Talk:Battle of Debaltseve

Map
The map were are using right now is from the war in donbass, which is good for now. However, i was wonder if we could use a map from open street map.com or something?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I inserted this map because it shows the "pocket", which is hard to describe in text. If you can find a better map that shows that pocket, and is free, that'd be good. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Name
The battle is much wider than the town itself. The media calls it the "Debaltseve pocket" --93.137.140.68 (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how the battle is described in English-language RS. Regardless, think of the Battle of Moscow, for example. Battles are often named for the "centre" or "target" of the operations, even if most of the operations take place away from that centre. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Debaltseve pocket does seem to be the more common nomenclature in media. Also, it's very common for a battle occuring in a salient to be referenced as a pocket (see Medak Pocket, Battle of the Korsun–Cherkassy Pocket, Falaise Pocket, etc). Let's get some more discussion going and see if a page move is in order. JamesBay (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is it common in the media? The only reference I've heard in mainstream media is to Debaltseve as a "kettle". I've seen no reference to a "pocket" in mainstream sources. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The use of "Debaltsevo pocket" appeared once in a Ukraine Today article, though it was written in October, 2014. --BlueYearning (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Interfax Ukraine has referred to it as the Debaltseve pocket, as has the leader of the DNR , and Euromaidan Press . JamesBay (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I said "mainstream" Anglophone sources. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Azov
Is Azov really taking part in the battle of Debaltseve? The source quoted, from Kyiv post, does not indicate it - and from what I gather from other sources, they've not been relocated from Mariupol - which is 100 miles away. Jezups (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, then you should remove the entry. Alexpl (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pocket vs "kettle"
I suggest changing all "kettles" into pockets, including the title of a section (Closing the "kettle"). As far as I know, "kettle" is a rough translation from Russian/Ukrainian, and the right translation is pocket. Example: Ruhr Pocket.--Adûnâi (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, RS refer to it as a "kettle", e.g. The New York Times as cited. We don't use OR translations. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Kettle is a specific Soviet/Russian military term/analogy whereby majority of a area is encircled and they 'apply heat' forcing the sieged party to blow out the top like steam. --LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 04:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Lorries
The word "lorry" is British English, the APC page says "Britain designed the first purpose built armoured troop transport, the Mark IX", referring to a terrestrial vehicle, so "transport" seems to be the appropriate term here.

men in white, article
theres some interesting info here in interpretermag about Russian vehicles and military advisors? in white - near debaltsevo, - has video shot by the separatist fighters Sayerslle (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

God save us, the infobox has become a monster
A certain editor has introduced a huge bloat into the infobox, to the point where it dominates the whole article. Additions include minuscule battalions of little interest, and non-existent entities such as the "Donbass People's Militia". Can we please remove all this rubbish? The article should not be dominated by the infobox. It should only summarise key points. RGloucester — ☎ 19:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of cleaning, to remove non-RS additions and to making it tidy. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense too. Russian Armed Forces !!! Saint Aviator  lets talk 07:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

10,000 soldiers, 12 tanks and 1 rocket system in the infobox
So the Ukrainian soldiers have 12 tanks and just 1 rocket system in the pocket? It doesn't seem plausible.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Some soldiers have been evacuated most sources claim by 17 Feb over 5,000 to 8,000 men inside the salient/pocket/cauldron whatever... Very strange the 12 tanks, 1 rocket system claim.200.48.214.19 (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Krivbass" battalion &c.
I removed this stuff (from one Polish source) because I cannot verify it anywhere. It does not appear in any English language sources, nor in any of the Ukrainian ones that I have access to. Unless it is cross-referenced, it certainly cannot be used. I've not even heard that this battalion is taking part in this battle. If someone cannot provide a source to verify it with, I'll remove it again. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza is a reliable, mainstream source(also pro-Ukrainian) and one of the largest daily newspapers. There is no reason to remove this information. If you believe Gazeta Wyborcza is not a RS, please take it to RSN. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say it is not RS. °I said that everything must be cross-referenced. If a particular piece of information appears in only one source, and that source is not even an English source, that information cannot be used. Without cross-referencing, the information is unverifiable and WP:UNDUE. This is especially true because various Anglophone sources reported the other part of the Gazeta article, i.e. the part about escape corridor, but never reported the bit about Krivbass. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 I said that everything must be cross-referenced.If a particular piece of information appears in only one source, and that source is not even an English source, that information cannot be usedPlease can you quote the appropriate passage from the appropriate Wikipedia policy on this? I am looking forward to reading it. Kind regards. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is called WP:V. Regardless, you've now added a direct source, so that should be fine. Please do not add bare urls, which leads to link rot. Please use Template:Cite web. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "It is called WP:V" Sorry, but I can't find any passage stating anything like that in the link you provide.Could you help me to find it so that we will be clear on this? Thank you.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". RGloucester  — ☎ 02:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

, you've already been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_in_Donbass#The_New_York_Times:Ukrainian_side_delivered_fake_photographs_to_convince_USA_of_Russian_involvement. expressly asked] to stop jumping the gun. Reiterating: your editing and talk page behaviour on many articles surrounding current events in Ukraine has been noted as being disruptive at the least, but more likely intentionally WP:POINTy. Again, I am asking as politely and civilly as merited that you desist from repeatedly throwing any article that tickles your POV into the mix without following through on other reportage. Any issues of significance will be reported in other RS. Please abstain from WP:RECENTISM and journalism by shouting "Eureka!" in section headers and pointing to any piece of dross you come by. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Control by insurgents by 17 Feb.
KP claims a Kyivan Rus volunteer battalion volunteer said Insurgents control over 90% of Debalselve, another disaster looming for Ukranian Forces and politicians. http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/ukrainian-soldiers-captured-as-defeat-looms-in-debaltseve-381007.html 200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A day later the same info is confirmed by an Ukranian Authority. In the Eastern transport hub of Debaltseve about 80% is Rebel Held.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-prorussian-rebels-ambush-and-seize-kiev-troops-during-continued-fighting-in-the-strategic-town-of-debaltseve-despite-ceasefire-deal-10052339.html http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/the-independent-pro-russian-rebels-ambush-and-seize-kyiv-troops-during-continued-fighting-in-the-strategic-town-of-debaltseve-despite-ceasefire-381079.html 200.48.214.19 (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

American National Captured by rebels/militias on D. Cauldron
RT in Spanish claim a Volunteer Sniper (American National) have been captured in the couldron. Any infor about this?200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Captured equipment.
It seems that the anti-mortar radar system supplied by USA has been captured-the AN/TPQ-49.It was documented on video taken by rebels. I have also seen numerous videos of captured tanks, APC's and howitzers.I am looking for RS sources describing the amount of equipment captured.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Guys (you and the ip above), find reliable sources first, then come here. Don't use the talk page to post speculations or stuff that may very well be misinformation. That's not what the talk page is for.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The radar story is now confirmed by Ukrainian side: http://112.ua/obshchestvo/pri-othode-iz-debalcevo-byla-broshena-noveyshaya-amerikanskaya-radiolokacionnaya-stanciya-zhurnalist-193894.html and http://112.ua/obshchestvo/v-sektore-s-podtverdili-unichtozhenie-amerikanskogo-protivominometnogo-radara-pri-vyhode-iz-debalcevo-zhurnalist-194774.html However, Butusov (Poroshenko presidential aide) claims that radar was destroyed and only "repair parts" for it got captured by rebels. Also, the video published by LifeNews shows the serial number (https://i0.wp.com/voicesevas.cdnvideo.ru/img/a473de8d63c1b554e5b2678d8cd88b4b.jpg) and it does match that of published in document https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-W-uvmIUAAVENr.jpg So the radar - or at least parts of it - capture are confirmed by both sides. 174.67.194.217 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, according to the second source you provided, the box that appears on the Russian TV was not the radar (radar is much bigger), but a couple of spare parts/repair kit. Capturing a repair kit is hardly something notable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that radar is actually not "much bigger" - it's actually transportable in those 3 specific crates that are shown on the video. Also it's discussed in detail in lots of sources, like Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies blog - http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1186680.html - so basically Butusov just blatantly lied again and the radar is indeed captured. 174.67.194.217 (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Russia newspaper confirms presence of Russian troops
According to this, the Russian newspaper Kommersant describes how Russian troops were used in the battle. --Nug (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither Novorossiya, not Russia aren't declaring that Russian soldiers are there - only that, they're there on their own, not as part of a whole unit of any size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.42.10.77 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by the IP above, it's merely a confirmation of what reliable sources have been telling us for a long time, and as attested to in the content of other articles we have on the subject of the crisis in Ukraine. It can certainly be included as a supplementary ref in those articles, but nothing new is being said about the presence of individual Russian soldiers who've joined in the fighting off duty. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where in the link does it mention these soldiers were "off duty"? --Nug (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nug, these are regular Russian soldiers who are made to go fight in Ukraine by their officers. They're not "off duty". This is what the sources are reporting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That there are Russian volunteers among the rebels is nothing new.A lot of Russian families in Ukraine have relatives in Russia and some of them came as volunteers when fighting started to protect their families and relatives.That some of them have military experience is nothing extraordinary.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop obfuscating. You know that that isn't what this is about. Anyone who goes around repeating that Kremlin line that the Russian soldiers in Ukraine are just "volunteers" and expects to be taken seriously is either not neutral enough or not competent enough to edit articles such as these.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with the article is that it is, in itself, obtuse in its wording. It doesn't say that they're off duty, neither does it say that they're on duty. Arriving in threes and what could be only one or two lots from a single battalion doesn't demonstrate official deployment. Talking about what some of their superior's opinions are only attests to personal discussions and attitudes. There is still nothing to attest to anything other than some troops being allowed to take leave with a blind eye being turned (with a nudge and a wink, plus a few words of advice). Has anyone found the original Kommersant article? It may be clearer. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't VM push the idea that Russian news sources are unreliable on Wikipedia? Did it change now? "Anyone who goes around repeating that Kremlin line that the Russian soldiers in Ukraine are just "volunteers" and expects to be taken seriously is either not neutral enough or not competent enough" I am sorry Marek but you are now in a stage where you deny other points of view simply because they don't confirm to yours(which to many will come of as quite controversial to say the least), this is not how Wikipedia works, which needs to follow neutrality.And there is no need to explain that somebody who simply states the obvious(Russians in Ukraine have relatives in Russia, these relatives often try to help their families) is not "following Kremlin line" but simple logic.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence in the form of a diff that I have ever "push(ed) the idea that Russian news sources are unreliable on Wikipedia". Otherwise please strike your false accusation.
 * And it's not "my" point of view, it's the "point of view" of reliable sources. This particular source may not explicitly state that the Russian soldiers were forced to go to Ukraine by their officers. There are plenty of other sources which say exactly that. Then we have Russian paratroopers who accidentally get "lost" in Ukraine. Then we have evidence of secret burials of soldiers who were sent to Ukraine while on active duty. Then we have human rights workers and families of killed Russian soldiers who are intimidated and harassed for asking what happened to their children. Then we have top leaders of the pro-Russian separatists who are not only Russian citizens but have strong associations with the FSB. Etc. etc. etc. This is all in reliable sources. So yes, anyone who's following the Kremlin line that these are all just "Russians on their vacations" is ignoring reliable sources and is either non-neutral or delusional.
 * And oh yeah. Quit playing rhetorical tricks. Of course some Russians have relatives in Ukraine. But it does not follow from that that the Russian soldiers fighting actively in Ukraine are volunteers. You are putting forth a reasonable and obvious premise, but drawing a ridiculous and unwarranted conclusion from that premise, and when called on this you are saying "hey, my premise is perfectly obvious, this is just simple logic". It's not. It's actually a straightforward logical fallacy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Marek, but your claim that people disagreeing with you are "following Kremlin line" or delusional are just...bizarre, but seem to go along with piling up one extreme and fantastic conspiracy theory after another piled up to the point of absolute ridiculousness in my eyes, based on extremely biased and politically engaged sources, who become reliable as soon as they support any of this theories.Since you do at least appear to be believe all of this I am afraid we aren't able to engage in constructive discussion here.In any case for the moment I am busy with other articles and will temporary withhold from editing this and other related articles. We have worked together for many years on many articles and corresponded privately even.Because of this I will say this for the sake of old times:perhaps you don't realize it but a short break to reflect on what you are writing here would be good? These statements are becoming very..let's say engaged Marek.A bit of detachment is good.From an old colleague with deep sympathy.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Everyone knows that regular Russian troops are taking part in nearly all operations, including that one, as described in a lot of sources, for example . There is little to discuss. My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but this article isn't the smoking gun pointing directly to the Kremlin. It's good as an additional ref supporting that Russian troops are right in the thick of it, but there's plenty in the way of demonstrating tacit support by the Kremlin already (from 'respecting' the outcome of the elections, toying with the Minsk agreements, etc.). Aside from that, it's self-evident that if the Kremlin was actively trying to discourage intervention, they would certainly have put penalties in place in order to prevent members of their armed services from participating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

° If there is evidence of regular Russian army on the front we would seen it already. Every couple of days there are new evidences which turns out to be false claims and no one is ashamed of this, even ones putting up those ,,evidences,, are MD people or NATO generals. World without a shame. Only relevant body to say are there any Russian troops are OSCE observers on the ground. Lamberto Zannier secretary general of OSCE, denies presence of Russian troops in Ukraine.--217.23.192.158 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

abandoned?
President Poroshenko ordered a ceasefire for Feb. 15th for his forces. The separatists continued to attack Debaltseve. So - have the forces of Ukraine continued to provide longrange artillerysupport for the the defenders of Debaltseve? Or did they obey the ceasefire ordered by Poroshenko? This should be mentioned in the article. Alexpl (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it deserves mention, but i remember Poroshenko wisely said he ordered the organized retreat of Debeltseve, just to avoid claims of abandoning the integrity of its troops. Just in time. hehe.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to know if supporting fire by artillery was available or not. Otherwise - its just speculation. Alexpl (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester and his edits
RGloucester did not like "the separatists claimed" in my edit. But exactly this he should like, I suppose, especially with respect to the rule he mentioned. So please, RGloucester, do not change my wording again. This article is not only yours. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't mine. "Said" is the only neutral description according to the MoS. Please use NPOV wording, as demanded by our MoS. Also, per MOS:RETAIN, "that" in reference to people must be retained. This is standard in British English, where "who" and "that" are considered interchangeable. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no proofs that official Russian military forces were involved into the Battle. There are no photo/video materials, nor verified inteligence report. Just .pdf from unauthorized source which has no further links.

Why this page speads fears, speculations and assumptions? Is Wikipedia officially accepted place of propaganda?
 * separatist fighter admits Russian tanks troops decisive Russian soldiers have given up pretending they are not fighting in Ukraine 92.3.15.181 (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL, guys, the Daily Telegrapth starts publishing whispers and you are trying to use it as verified source? Why you do not reference to grandmother's talks? Provided links do not contain any photo/video material that proofs direct involment of Russian troops, while everybody in the region does have smartphone cameras. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.165.171.152 (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * here is photo material - - but LOL for sure guys, is all made up for sure, everybody knows Russians are not in Ukraine really and is all crazy talk of grandmothers talks? 92.3.2.20 (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

16 January???
Why 16 January? Even the article says heavy shelling started on the 17th and rebels began attacking on the 22nd. D3RP4L3RT (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

putin at war report - tracks Russian soldiers - including from Mongolian/Russian border all the way to debaltseve
putin at war report 92.3.15.0 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Russian / Separatist casualties
I have noticed that only the numbers provided by the separatists themselves are included. I am not judging the veracity or their numbers. I am suggesting that Ukrainian government provided numbers should be included:


 * (video - in Ukrainian) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKiO90zJeu4#t=686
 * (text - in Russian) http://news.liga.net/video/politics/9067173-bitva_za_debaltsevo_v_genshtabe_pokazali_itogovuyu_videografiku.htm

Ukrainian government forces' casualties for the entire duration of the fighting around Debaltseve are as follows: 136 military personnel dead, 331 wounded, 127 armored vehicles destroyed. Specifically for the period of Jan. 15 - Feb. 18 these casualties are as follows: 110 dead, 270 wounded, 7 captured, 18 MIA. Ukrainian Government's estimates of Russian losses are as follows - around 800 dead, around 200 armored vehicles destroyed.

Again, I am not arguing for the veracity of these numbers. I am just reporting what Ukrainian government's casualty estimates were.Goliath74 (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We have an agreement on these Ukrainian crisis articles to only include the numbers of dead provided by the people who's dead they are. In other words, we haven't used separatist reports of Ukrainian dead or Ukrainian reports of Russian/separatist dead, as these are difficult to verify. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps that agreement should be referenced in the text so that readers understand the inherent bias in the numbers. The Kiev government is obviously reporting ludicrously low casualty figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.82.230 (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Debaltseve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150203033243/http://info-news.eu/isa-munayev-died-in-the-battle-for-debaltseve/ to http://info-news.eu/isa-munayev-died-in-the-battle-for-debaltseve/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/ukraine-debaltseve-s-residents-reaching-breaking-point-2015-02-03

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Ghost Brigade.svg

Orphaned references in Battle of Debaltseve
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Debaltseve's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "pravda.com.ua": From Armed Forces of Ukraine: https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2019/10/8/7228477/ From Battle of Mariupol (May–June 2014):  From Security Service of Ukraine: https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2019/08/29/7224800/ From Nadiya Savchenko: https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2019/06/26/7219206/ From Volodymyr Groysman:  From Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine: </li> <li>From Timeline of the War in Donbass (2014): </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Good article: this narrative should be used in Donbas War article
The info in this article seems reasonably accurate and appropriately detail oriented. I like it. However, in the Donbas War main article, the summary of the Debaltsevo battle is incomplete and inaccurate. Please see my lengthy objections in the Talk Page for that article.

On that Talk Page, I've listed six New York Times articles dating from February 2015 to substantiate my claims about the facts concerning this engagement. Perhaps the editors here (who have done a good job) could take a look at that Wiki article, including my arguments, and contribute to the discussion about how to improve it? A more factually accurate synopsis of this important juncture of the Donbass Campaign would improve the Donbas War article greatly, IMO. Kenmore (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was one of the main contributors to this article. Again, you fail to understand how things work. The war in Donbas article cannot include all the detail of this article, for it would otherwise be too long. That's why this article exists in the first place! RGloucester  — ☎ 13:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

“Mostly Wagner forces”
The source used in this citation says several Wagner forces took part in this battle. That seems like quite a stretch into “mostly”, especially when they aren’t even listed as combatants in the participants table. Can this be revised? 70.115.27.99 (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)