Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Mariupol

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

Ivantsov

[edit]

I see his story got some decent coverage "Краще смерть, ніж полон". Історія втечі українського військового з "Азовсталі" - BBC News Україна
Ukrainian soldier survives hell of Azovstal and walks to freedom (euromaidanpress.com) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

[edit]

Russian commanders and leaders - Vladimir Frolov needs to be added (source (in Russian): https://web.archive.org/web/20220616215054/https://www.infobae.com/ru/2022/04/16/ukraine-killed-russian-general-vladimir-frolov-who-commanded-the-offensive-in-mariupol/) MylowattsIAm (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. This addition is not supported by the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this supposed to mean? I simply said that Frolov should get added in the commanders and leaders section underneath Mishustin. The article would simply get used as a reference that he was indeed a commander and isn't added out of thin air. That would in no way make the infobox no longer summarize key facts from the article. The addition is supported by the article as it clearly states that he commanded the troops during the siege. MylowattsIAm (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the article does it tell us who Frolov is and what they did of significance that would lead to their being placed in the infobox. There is nothing in the article to tell us this. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox summarises key facts from the article. If he ain't there, he can't be a key fact from the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: BBC article says 25,000 people not civilians

[edit]


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
Ukrainian officials reported that approximately 25,000 civilians had been killed
+
Ukrainian officials reported that approximately 25,000 people had been killed
In early November, Ukraine stated that at least 25,000 civilians had been killed in Mariupol.
+
In early November, Ukraine stated that at least 25,000 people had been killed in Mariupol.

also please change it in the infobox.

  • Why it should be changed:

The linked BBC article says:

> Ukrainian officials now believe that at least 25,000 people were killed in the fighting in Mariupol, and that 5,000-7,000 of them died under the rubble after their homes were bombed. Mariupol had a pre-war population of nearly 500,000.

It does not say civilians. Alternatively, do not change it but add a citation needed tag or verification failed tag.

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Bowad91017 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found an Al Jazzeera article that says 25,000 civilians. There is no need to change it to people, just add the Al Jazeera article as a source. ‘I had no idea I’d never go back’: Mariupol survivors, a year on | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera Bowad91017 (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Done I added the new source in all 3 places where the BBC article is referenced, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement of “western media” calling the siege a pyrrhic victory should be removed

[edit]

1. The statement falsely implies that the reports of the pyrrhic victory are biased or controlled by the Western establishment, even though they are very credible and unbiased (as opposed to the Guardian, which is less credible and slightly more biased).

2. The Guardian is also “Western media,” so how come it isn’t mentioned as such but DW and The Times are? LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you talking about the statement in the lead? Please be more precise when you are making comments about an article. The lead has "some Western reports" and then lists them in the notes; the Guardian is not one of them (but maybe I don't understand your point about the Guardian). And no, it does not imply that those sources are "biased or controlled". Drmies (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]