Talk:January 2015 Mariupol rocket attack

Where is Stariy krim ?

if thats the claim - where is this place in gps coordinates or map references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.10.251 (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ther, approximately northwest of Mariupol Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

title and scope

Since, as of now, there hasn't yet been an "offensive on Mariupol", just the shelling of residential areas, shouldn't the title of the article and the scope be changed to "Shelling of Mariupol (January 2015)"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Article isn't about the shelling, it is about the "offensive" that is being launched. Your proposal, a narrow article, risks creating a ton of forks. RGloucester — ☎ 06:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

An offensive is being promised not being launched, afaik. This will clear itself up soon, but for now it's really about the shelling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: it's either have a broad article like this, or have a million narrow articles pop up. I prefer to contain the mess, from a pragmatic perspective, rather than to allow it to spread around. If it was up to me, this article wouldn't exist it all. As we have very eager editors around, here, however, we must do the best we can to contain forking. RGloucester — ☎ 07:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point. It'll probably be clearer in a day or two anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thinking a bit more about it, "Offensive" still seems inappropriate, as no such thing has taken place. There are sources which talk about an "offensive on Mariupol" but they're mostly about the promised offensive, which has not yet materialized (and the rebels are now saying they're not going to storm the city). How about "Assault on Mariupol"? That would address the concerns above and it is also a term used by the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the difference between an "assault" and an "offensive"? RGloucester — ☎ 01:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

An "offensive" is a kind of an assault. A sustained and (fairly) massive assault. Here, so far, it's just some shelling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I support the claim of Volunteer Marek about renaming the article. The real intention for the shelling is to spread terror. There is information on the news that militants eventually withdrew their intentions for offensive. Moreover, it is possibly could be qualified simply as a terrorist act. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

More attacks are expected to come, moreover its likely the Rebels will launch further attacks and succesfuly inflict military and civilian losses on the population. With the Donetsk fighting over, witch ended in a proganda victory, pro Russian troops will be eager to attack further enemy positions.200.48.214.19 (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. We don't know what will happen in the future. But for now, there has been no "offensive on Mariupol". An attack or an assault by artillery, yes. But not an offensive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it is quite clear that there is no "offensive" now, at least for the moment. Perhaps "attack on Mariupol", or something like that, will do. RGloucester — ☎ 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that this article should be renamed for now but we shouldn't delete it.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I also support the renaming of the article to something like January 2015 Mariupol attack or some such. No offensive going on at this time in that area. EkoGraf (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd support January 2015 Mariupol attack. It'll proscribe the time period to the shelling (as well as prevent POV forks). Best to contain it within well defined parameters. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine with me. RGloucester — ☎ 14:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Flag parade

What is up with flag parade? Andriy Biletsky is a Ukrainian official. The purpose of the Azov Battalion flag seems strange. It looks like it is placed with a purpose to emphasis or differentiate something. Are we still trying to show Ukraine as a country where took place a Nazist revolution??? Also, Azov and Donbas battalions are formations of the National Guard of Ukraine. It is strange why those units are shown separately and at same line with the National Guard of Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Azov its a Goverment entity, with fighting capabilities just like the NKVD in WW2.200.48.214.19 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Russian Federation forces ?

are you able to find other sources to confirm this news? UNIAN: Война, 26.01.2015 | 14:12 Корректировщик удара по Мариуполю признался, что обстрел вели российские военные user:suwa 16:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the war edits and no response in the discussion - there is no Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's in the article. [1] --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that the party was asking you about another Ukrainian, that is, an affiliated with one of the parties to the conflict, edition. Mistery Spectre (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and neutrality

I understand that the article is written mainly Ukrainian participants of a conflict of interest, but, let us recall the principles of working in other articles, In particular, the rules on the tribune wars edits, or even open misrepresentation Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, your diffs do not show any conflict of interest or misrepresentation. Now, speaking about RT, there is general consensus among many contributors that RT is not an WP:RS, although it is probably reliable for sourcing official claims by the Russian government. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

By consensus among Ukrainian participants who have no conflict of interest in the description of the war in Ukraine? Well, yes, yes. In this case, I do not understand why Ukrainian propaganda we can pull as much in the card (besides more of the statements supplied in the article as fact), so if the Russian have such a consensus. I'm not greedy, here's more link. Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You need a conflict of interest as well? What prevented him adjust, or express a claim on the talk page? And do not roll back the accusation? Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place. If you have such concerns, please report them here. Please also remember about WP:Not a forum. Obviously, lenta.ru is also no longer a reputable sources, since the entire editorial team has been recently removed. My very best wishes (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand that is not a forum. But what if I do not know the language, and the group members will try in any way to restore your version? Why is it not the source? What is wrong with the new journalists? You generally think that the publication of lying about the official position of the government? Approach to the source of the English Wikipedia, I definitely like it. Mistery Spectre (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

more neutral and no conflict of interest Mistery Spectre (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to figure out what the conflict of interest is. You're removing information from Ukraine's security service on who the commander that carried out the attack was. As it stands, all of Europe (and the war is in Europe, mind you) and North America agrees Russia is at war with Ukraine; Russia denies this (despite mountains of evidence, admissions, everything in the book). Your solution is to side with Russia and omit any reference to them. This is not a conflict of interest? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

And now, after this rostrum, attempts to replace the subject, give the charge of one of the parties for the fact of denial and cover up his other hand, you deny a conflict of interest? Oh well. Mistery Spectre (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this position - all of Europe and North America agrees; mountains of evidence, admissions, everything in the book - is that there is actually no proof beyond all doubts, that official Russian armed forces are engaged in the conflict. All we have so far are statements. Indeed, statements from official sources, which are either the Ukrainian government or western news agencies, which base their reports on Ukrainian official statements. And all such statements should be reviewed with bit of a salt - the initial source - the Ukrainian officials - hardly could be considered neutral, don't you agree? Same goes for the western government officials - from the start of the conflict they've sided, understandably, with the government in Kiev. And it's also understandable, that all statements they would make are in support of the Ukrainian position and point of view. This, however, is far cry from neutrality. And the Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, am I correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You raise a good point since some parts of Europe, and the REST of the world, are convinced that Ukraine profiteers, with America's support, are engaged in a program of ethnic cleansing of East Ukraine for profit. This appears to be highly offensive to Russia (an immediate neighbour). Both points of view are likely to surface in the same article, with accusations disparaging the other side's neutrality. How are the opposing sides going to be sorted out since both could be claiming a neutral point of view based on researched facts? Santamoly (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Santamoly, I would remind you that this is a talk page, not a soapbox. Also, please don't break up the thread. Finally, it might serve you a little better to actually know the history of the area (rather than talking WP:BOLLOCKS) before you start bandying around colourful assertions about 'ethnic cleansing', adding to the WP:GEVAL frippery started by the IP you're responding to. We use secondary sources, not speculation to establish WP:NPOV. If you have problems with how Wikipedia policy works, you shouldn't be editing here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

irina you wont get anywhere speaking like this. There are more polite ways of complaining the "ethnic cleasing" remark by that user. Be respectfull, dont bite newcomers.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the observation, Mr.User200, but Santamoly is by no means a newcomer and knows better. You, on the other hand, are a newcomer, therefore I can appreciate your concern as to how discussions should be tackled on WP:TALK pages. On the other hand, singling me out for a reprimand is a little outside of assuming good faith. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Splitting Article

I'd recommend splitting the article between the January artillery strike and the February Ukrainian offensive. The two are differing incidents and the latter should get its own article particularly as the rebels have counter attacked quite heavily in the past 24 hours. Maybe February Azov Sea offensive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.62.111 (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats not a bad idea, but we will need some more information first.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Better idea is to change the name of this article back and expand. It is still very short. RGloucester — ☎ 23:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: What should we call the article? Example: Mariupol fighting (January-February 2015)

We could do the old-fashioned "Mariupol standoff (January 2015–present)", like we used to do. RGloucester — ☎ 00:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd accept "Mariupol standoff (January 2015–present)" as the best title proposal at this stage. I definitely don't want to see undesirable split-offs to accommodate the renewed push. It certainly doesn't appear to be going away for March, so January-February doesn't work. Best left open-ended. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How about "2015 Mariupol attack" and "Battle of Shyrokyne"? D3RP4L3RT (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@DERPALERT: Having allowed for a little time, I don't believe there is enough in the way of RS to merit splitting the article. At this stage, my preference would be for retaining it as the one article and renaming it as "Mariupol standoff (January 2015–present)". I see this a matter of practicality in keeping related content in the one article as opposed to a split-off into two stubs prone to POV development. If you have a compelling argument for the necessity to split, I'm quite prepared to listen to legitimate arguments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Shyrokyne is located about 10km east from Mariupol and about 30km west from Novoazovsk and during last weeks the fighting has been there almost continuous (see e.g. links in estwiki article: Shyrokyne: Media coverage), only yesterday one Georgian volunteer from "Azov" was killed in action.
Attack on 24 January 2015 that targeted civilians with multiple rocket launchers "smells" more like a war crime, not a military action...
So, against splitting, only 24 Jan. seems to deserve a separate article, perhaps.—Pietadè (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I do see the merit in this argument, Pietade, but the "smells more like" is on the WP:OR and WP:FRINGE side of the argument. I'm smelling potential COATRACK unless it's handled based on RS commentary. Is anyone aware of something more substantial in the list of RS on estwiki? Are there any English language articles covering the current battle? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

From time to time OSCE visits the site and reports (see e.g. ref No. 115 in the art. Donbass Timeline, 22 April), perhaps there would be sense to use search (OSCE site). Allison Quinn mentions (16 Apr.) the decline in the population (from 1411 to 34); yet this seems to be extra out of ordinary that she managed to visit the site. —Pietadè (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, just now BBC World News broadcasts from Shyrokyne —Pietadè (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC) ... Pubished too: Ukraine troops shelled by pro-Russian rebels near Mariupol —Pietadè (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The title of the article at this point is missleading. The standoff is not at Mariupol, it is at Shyrokyne (10km away) and both the news media and the OSCE regularly report on clashes in that village so its notable enough. Thus I agree with 165.228.62.111, Arbutus the tree, D3RP4L3RT and Pietadè. The article should be split and the rocket attack should have its own article (which this one was before it was expanded). The other article can be called ether Battle of Shyrokyne or the Shyrokyne standoff. EkoGraf (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the CampaignBox lists the 2 as separate. D3RP4L3RT (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I concede that there are enough RS to treat these as separate battles. Ultimately, however, we're still stuck with the problem that each of the battles are essentially part of the same war. At the moment, Wikipedia is still plagued by WP:RECENTISM with users creating new articles every time a new round of reportage on the shifting frontlines emerges. We need to differentiate between episodes and find a method for determining and depicting major and minor events. The only thing acting as a form of WP:DAB is Timeline of the war in Donbass. What is really needed is some overall method of disambiguating related and significant battles without crystal ball divination (i.e., the importance of shifts in the frontlines are addressed after new outbreaks of fighting are reported, not vice versa). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have created the Shyrokyne standoff (February 2015–present) article and updated/expanded it with even more info about the fighting in that village that wasn't included in this article before. EkoGraf (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Nicely done, EkoGraf. Referencing this as the main article is a reasonable compromise. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Update Casualties

Looking through the article, I saw 5 Ukrainian soldier deaths (1 after Jan 24 attack, 2 azov battalion, 2 recent) D3RP4L3RT (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant

Sep 2, 2022, 20:48 - «Attack: not fully relevant to the article»

@DatGuy: What do you mean? The death of family has happened directly as result of rockets attack.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe that singling out a specific group of people that died because they were a family isn't necessary, and the relevant facts given in the death/injury toll are sufficient to provide an understanding of the situation. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Are we ok to add just 4 more deaths? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)