalion tactical groups for months. There are some significant statements in this which are not clearly evident from the sources cited. Perhaps I missed something but I am not seeing this in the sources I can view. The problem is that the lead should be a summary of the body of the article but there is no "aftermath" section to be summarised. These things should be fixed or face challenge per WP:VER. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Unit icons in infobox

Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Such a case whould be where there are co-belligerents and the national flag denotes nationality of a unit. Per MOS:ICONDECORATION: Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Individual unit emblems do not serve an encyclpedic purpose here and have been removed IAW WP:P&G. Ping Karma1998. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: copy that.--Karma1998 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Consolidating article

At present, the article reads (for the most part) as a collage of news reports. I would think that it is now time to consider consolidating the article in a way that is more consistent with encyclopedic summary style. The first step in this would be to consider the structure and I would point to what is pretty much the standard structure for MILHIST articles for battles: background, prelude, battle and aftermath. Comments please. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose it's just as much an article about massive human rights violations as it is one about "military history" with MILHIST's very narrow focus on summarizing the stages of a battle being a real concern here. Far better models for the article are the Siege of Leningrad, including it's sister article, the Effect of siege on Leningrad

Also an observation, many Wikipedia articles have drifted into a "fast food mentality" regarding what is left (after drasticly editing-down) articles. A good article should not be like a hamburger that you gobble down in under a minute, and then leave, thinking that you "now understand the subject".

A good Wikipedia article should have depth, detail, diverse subtopics along with good chronologies and lots of photos. It should take the time to tell more of the full story and not be a mental fast-food item.

Too many Wikipedia articles have been "dumbed down" by excessive "paring down". Please be careful, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

At present, the article reads for the most as a series of one-liners run off a ticker-tape machine and appears to me to bare more than a passing resemblance to a hamburger. Wikipedia:Summary style is far from being peculiar to MILHIST. IMHO, what this article lacks is an "aftermath". It is a section that can cover a multitude of sins both figuratively and literally. The point I would make is that it could be better structured and at C-class, this is far from being a "good article". One can conduct a civil discussion without resorting to shouting - the usual interpretation of such use of bolding in messaging. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I only use boldface to emphasize key points I am not upset about anything. I have noticed a lot of people do not read other peoples WP TP posts carefully-- and then "respond based on half-reading", requiring people to keep repeating themselves. Boldface has cut way down on this for me. It works.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. A good place to start would be removing the near-daily updates on numbers in some sections. Eg. On 6 May, some 500 civilians, in total, had been evacuated according to the United Nations. The Azov Regiment reported one fighter killed and six wounded while helping evacuate civilians. On 7 May, the Ukrainian government announced that all of the remaining women, children and elderly who had been inside the Azovstal steel plant had been evacuated. We could easily consolidate these kinds of things down, maybe without even losing information in some cases. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to make this article a Level 5 Vital History Article

There is a new proposal to make the Seige of Mariupol a Level 5 Vital History article. You can participate in the discussion here. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip

Can you explain to everyone what a "Level 5 Vital History Article" is? 90% of the people here probably have no idea what that means.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 12:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

A "Level 5 Vital Article" is one that is somewhat important to a branch of knowledge. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This article should be promoted because it received a lot of coverage from the Associated Press and other very reliable sources. Also, notability is NOT temporary. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Battle of Azovstal into Siege of Mariupol

The following discussion 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.

---

Battle of Azovstal is a redundant fork of Siege of Mariupol. This is just another stage of the overall siege - which also seems to be over, so there shouldn't be concerns about the articles' size anymore. The Battle of Azovstal article was created in spite of the ongoing split proposal, which had no clear consensus. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree - the Russian Ministry of Defense declared victory in Mariupol on April 21, while admitting that there were final Ukrainian holdouts in Azovstal. Thus, the Battle of Azovstal should be treated as a separate battle (albeit a sub-operation) of the overall siege. PilotSheng (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - A major part of the siege, with many sources and incidents relating to the plant CR-1-AB (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly support - Fork article created contrary to no editor consensus on a split at the main article's talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly support too there is not enough material to support a seperate article (at this point). Eventually there could be, but not yet. Also the siege and fight at Azovstal are an integral part of the Siege of Mariupol. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 17:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Additionally the title "Battle of Azovstal" is not the right title. It was/is a classic siege (that included battles). Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 17:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Support The fight for the control of Azovstal is part of the siege of Mariupol, no need to have two articles about the former.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree battle of Azovstal had been a important event during siege of Mariupol. The UA defense of the steelworks and the battle itself have had a great impact and have been covered in the media. I think battle of Azovstal due to his notability and media coverage deserves a different wikipedia page. Plus the siege of Mariupol article is very big and the split (siege of mariupol and battle of azovstal) could help to make the articles shorter. DrYisus (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Support The battle took place in the same geographical place, same combatants, same units, same end date. There is no need for both articles to exist. Merge is needed.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Support It's not like it's impossible to put it into the siege of Mariupol. Also, one of the articles would be too short if they weren't. 64.82.204.2 (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly support it is part of the siege. And that's it. There's not much rationale needed. I don't understand the arguments of people saying that since the battle at Azovstal is one of the main parts of the siege, we should split them into two articles. This removes the much of the point of having an article of the siege of Mariupol, which is covering the siege. Nobody who wants to read about a topic in Wikipedia wants to have to be taken to another article to get the full information. Super Ψ Dro 20:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Support as per others' rationale. It's just the final part of the siege/battle of Mariupol. --Potionkin (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Support per above. 180app (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that although there should be left some information about the Azovstal battle in the main Siege of Mariupol page that this still be kept as its own page. It lasted much longer than the rest of the city and was practically its own fight in every way while the rest of Mariupol had already fell. They shouldn't be treated as the same battle. Timetorockknowlege (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Support GordonGlottal (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Support The sources mostly consider Mariupol as one event/location although they might make comments about Azovstal within articles eg The Ukrainian authorities announced late Monday an end to their combat operation in the besieged city of Mariupol Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Most reliable sources use "The battle of Azovstal" Or "Siege of Azovstal" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclonicpotalt (talk • contribs) 12:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

What? This is not an argument to keep. No one is disputing this is a name used for the sub-operation. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Support Multiple sources have compared the Siege of Azovstal to the fighting at the Stalingrad tractor factory- here are the Telegraph and The New York Times drawing a comparison. We don't have a "Battle for the Stalingrad tractor factory district" article on Wikipedia because it's part of a greater operation. News media generally lumps troop surrenders at Azovstal as being part of this greater operation and the Siege of Mariupol has an extremely large section dedicated to resistance in the battle. Yokohama1989 (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree I suggest Renaming Siege of Mariupol to Battle of Mariupol, followed by Siege of Azovstal. Because that is how it went. Ahm1453 (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Support This isn't too difficult to wrap my head around. Azovstal in within Mariupol, and the Azovstal siege was the final stage of the siege of Mariupol.

Now, there may be an argument that phases of a large military campaign should have individual pages, I don't think this is one of them. The Battle in Berlin, for example, has a page seperate from the Battle of Berlin, but that page has much more content than the Azovstal siege (in fact, the Battle in Berlin page is almost as long as the Battle of Berlin page). Meanwhile, the Azovstal siege page has only about a tenth of the bytes as the siege of Mariupol, and any information in former page that isn't already in the latter could easily be transferred over. DishonorableKnight (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Support most of the "siege of mauripol" is in better understood as the siege of azovstal. as it is commonly understood, change the siege of mauirpol to the battle of mauripol with the siege of azovstal as a sub section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.198.180 (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a highly notable and well-defined event. Yes, this is a part of the "Siege", but it can be better described by using a separate sub-page. No, the "siege of Mariupol" is not just the siege of Azovstal, it's a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Support as per others above me. EliDoesStuff (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppoose - Per WP:TOOBIG. The article Siege of Mariupol is long enough to be splitted by the most relevant subtopics spoken by the reliable sources. This is the case of the two articles HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith proposed to merge. This article in particular has 45 sources, and it has 985 words on prose. Other thing is that exist articles of sub-operations of main battles, for example Siege of Madrid and Battle of Ciudad Universitaria, the last one was battle was fought in the main campus of the city. If there are sources that talk about this sub-operation of the siege of Maruipol, I don't think it should be a problem that the article of the Battle of Azovstal to exist. --2x2leax (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Support they are both one and the same. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Support the 'Battle of Azovstal' was simply the final stage of the Siege of Mariupol, they are one battle and ought to be described in one article. Thereppy (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Support a siege within a siege? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Support for now as it is a clear part of the overall siege of Mariupol. Mariupol isn't really considered fallen until the surrender of Azovstal. When more details emerge down the line this page may need to be split again, though, as this article is getting too big. MarioJump83! 13:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Strongly oppose because the current segmentation has a clear and transparent logic: the "battle of Mariupol (2022)" contains ("Siege of Mariupol" ("Siege of Azovstal"), "Mariupol counteroffensive^possible"), and for my opinion, the integrated in "Siege of Mariupol" explanation of Azovstal plant siege should already must be slightly shrinked for WP:TOOBIG. The second reason - the siege of Azovstal has a partially different commanding staff that can be mentioned in the main town "siege" page. The third reason - the ending of siege (as a historical process) still not over until the prisoners was not returned to homeland. Fourth - the Azovstal is a significant location for Mariupol battle, just similar to Pavlov's house for Battle of Stalingrad. Nahabino (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Support: I'm not seeing that the size of the Battle of Azovstal really justifying its forking or that this article is too large or that it could not reasonably be pruned by a more rierous application of "summary style". Cinderella157 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We have Pavlov’s house (and Azovstal) articles, but not “Siege of Pavlov’s house”. Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

References for this section

References

Comment "The discussion was not uncontroversial" is not a good reason for undoing a close. Someone else close this, its already run its course, put it out of its misery. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I've requested closure here. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith

The source you referred (linked) me to on your Talk Page said that "any editor can close a discussion". Usually it is someone editing the article that closes discussions.

You will note that it has been two days and nothing has been done yet. Wikipedia resources are limited and special Admins are super backed-up with too many requests.

Special Admins should only be used for difficult calls-- this isn't difficult-- "Supports" outnumber "Opposes" four to one (4 to 1) here. This is becoming a big waste of time. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:58, 8 June 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.

At the time that I (originally) closed this ^^^ it was actually 4 to 1 support vs. oppose. After my close was reverted, more opposes were added. The correct number (at time of final closure) is actually 21 supports, not 20 as was stated. 21 to 8 is still very strong support. Thanks, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 20:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The important thing is we agree on the overall consensus. Corrected to 21 (ironic I miscounted when I commented on somebody else's counting). When talking about the previous close, I was referring to this version. There I count 20 support, and 8 oppose, so a 5:2 support vs oppose ratio (but maybe you meant to say a ratio of 1:4 oppose vs total, which is close to the 2/7 oppose vs total ratio of that version). Femke (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Change title to Fall of Mariupol

Since the city was taken by force, it was more a sack than a siege. Only siege would’ve been of Azovstal. Now that the city has completely come under Russian control, please consider changing the title to Fall of Mariupol. Ahnaf.eram (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Support per above. Multiple news titles from AP News, CNN, Vox, and the Los Angeles Times state Mariupol has fallen. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Mariupol fell after a prolonged siege that eventually evolved into an urban battle which in turn evolved into another siege (of Azovstal). Like in the Siege of Budapest, Siege of Odessa (1941), Siege of Breslau etc. Likewise, if we called all battles and sieges in which the city falls "Fall of ...", we'd have to rename a few hundred pages, from Battle of Berlin to Battle of Mosul (2016-2017). "Fall of ..." better befits instances in which the city quickly falls to the attackers without much of a battle or siege to talk of, such as in Fall of Mosul, Fall of Saigon or Fall of Kabul (2021). --Potionkin (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the fall of Mariupol is the last five percent of the story. The other 95% is the siege. Also, in history, almost all sieges end up with battles-- and many end with a fall. That's just part of the story of the siege. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly oppose as per Chesapeake77. EliDoesStuff (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per Potionkin. Literally any defeat would be a "fall" under this definition. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose  The city was completely surrounded, cut off from all supply and services, while being attacked with artillery and invaded over nearly three months. It’s a textbook example of a siege. —Michael Z. 18:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as per @Potionkin and @Mzajac LordLoko (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per everyone else. EkoGraf (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

support. basically there was a battle for and in the city that ended by the city falling, the title should be "battle of mariupol". within the battle there was the siege of azovstal that ended in the surrender of the defenders. 148.252.103.34 (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose it fell after a seige. "Seige" very adequately describes the event. Don't go changing names every five seconds. It serves no good purpose. Cinderella157 23:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Commanders in infobox

I have pruned the commanders from the infobox, removing those that receive no mention or only a passing mention in the body of the article. In most cases, a passing mention was that they received a single mention. One may have received three mentions. In some cases, the mention was that they had been captured. This left two Ukranian commanders that received significant multiple mentions. Many of the commanders were reinstated by Mupper-san with this comment: Re-added military commanders who had a clear, properly-cited, specific role as commanding soldiers in Mariupol or were otherwise directly mentioned as leading forces within the article itself. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox summarises key points of the article. Consequently, the infobox should be supported by the article - we don't write the article in the infobox. Per WP:ONUS, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. One is only mentioned because they surendered. As for being properly cited, this source repors a death but not their command and this source does not even refer to the person whose inclusion it is meant to support. WP:P&G does not support the reinstatement as done. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• It is better to look at each case individually and make removals and edits as necessary, rather than removing all of them without editing the article at all. Mizintsev, for example, has been referred to by several reliable perennial sources as an important figure in the Siege of Mariupol, and as such, he should not be removed, but information in the Siege of Mariupol article should more properly note his status as a significant figure and leader of Russian military forces, as his own article does. To simply remove all of them, in my view, is much too hasty when it must be done on a case by case basis. On the matter of proper citations, I will admit that I did not look at every one of them, but I did remove those I did look at (particularly from the DPR) who did not seem to play a significant role in the Siege. Mupper-san (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

If Mizintsev should be prominantly mentioned in the article, then the article should be edited to reflect that. The infobox is like the lead, it should be written about the article - not the other way around. I did look at each commander individually to see how their role was reflected in the article. There is also the matter of WP:ONUS. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I could not agree more on both accounts! I absolutely agree that the article should be edited to more clearly note Russian/DPR commanders where verifiable and significant, and others of insignificant stature should be removed. Mupper-san (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

An entry in the infobox without context of significance in the article is meaningless and of no service to our readers. Until (or unless) the article establishes their significance, entries which are not supported by the article should be removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to say (as I previously stated on this talk page) that I don't agree with putting Prokopenko as the top commander. Azov, numerically, was not really that significant (I've seen numbers from RS that they numbered about 900 pre-invasion, and that's in the whole of the country, not just in Mariupol). So placing the commander of Azov foremost in the infobox may give the impression that they had the lead role, which is not true. I'd say he should be moved down a place or two Rousillon (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems like especially at the beginning, it was unclear who was in charge due to Russia making rapid progress early in the war:

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2022/06/9/7351390/

It seems like Azov became more and more important as the fighting became concentrated on Azovstal. Cononsense (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they were the only ones in Azovstal, just the ones that received the most amount of media attention. Rousillon (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

that's true. I think Serhii Volynskyi needs to be added to the list, since he led the remenants of the 36th brigade at azovstal. Cononsense (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through the list of commanders in the infobox individually (again). The two Ukrainian commanders are the only ones that are mentioned in the article in a meaningful way multiple times such as to establish their significance and justify their inclusion in the infobox. Pushilin is mentioned three times in the body of the article, twice for making press releases and finally, for attending the victory parade. None of these are meaningful to establishing him as a key or significant leader in the conduct of this particular engagement (in the same way that we aren't listing Putin or Zelenskyy). Passing mentions such as: they were there, they were killed or they were captured are not meaningful wrt establishing their prominence and significance as a commander. If commanders should be included in the infobox, then the article should reflect that they played a key or important role in the conduct of the engagement - ie the article would reflect at several points that their presence was consequential. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is there to capture key points of the article. We don't try to write the article in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your logic is convincing, but I fear following that we should go through all articles about the Middle Eastern battles of the last two decades and remove most/all commanders. Most of them are only in the infobox because they were killed. Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Smeagol 17, WP is improved by [small] increments. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but without consistent and widely disseminated guidelines and a relatively swift project to do that, I fear each article will have a revert war longer then this siege. Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The guidance is there, it just has to be read (and understood). There is the template documentation. It has some voice through MOS:MIL. More importantly, there is WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE that would say, that the infobox sumarises "key points" of the article and that we "don't write the article in the infobox". Quite clearly, if the article does not show that a commander was key to the events described then their inclusion is not a key point. If an entry has no mention at all in the article then it is writing the article in the infobox. If the sole reason for mentioning them at all is because they were killed or captured then it is non sequitur wrt the guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that, of course, never liked infoboxes with only crosses by grey names. Will do the cleaning when I will be on such a page, if it looks relatively uncontroversial. I just dont like to be involved in revert wars. Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

As do I. Infobox bloat in MilHist articles is generally frowned upon by the project. A neutral posting there will generally receive support for reducing infobox bloat IAW guidance. You might consider how the infobox at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has changed and how it has been changed. Yes, there were objections but there was no edit warring. It was done through WP:BRD, a strong case and some perseverance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)