Talk:Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 4 May 2024, see discussion.
keep, 4 May 2024, see discussion.

Military history: National / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Assessed by the ISW[edit]

@Salfanto, Where the ISW has assessed that "the battalion engaged Ukrainian forces near the village of Urozhaine" [1] ? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In their campaign assessment: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-28-2023 Salfanto (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see the ISW assessed that. Please provide the quote. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, DECEMBER 28, 2023: ISW continues to assess that the use of Ukrainian POWs in the “Bogdan Khmelnitsky” battalion is likely a violation of The Geneva Convention on POWs, which prohibits the use of POWs in military activities on the side of the power that has captured them and states that “no POW may at any time be sent to or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone” and shall not “be employed on labor which is of an unhealthy or dangerous nature.” Salfanto (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But your edit provided above says that According to Russian press, on 28 December 2023, the battalion engaged Ukrainian forces near the village of Urozhaine.[12] This was later assessed by the ISW on the same day.[13] ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The claim was assessed by the ISW in their Russian campaign assessment for December 28rd 2023. Salfanto (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered the contradiction raised in the message above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the contradiction? The Russian press claimed that on 28 December 2023, the battalion engaged Ukrainian forces near the village of Urozhaine. The ISW then assessed the claim of the battalion engaging Ukrainian forces. Salfanto (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ISW then assessed the claim of the battalion engaging Ukrainian forces.
No, and you provided no quote for this. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article or here? If it's not in the article then I can fix that right now Salfanto (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You provided no confirming quote from the source for that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article or here? I provided the quote above Salfanto (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked for a quote here, and you provided no quote confirming the text you added. The quote you provided above is not confirming the text you added. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote I added is from the ISW campaign assessment Salfanto (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm missing something please let me know Salfanto (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]