Jump to content

Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GodzillamanRor (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 24 June 2023 (→‎Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2023: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cohesion

I read through the main part of the article that details what happened on each day. It reads like a totally random selection of villages and dates and numbers of tanks lost. This is not good. It is undue whether some blogger thinks there is rain, and how many Bradleys a Polish expert counted. Especially in light of the real experts stating it is too early to tell. I would suggest we take a step back and don't try to turn this into a live blog. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though I’m not totally sure how to fix it. Due to fog of war and Ukrainian OPSEC, we’re essentially forced to write this article covering everything that happens on the front since June 8 since no one seems to have a definition of exactly what and where the counteroffensive - much less its parts - is. As a start, we could maybe add more overview of where the different places are, and group microsections about the same sectors together (eg: the Velyka Novosilka sector, the Orikhiv sector) rather than going completely chronologically. HappyWith (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should Kherson be counted as another front

I measn just looking at the map, the Kakhovka Reservoir offers a real and tangible geographical barrier separating it from the front in southern Dontesk/Zaporizhzhia. Shouldn't it be considered its own front? Actions in Kherson have no bearing or overarching operations with operations in southern Dontesk/Zaporizhzhia and eastern Dontesk/Luhansk. Scu ba (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premature to be discussing this at all. Pretty much every expert agrees that the odds of a Dnieper crossing is slim to none. If there is a real organized attempt to establish a bridgehead, then it can be discussed. ProjectHorizons (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the ‘Tavria Front’ part of this battle?

The Ukrainian MoD has published semi-daily updates about fighting on the Tavria Front, including Russian personnel and equipment losses. Could these updates be applied here? I’m unsure, as I don’t see Tavria on the available map. Tomissonneil (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tavria is the Ukrainian name for the geographic region which is roughly equivalent to Kherson oblast plus west Zaporizhzhia oblast. Essentially, the “Tavria Front” is the southern front. HappyWith (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tavria front is the push towards Vasylivka, mostly referring to fighting in Lobkove and Piatykhatky (northern boundary of Tavria being the 40kmish stretch between Molochansk and Vasylivka). Scu ba (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subsectioning

@Bluenose Gunner In your edit summary removing the central "counteroffensive" section header, you say it's "to remove need to scroll through all of the eastern section iot get to the southern one". I don't get it. You can use the table of contents either way, and this edit doesn't make the article any more or less long, it just makes it less clear to the reader that these are two concurrent fronts of the same counteroffensive and adds more redundant text. HappyWith (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two fronts are clearly indicated by the existence of two titled sections. When everything is in one section, a reader who wants the latest info on the southern axis has to scroll through all of the eastern axis first to find it Bluenose Gunner (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a reader have to scroll through the eastern axis? One can just use the table of contents. HappyWith (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Table of contents are not available with smart phones, which I suspect many readers use to access this content. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluenose Gunner If you mean the browser version, there's a button next to article's title that brings up the table. Ms372 (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ive just changed it back. It is not an issue with any other article with the same format. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
problem with this article is that the counteroffensive sections get longer each day as more info is added for the day just past. Thus, with the smart phone version,one has to scroll through an ever-growing list of historical info for the eastern axis to reach the newest updates for it and even more so for the southern axis. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But how would removing the main “counteroffensive” header remove that problem? The eastern axis passage is still as big as before. HappyWith (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that each section is as big as it is. However, by making the axes separate sections at least the smart phone reader does not have to scroll through the entire eastern axis write-up in order to get to the start of the southern axis discussion. This scrolling issue will become even more of a problem if an additional (third) front opens up along the lower Dnipro River.
With separate sections the reader can head to the axis that interests them. Since I work almost solely using a smart phone, I can assure you that the constant need to scroll along a small screen to get to the current day's additions can be quite off-putting.
Please, let's leave it easy for the smart phone users, who are probably a large part of the readership - especially during the working day. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other pages about military topics that are grouped like that. World War II has all the different fronts contained within a "History" section, Russian invasion of Ukraine does the same, as do Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present) and World War I. This appears to be universally general practice. Additionally, for a more official confirmation WikiProject Military History's content guide advises a structure more similar to the original structure of this article. This isn't enough of an accessibility issue to justify the change, especially when there are so many articles that have been this way for decades without this problem. @Bluenose Gunner I should also warn you that you appear to be close to crossing WP:3RR. HappyWith (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is very topical. I, and perhaps numerous other readers, check it at least daily to try and get a sense for what is happening in a dynamic situation. Thus, scrolling through lengthy older text to get to the latest info on events is tedious with a smart phone.
My changes simply seek to ease that burden. The format that you wish to use is designed for the desktop/laptop version of Wikipedia. There is no table of contents in the smart phone version.
So, my question is: why must smart phone readers be limited by a format designed for historical articles that will change little when they are trying to follow current events in an important and rapidly changing topic? Surely, we can "err" on the side of ease of access instead of being "handcuffed" by format that is not really relevant? Bluenose Gunner (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
button not found in smart phone version Bluenose Gunner (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluenose Gunner This is not helpful. You need to be more specific. What program do you use when editing Wikipedia? Ms372 (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I access Wikipedia using the Samsung Internet program on my smart phone. I have not found any table of contents when I do so Bluenose Gunner (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluenose Gunner The wikipedia app has the table and many other features. You can get it from here:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.wikipedia&hl=en_US&gl=US&referrer=utm_source%3Dgoogle%26utm_medium%3Dorganic%26utm_term%3Dwikipedia+app&pcampaignid=APPU_1_M5eQZJdjwcT0A5Gbg7AF Ms372 (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bluenose Gunner (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluenose Gunner Just to confirm, are you okay with restoring the "Counteroffensive" superheader now that your viewing issue is fixed? HappyWith (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon,
Thank you for the question. Yes, I am good with the single superheader. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Glad we could come to an agreement. HappyWith (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we have that sorted then. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Start date

Are we sure we would want to have June 4 listed as the start date? I think June 8 might be a more viable option considering the Ukrainian MoD dismissed the Russian allegations that the counteroffensive began that day. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine has said the counteroffensive hasn't even started. Independent groups, namely the ISW, have assessed the counteroffenive began on 4th. Scu ba (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scu baI mean, it makes sense Ukraine won't explicitly announce when their counteroffensive will start. They obviously want to have good fog of war in order to effectively counter Russia, but yea, that sounds good. I'm just wondering is all. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn’t Ukraine’s “casualties and losses” section been updated?

I see that Russia's section is constantly updated but Ukraine's isn't. Not trying to push Russian or Ukrainian propaganda or anything, but as far as I'm concerned, pro-Russian sources stated that more than 7,500-9,600 Ukrainian servicemen had been killed. The source used was TASS, and since it is government-run, it should be added to Ukraine's section as "per Russia:" Magellan Fan (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include claims by pro-Russian sources, we only use Russia itself, like stuff Putin and Peskov says. HappyWith (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:TASS, TASS is to never, ever, be used as a reliable source of information, unless it is literally quoting Kremlin officials. Scu ba (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"where preforming highly attritional attacks"

Please link to preforming. 2001:2020:317:AC29:4545:5109:E1F3:D8ED (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine casualty claims

We all know Ukraine is lying about the number of Russian soldiers killed right? I’m sure the Russians have taken serious casualties but 12000 KIA in two weeks strains credulity. I know that Ukraine is a party to the conflict and thus a primary source but at what point does Wikipedia have an obligation to its readers to inform its readers that Ukraine is massively distorting combat records. Because this sentiment will bring out the war propagandists: I do not support Russia. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is unjustifiable. Russia lies as much as Ukraine does about the war. The only difference between the two is that here in America Russia’s lies are dismissed while Ukraine’s lies are uncritically passed on to people. 74.109.240.116 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific change you're suggesting be made to the article? Where casualties have come from a Ukrainian source we make that clear. — Czello (music) 13:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could try to figure out actually casualty numbers instead of relying on figures provided by either Ukraine or Russia that anyone following the war knows are ridiculous lies. It diminishes the unbiased reputation of Wikipedia to have untrue figures on important ongoing events. 74.109.240.116 (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...you can't try to "figure out", that's just not how war works at all. The fog of war and just other info overall being retained due to operational security and national defense purposes also complicate it. Overall, documenting casualties of a war is very difficult. Also, that would basically veer into WP:CRYSTALBALL. Czello is right in noting that yes, we note the source is Ukrainian, while the article itself also documents the info inaccuracies in documenting casualties and inflation of figures. The complaints are invalid Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barrier/Blocking/Anti-Retreat Troops/Forces

I've been reading a lot of reports lately that Russia has been widely using "barrier troops" (troops that are intended to fire on anyone who tries to retreat or surrender) very widely during the Ukrainian counteroffensive. Most of these aren't "acceptable sources" according to Wikipedia, but I've been seeing so many that I wanted to ask if someone has seen this information in a better source. See 1 2 3 4 5. There is a WSJ source, but it only consists of a single interview with a POW, so I don't know if that's acceptable either, here. Fephisto (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders

I propose that we add Sergei Shoigu as the Russian commander and Hanna Maliar as the Ukrainian commander. Most of the publicly available comments are coming from these two, this isn't some remote outpost, it is the main event across multiple fronts and I feel that the politicians on both sides are just as involved as any military commander. We are talking multiple fronts and brigades being moved around. These are national and by extension political decisions.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

Edit Wagner Group mutiny to Wagner Group rebellion, as the article has been renamed to Wagner Group Rebellion as per requested move vote on 24 June 2023. GodzillamanRor (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Ukrainian_counteroffensive&oldid=1161709122"