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 RealKnockout (talk | contribs) at 14:33, 1 December 2023 (→Change Request: Counteroffensive failed: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Should Battle of Robotyne be a separate article?

Robotyne is only one point where fighting has been ongoing during the (counter)offensive. In Ukrainian Wikipedia a separate article is dedicated to the battle for Robotyne, which could be translated: Battle of Robotyne [uk]

That Ukrainian page is more like a timeline than like an article. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When will the offensive be regarded as over?

Theres been near to no action from the Ukrainians on the front, and in fact now its the russians pushing northwards south of Robotyne. When will the counteroffensive be finally considered as over, based on these facts? and, still based on these facts, the counteroffensive will be considered a failure, correct? Andreax2014 (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not going to go through the same we did at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut again. Either bring sources saying the counteroffensive is over or do not initiate the debate. I propose that we delete threads like these in the future (not this one in virtue of being the first) unless they bring something of substance. The archives of the talk page of the Battle of Bakhmut are filled with IPs and recently registered users starting the same thread all the time ("the battle is over, accept reality!!!"). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article and recent news/reports before threatening. You would know that core of what he said is essentially true and legit (increased Russian activity in multiple areas including Avdiivka, though the extent of success remains to be confirmed). With that being said, I repeat what I implied before: we should wait for some consensus among sources before updating the status. And yeah, if nothing changes, it would be a failure. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't threatened anyone. I'm well aware of the news and of the situation of the article. I know the counteroffensive is a failure. But sources do not say so nor do they say it's over. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with being objective. It’s ok to not succeed all the time. After all it is a war, the experience gained by Ukrainian Military will be invaluable going forward. As long as western support holds true, Ukrainian victory one way or the other is more than likely inevitable. In my opinion. 66.191.25.44 (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORUM Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I also note this is in fact the second thread you open about this. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the reliable sources say it's over. Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows what sources say. HappyWith (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lieutenant Colonel Markus Reisner of the Austrian Armed Forces said so Andreax2014 (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he said that, that's one guy out of dozens of reputable analysts and organizations. HappyWith (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which havent said the offensive is not over Andreax2014 (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is ridiculous. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ISW still resists calling the offensive over, for example, which isn't surprising coming from them. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for sure on December 31 the *2023* Ukrainian counteroffensive will be over. Alaexis¿question? 18:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When Ukraine says it's over Scu ba (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes. Russian sources have said the counteroffensive ended a week after it started. and the Media is only going to call it over when Ukraine does. Scu ba (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources exist, they don't need to ask permission from Kiev to conclude if the offensive is over. Besides, regarding your first reply statement, I was actually considering that analyst from ZDF that op talked about, not Russia's UN representative. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources exist so far. The opinion of a single Austrian officer who runs a blog that is sometimes cited in the German equivalent of PBS isn't enough to say the counteroffensive has either failed or is over. Scu ba (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has more military experience and knowledge on the topic than the entirety of Washington Post's staff combined lol. Hes a better source on this than any of the sources mentioned in this article. Andreax2014 (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good for him, maybe he should try and get into a reputable newspaper like the WP and then we can cite him. Scu ba (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda media outlets hate when their narrative is countered. Also, its already been cited...so... Andreax2014 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody knows it's mostly over. But we have to wait until an analysis comes out with an accurate end date, or at least when it transitioned into a campaign (positional battles). Gotta see what turns out of Krynky... Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say along the entire Dnipro front, to be more accurate. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counteroffensive petering out

Should change status from ongoing to done, its pretty clear its petered out, especially with mechanized units from the 47th now in Avdiivka.

Another thing to add, I would recommend deeming it a failure as it is has not achieved either of its objectives (Minimum: Tokmak Main: Melitopol)

Also, Zaluzhny's article practically confirms it is over 68.231.86.198 (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need to cite a reliable analysis suggesting an end date though. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a reliable source explicitly says "The counteroffensive is over as of x date," per Wiki policy we can't say it ended. Not to say it hasn't slowed down to the point of completion, but we have to have sources that explicitly say that. Jebiguess (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On November 1. The Economist published it's Interview with Zaluzhnyi where he explicitly said they had reached a "Dead End". In the German Wiki they used this as the end date and said the offensive stalled out in late October and effectively ended, would have thought the same applies here as personally I find it very unlikely Ukraine will concede defeat since this war is largely fought in the media-space aswell. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, though I still think that was a bit of original interpretation. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the Russians indeed reenter Klishchiivka, it would be a good opportunity to WP:BOLDly follow your suggestion, in order to save Klishchiivka from being removed from the infobox total. But then again, what about that Zelensky promise of "success" still this year? Is he just bluffing? Could whatever renewed attack be attibuted to this offensive? And should we even care (tie our hands in antecipation of speculations)? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Piatykhatky is also having more activity recently. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a revert of gains from the Counteroffensive on a larger scale that would mean Ukraine would be on the defensive, meaning that this isn't an offensive operation anymore. But even if there was no significant revert the notion that the Offensive will just continue after the winter is just silly and could generally be classified as a follow-up Counteroffensive. The only way I see that it's justifiable for the article to keep the status as ongoing is if Ukraine does advance within this year atleast. I do understand that Wikipedia needs a source for an End-Date and that is a good rule but I fear as we have seen by both sides that defeat is rarely aknowledged. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Hopefully we don't need to wait much longer. Although I explained my own "activation" criteria, I won't oppose if someone boldly does the proposed edit. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They did that in the spanish wiki as well. Well never get an exact date so I guess thats the best we got and the one we should use. DuckTheDucker (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a counteroffensive

Sorry for being pedantic, but to my understanding, this was a Ukrainian offensive, not a counteroffensive. I understand the desire to call it a counteroffensive to underline that Ukraine is fighting a defensive war against Russian invasion, but a counteroffensive is an offensive launched into an ongoing enemy offensive, and the Ukrainian offensive was launched into defensive positions. The Russians were not attacking in that area at the time, as far as I know.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/counteroffensive

2A02:AA7:400C:E400:1:1:4786:DBB0 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could mix the terms a bit more in the article (I'm doing my part), but at least the title should remain counteroffensive as it's a better index. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree while it might not be the correct terminology this could be said within the article saying that "Ukraine launched an Offensive against Russian forces". Changing the name of the article could very well lead to confusion because Ukraine and the Media have repeatedly named this Offensive as a Counteroffensive. While Ukraine is in a defensive war I also don't think it warrants counting every Offensive operation they do as a Counteroffensive like brought up in a previous talk with that precedent set there would be a change needed in almost all defensive war offensives. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph Says Counteroffensive is a Failure

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/12/ukraine-counteroffensive-failed-russia-putin-war-plan/

Is this good enough? Telegraph is considered a reliable source and the headline is pretty clear. The article then goes in detail about the mud season signalling the end and western restrictions on what could be done causing failure. Requesting article is changed to say the counteroffensive is over and a Ukrainian failure. UkraineSPA (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a talk about this topic already by the way, but about the article yes it's published by the Telegraph but from my Knowledge the Author Lewis Pages is not reliable. Besides one of the criteria given to change the articles was an actual date which was also not given here Alex.Wajoe (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.zeit.de/news/2023-11/15/krieg-gegen-die-ukraine-so-ist-die-lage there is also claims of a Bridgehead and Jermak says it is part of the Counteroffensive. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any proof he is not reliable? And its not like anything he says is crazy or insane. Mud season has started, it's only a couple more weeks until winter starts, and pretty much all attacks have stopped. These are both facts. As for a date it officially ended one isn't going to be given for months or possibly even years. If theoretically the counteroffensive is still listed as ongoing a year from now just because zelensky or other Ukrainian officials don't wanna talk about it would be ridiculous. UkraineSPA (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again this was brought up in the already existing Talk about this topic. I agree that we are unlikely to receive a date for the end of the Counteroffensive by Ukraine. As for Lewis Page he used to be very controversial with his articles about Climate Change and was criticized last year for his article "How 13 Whitehall mandarins crippled Britain’s aircraft carriers". From what I can tell he is a sensationalist downplaying actual danger like the ZNPP (claimed it was a "complete non-issue") while overexaggerating others Alex.Wajoe (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure it matters more this article came from a reliable trusted news outlet. This article was ran through editors and again no outrageous claims are made in it. You can't say an article from an outlet like The Telegraph doesn't count because you don't like the guy who wrote it. UkraineSPA (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it did not count I just reiterated the earlier point that an actual end date is needed aswell as that end date needing to be the Consensus like with the start date where 3 sources plus an explanatory comment are attached to it. Again there is an earlier talk where a confirmed extended user said what was needed for a change to the article to be done. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but thats not gonna happen though. Even if the offensive is clearly over knowing the exact date the order was given to stop is impossible unless Ukrainian officals say something which they won't because talking about your failures in a war is not common practice. Most likely scenario is Ukraine being radio silent and more articles like The Telegraphs will come out saying it's over but not giving a clear date because we don't have one and aren't going to for a long time. UkraineSPA (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth keeping in mind the date Ukraine finally admits failure and the date they ordered their forces to stop will be far apart. UkraineSPA (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between the counteroffensive being a failure and the counteroffensive having ended. We have several reliable sources about the former but none or very few about the latter. I still see news about fighting in the area around Robotyne. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's the only area where Ukraine is still trying to be on the offensive (excluding Krynky as it's debatable if it should be considered part of the originally "summer" offensive). Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-29/ukraine-counteroffensive-challenges/103158114
Australian ABC also claiming that the offensive failed 1.145.185.11 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

At the bottom of the concerns sub-section there is a line talking about Ukraine being "prone to mutinies" but there is no mention of that in The Economist article that it cites, and I feel like the part about mutiny should be removed as a result of it not being in the cited article. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 22:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
arrow Reverted Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is implied in the article (you can read the full version with the archive link):
General Zaluzhny is desperately trying to prevent the war from settling into the trenches. “The biggest risk of an attritional trench war is that it can drag on for years and wear down the Ukrainian state,” he says. In the first world war, mutinies interfered before technology could make a difference. Four empires collapsed and a revolution broke out in Russia.
Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not in the article from The Economist, I checked. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? https://web.archive.org/web/20231101191731/https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/11/01/ukraines-commander-in-chief-on-the-breakthrough-he-needs-to-beat-russia Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say anything about mutinies in the article itself. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the link isn't the article? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the quote isn't in the article that you cited. If it's in the source, then cite the source instead. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by article vs source? The free version vs archived full version? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the full version. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the free version url would still have the quote if the reader was a subscriber. Afaik, that is the correct way to cite. I don't need to explain that I synthesized parts of the full version. That's the purpose of those {{Cite web}} parameters. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it turns out they removed it in the current version of the article, so it doesn't exist anymore. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then the citation template would probably need updating. I'll see what I can do later. But the synthesis is still valid. Thanks for the clarification anyways. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've fixed the citation template. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may need to reword it as well, it just talks about being worn down instead. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just remembered that the |date= parameter has this purpose. Therefore my citation is still valid since it refers to the original version of the article. Afaik, Wikipedia doesn't have to adhere to neutered/censored versions of articles (which is likely in this case given the huge backlash). It's not as if the original article was lying or making stuff up. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's more to the edit than that, and you always assume the worst for some reason. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which "edit"? The one in The Economist article? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course 72.229.242.36 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Informational part about the context with the first world war WAS still in the Economist but we can't know why it has been edited. Since the edit was made in silence a grave mistake by the Economist seems unlikely besides the "claim" is something that happened in real life especially in ones where the Ecpnomy collapses, Citizens grow tired all the time especially in WW1 where almost all loosers had rebellions leading to a collapse of the war effort and the standard of living(Example given was Russia but Germany aswell as Austria-Hungary faced dire conditions at the Home-Front even if not as bad as Russia). I do not see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexiscoutinho "assuming the worst" here rather being realistic given the situation and source. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the general didn't actually use that word (the original interview video, if it exists, would help greatly here), that edit still just seems like an effort to minimize the backlash/impact of his words. I don't have an extensive WW1 knowledge, but it's more believable that mutinies were a more relevant concern back then than politics. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally an essay at the end of the article that goes into more detail. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will check. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not the raw interview though. I don't see how that essay would help much here. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they changed it because a mutiny isn't really realistic when you are fighting for the future of your nation, and would be counterproductive for the soldiers who are determined in defending their homeland. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Alex.Wajoe already made a good explanation regarding this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again to go back to the WW1 example even the side that was "defending" (the Entente in this case) had incredible amounts of desertions and mutinies by their soldiers, it is a side effect of a long war further there could also be a point made that Ukraine would want it to be kept quiet. This is because the West obviously feels less inclined to send state of the art equipment if there is the prospect of Russia acquiring it in pristine condition due to desertions/mutinies (A Helicopter pilot I believe did exactly this taking his Russian Helicopter and surrendering it to the Ukrainians). Alex.Wajoe (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Our text says that he said it, but it’s just a side comment from the Economist itself.
  2. If the source - the Economist - removed the text then we have no business keeping it either
  3. It’s a cherry picked minor comment from the source.

Volunteer Marek 16:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Also, a line like "likely in an effort to minimize the impact of the allusion" is WP:OR and is in no way neutral. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that interpretation bothers you, then feel free to improve it (I could even fix if for you if you have a suggestion). Or alternatively omit it and just keep the objetive comment explaining that the word was changed. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The interpretation bothers me, but the fact that we need to include it bothers me more. Most of the sentence seems fine, actually, but why do we need to keep the outdated "mutinies" instead of what the Economist currently says? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why do we need to keep the outdated "mutinies"? Because it's a relevant concern. The general, all the time, compares the current state of the war with WW1 and, as Alex.Wajoe explained, mutinies played a big role back then, so they could very well play a role in the near future too. The general wasn't sugar coating the situation, he was actually being quite frank. And I feel confident that the original version of the article represents better what the general really said. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The general does compare it to WW1, and I am familiar with it, but we still don't know if the general actually mentioned mutinies. As Folly Mox said, it could have just been a piece of background information thrown in by the author. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I know now the reason for the change. It's that they were referencing the First World War when the word "mutinies" shows up, saying that was the sole cause for the collapse of these empires, which is inaccurate since it was a number of things that caused the collapse of the central powers and Russia, with a number of them being internal and not from the military. So, they changed it to politics, since it was more than army mutinies that caused the collapse of these four empires in the end. And if you want me to list a few reasons, then they included, but were not limited to, nationalist movements, war weariness of the populace, political upheaval, economic crises, food shortages, and a number of other reasons as well. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but it’s just a side comment from the Economist itself. How would you know? I'm not sure that's how interview articles go. It would be very clunky writing/reading if every sentence of the article was followed by "he added", "he suggested", "he implied"... I would prefer to hear from other experienced editors about this. If the source - the Economist - removed the text then we have no business keeping it either Simply no, what would be the point of |url-status= then? It’s a cherry picked minor comment from the source. Excuse me? How is summarizing the most relevant parts of an article "cherry picking"? If it's a "minor comment" from the source, then why did it bother revising it anyways? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty, Arch dude, and Folly Mox: From Wikipedia:Help desk#Citing a revised article. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioactiveBoulevardier: Sorry to ping you once more, but I wanted to know your opinion too. Do you believe the part about "mutinies" in this paragraph from the original Economist article just came out of the journalist's mind and not the general's mouth? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) Seeing the context here and examining the source in full, I'm not seeing cause to include the term "mutinies". In the original Economist piece, it was part of a historical background sentence added by the article author, not part of a direct quote from the interviewed general. (Irrelevant speculation on my part: the article author lacked subject matter expertise in WWI, and made a silent correction to a misunderstanding.) In any case it is a minor point, the main point being the possibility of being "worn down". Folly Mox (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
👍. Will wait a little more for the others to reply though, before potentially tweaking the citation. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, I'm fine with leaving the "worn down" part in, as long as the bit about "mutinies" is removed. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same, I only wanted the "mutinies" part to be removed, I was fine with the "worn down" part since that wasn't changed in the Economist article. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed it. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but don't close this edit request though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works, you can put it as answered, but it doesn't close the request, nothing is stopping you from continuing to post in it. All it does is show that the request has been resolved, nothing more. I'm not going to do it now, but I'm just letting you know. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis, I’m troubled by the fact that in this revert [1] you reinserted text which claimed that Zaluzhny, a BLP subject, said something he didn’t actually say. Even if there was some justification for including the stuff about mutinies (and seeing as how the source itself removed it, I can’t see any) then the proper thing to have done was to make it explicit that this was an off hand comment by the author of the Economist article, rather than continue misrepresenting it as Zaluzhny’s. Volunteer Marek 22:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I did believe in good faith that the article implied that the general talked about that. I'm still unsure if that's an editor's addition or rewording of the interview. That's why I'm asking the opinion of others, to understand how interview articles actually work. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change Request: Counteroffensive failed

The counterattack failed because Ukraine failed to make any territorial gains. Brar06 (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot the sources:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/7/russia-looks-stronger-and-has-a-four-fold-advantage-in-manpower
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-29/ukraine-counteroffensive-challenges/103158114 Brar06 (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're jumping the gun here, I feel like we need a consensus before making such an edit, and not just do whatever this new user is saying. Besides, it has already been mentioned in the analysis section of the article. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was not just because of this user. This was already pending/"had it coming" given the previous extensive discussions. I just hadn't done it earlier because I had thought that removing the |status= parameter (which is necessary to enable the display of the |result= parameter) would make it seem like the counteroffensive was over. But I forgot that by keeping the date as running (present) would suffice in conveying this notion (of stalemate). Besides, it has already been mentioned in the analysis section of the article that's even more reason to reflect such info in the infobox. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be applied to the infobox if there is no consensus that it is over, so it should still be labeled as ongoing until sources actually say that it is over. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RealKnockout's subsequent edit already makes the current situation very clear. And we couldn't just keep the word ongoing without any caveats. Wouldn't make sense to write: Ongoing (but it pretty much stopped...). Or: Ongoing, but widely accepted as failure. Keeping the end date open/vague and mentioning the stalemate is more than enough and in fact, perhaps, the most adequate display of the infobox. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus What do you think of this? 72.229.242.36 (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No other article marks an ongoing event as a failure or victory, so I replaced "failure" by "ongoing". Likewise, since it does not make sense to say that Ukrainian forces have failed in doing something marked as ongoing, I've added to the infobox that they failed to reach their counteroffensive objectives in the expected timeframe. If I remember correctly, Zaluzhny had stated in the interview that four months were supposed to be enough for Ukraine for reaching Crimea. It is also advisable to source heavily these points in the infobox. I don't think too strongly of whether we should have them or not in the first place but I am opposed to the former wording. We shouldn't mark anything as an absolute victory or failure until we can reliably say it has concluded. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus
Thank you for commenting. I just wanted to add that the Counteroffensive is going since June 2023(almost 6 Months) and I would say that the Counteroffensive has failed. It's just taking to long and we see now that Russia is progressing some directions. 79.247.156.198 (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot add to the article our own personal interpretations of the situation, we rely on sources. There seems to be consensus among reliable sources that the counteroffensive has not reached expectations, but not that it has ended already. Currently the infobox reflects this situation accurately. The counteroffensive is marked as ongoing but the fact that it has not reached its objectives is also noted. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are conveniently ommiting the facts, reality and the great article linked below by Aennfred. It unambiguously treats the counteroffensive as over. The most you could argue is that this info should be said in the article body first. In that case, we should do that, NOT invent our own interpretation of sources and reality. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources have declared the counteroffensive as being a failure:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-28/kyiv-s-harsh-winter-deepens-gloom-over-battlefield-failures
https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-generals-view-war-stalemate-appears-recognition-failed/story?id=104576525
https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2023-11-03/ukraine-confirms-its-counter-offensive
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/zelensky-concedes-counteroffensive-failed-but-insists-thats-no-reason-to-surrender
One even says in no uncertain terms that the counteroffensive has been halted:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/12/ukraine-counteroffensive-failed-russia-putin-war-plan/ (paywalled)
Furthermore, none of the counteroffensive objectives were reached by Ukraine. Both sources & interpretation lead to the conclusion that the counteroffensive has failed. RealKnockout (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Today, Zelensky seems to have confirmed that Ukraine is going to a deep defense against Russia. If so, that probably means that counteroffensive is officially over and failed. --Aennfred (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Ukrainian_counteroffensive&oldid=1187803505"