Talk:Battle of Okhtyrka

Okhtyrka vacuum bomb attack

Was it part of the battle? There is no mention to that attack on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGoes (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

"Russian forces used a thermobaric bomb in the attack." as claimed just before the "Vacuum bomb" section is not what the given source (https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-vacuum-bomb-ukraine-invasion/) supports. The Politico-Article states, that Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States said so, not that it actually occurred. The article also states, that the White House refused to confirm, that it happened. So the above factual statement is a bit of a stretch. (also the pictures and video of weapons effect linked by Politico do not support the claim, but that is my own assessment and so not appropriate to put in the article) Suggest to add "…, Oksana Markarova, Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, told reporters." just as in the source. -- 80.137.45.13 (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

better even remove the sentence, since the following section seems to appropriately reflect, what is currently known. --80.137.45.13 (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Vacuum bomb split proposal

There was an article originally created for the vacuum bomb attack, but that was merged into this article. I believe it passes everything that a new articles needs. An ambassador confirmed the attack, so WP:CRYSTAL is not an issue and there are multiple international news organizations posting stories about this specific bombing attack, due to it being illegal in the Geneva Conventions (Ukrainian Ambassador says). I would say that has every marker to be its own article. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep together There are two issues here. First is whether the event is notable (WP:NEVENT) and second is whether the event should be covered in a standalone article right now (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCRYSTAL).
  Events have a specific notability guideline, and the decision on notability differs somewhat from the general notability guideline. News items can generate a lot of coverage in the period right after they happen, but notability in these cases is based upon how in-depth and enduring the coverage is. The issue with WP:CRYSTAL is that we often don't know what the impact of an event will be right when it happens. It's hard to figure out, and waiting for more coverage can be the best option. We also need to be wary of routine or sensationalized coverage. Allegations of war crimes are quite serious and the allegation alone will tend to generate a lot of coverage. What needs to be seen is how this coverage develops, whether independent reporting is done on the alleged crime, and whether it turns out to be a major or minor aspect of the overall coverage. Right now, I don't think the thermobaric bombing on its own is notable under these criteria.
  Even if the bombing were notable, that does not guarantee a stand-alone article. Notability create the creates a presumption but not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. The second issue with splitting right now is practical. This page is already very short, and the two topics are so intertwined that it doesn't make much sense to cover them separately. That doubles the work and creates risks. For example, we could have one article be very up-to-date and another very out-of-date, we could have a vandal cause problems that we would need to find and fix on multiple pages instead of just one, or we risk one of the articles turning into a a non-neutral fork covering the same content. Do the benefits of a stand-alone article outweigh those risks right now? At this point, I don't think so. We can cover the thermobaric bombing alongside the other topics here just fine right now. If anything, I think keeping the thermobaric bombing alongside the other events makes the article a better account of the event and encourages developing the other entries more fully to match it.
  Together, I think our coverage would be better if we had one article cover all the topics rather than two. If we get more reporting that goes in-depth, the alleged war crime turns out to be a major event in the course of the invasion (and not just predicted to be a major event), or our article becomes overly-focused on that one aspect, then I think those would be reasons to spin out the section into a new article. Right now though, I think it's best to have everyone work on the same page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• split - Been going through all the referenced sources - actually there is nothing linking the ambassadors statement to Okhtyrka. Only Politico reports it alongside Mayor Pavel Kuzmenko's claim (and that of Dmytro Zhyvytskyy, who again refers to Kuzmenko). Connecting both is purely on inference. The mayors claim, as far as I have seen in the sources referred to the oil depot attack - also conflation of reports there. Better have a separate article about the alleged use of thermobaric weapons in the conflict in general and not anchor the topic on Okhtyrka, when evidence as to the connection is that thin. --80.137.45.13 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Victory

The sources on the page say Russian troops were pushed back from the town. Is it time to call it a Ukrainian victory? Particularly considering that Trostianets is considered a Ukrainian victory, and Trostianets is between the frontlines and Okhtyrka. Wolf359Locutus (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Battle of Kherson which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)