Jump to content

Talk:2024 Kharkiv offensive

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

Speaking of POWs...[edit]

@Tomissonneil If you want to talk about POWs you might as well put forward the information about Kraken Battalion (considered elite by the Ukrainian s) that has surrendered en masse to the RAF. Otherwise you're making the article biased by talking about POWs of one side only. Zlosa267 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d need to see a reliable source, and you’ve not provided anything here. Or, if you don’t want to share it here for some reason how about you add it, considering you’re the one bringing it up. If you have the sources, you can add them if you want. Tomissonneil (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about you do your own research?
Speaking of a reliable source, you didn't provide any either. Zlosa267 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. You didn’t provide anything. Since you’re complaining about it, you can provide the source, since you supposedly have it. I can add if if you do. Tomissonneil (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How reliable is your source? Judging by the photographs, this is a selection of photographs of Russian prisoners of war taken in the first days of the offensive. They definitely didn’t catch 23 in a day.
KyivPost, Ukrainska Pravda, moscowtimes, RT, Ria novostti, these are all state funded and are definitely not reliable at all. Zlosa267 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”do your own research” doesn’t work as a valid argument on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 23:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(also, pretty sure Kraken is fighting in Donbas - Chasiv Yar - not Kharkiv). Volunteer Marek 23:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kraken was formed in Kharkiv and mostly consists of residents of Kharkiv. Wouldn't make sense for them to fight in Donbass and not protect their native region while it is being attacked. Also, if you look up on telegram, you can see videos of Krakenites being taken as POWs during the early days of the offensive. Zlosa267 (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love when people just make things up out of thin air, Kraken isn't even involved in this campaign, they're down in Chasiv Yar.[1] Scu ba (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Ukraine's Kraken unit releases video from Chasiv Yar, says 'no occupiers in city'". Kyiv Independent. Retrieved 18 June 2024.

Splitting[edit]

Because Bortak42 has repeatedly reverted the merge of Battle of Vovchansk I am opening a splitting discussion for them. They ought to express their rationale between this first message of mine and the second one below. Super Ψ Dro 14:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose this article has not met the criteria for splitting. WP:SPLITTING: Below 8,000 words, an article may not need splitting based on size alone, and at 6,000 words and below a split would generally only be justified based on content issues. This article has 3,318 words. It does not seem likely that it will increase in the future and if it does the appropriate time to argue for a split would be then and not now. Note that the "content issues" part refers to two or more distinct topics sharing similar titles (e.g. Coffea and coffee). It is not the case here.
Beyond what Wikipedia rules say it also does not make much sense. Fighting in Vovchansk is the main and most notable engagement in this offensive. It is the only populated place other than Lyptsi that reliable sources say have great importance, with the rest being small rural villages, and Lyptsi hasn't even seen any fighting. Giving fighting in Vovchansk its own article would make this one lose quite a lot of its point of existing. Super Ψ Dro 14:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back to my Support comment reasoning. Before the most recent merge of the article, the article size was nearly 14,000 bytes. However, it also had 18 references and a detailed timeline. Several RS sources seem to focus on Vovchansk, including Forbes, Politico, Reuters, and The Guardian. To me at least, splitting this into its own battle article seems ok to do, given sources do specifically mention it. Having a section specifically for the battle does give undue weight to it, but that undue weight is also supported by direct RS sources about it. Basically, battle has enough RS sources to clearly be split (I believe), similar to how Battle of Kherson or Battle of Melitopol (Battle of Melitopol being a good example) was split from Southern Ukraine campaign. Campaign/offensive articles are the overview “parent” articles and battle articles focus on the specific engagements/towns. The only valid arguments for not splitting, in my opinion, are ones focusing on content (i.e., not enough content for a split article). Battle articles do not have to be super big, so split size is not super relevant here. Battle of Re'im is a perfect example of a 6,200 byte sized battle article, where the community consensus at an AFD was to “Keep” rather than Delete/“Merge” back into the “parent” offensive article.
TL;DR — Support split. Bytesize articles are not easily valid for offensive/battle/campaign articles given recent community consensuses. Edit war needs to stop. Article had 18 references pre-bold/edit war merge, which is more than some community consensus “keep” battle articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support split: I think this section of the article is great to be its own article. I would be glad to help in the process of its creation. Vamos Palmeiras (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vai Curintia. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. While I am normally in support of splitting in cases like this, I don't think enough time has passed to officially separate sources about the Battle of Vovchansk and the overarching Kharkiv offensive without being bare-bones pages on either end. I think waiting a few months would be good in deciding how sources go. Jebiguess (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Split The connection was illegal and took place without discussion, there was no consent to it, so it must be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortak42 (talk • contribs) 15:35 31 May 2024 (UTC)(Struckthrough — Per WP:RUSUKR The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Bortak42 was not an extended-confirmed user. Per WP:RUSUKR I think this means their comment should be striken out. I am not doing it myself because I might be wrong. Super Ψ Dro 16:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: I have struckthrough it. Since this is a formal discussion, non-EC editors are not allowed to participate. Had this been just an average discussion, non-EC editors are allowed to discuss/participate. Hopefully that clears up the guidelines for WP:RUSUKR. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split even if it means turning both into drafts. Let's not forget that Vovchansk is officially a city and not a tiny one. There is plenty of coverage in RS to make a great article about it. We just need to stop neglecting it. Take for example the battle of Krasnohorivka, almost nobody in MSM talks about it, yet it still has enough worthy content to build a decent article. It relies quite a lot on ISW which is fine imo. This proposed battle of Vovchansk article, could have a lot of meaningful content if the ISW reports, for example, were not neglected. I'm personally giving priority to building the Krasnohorivka article and map templates, which explains why I encourage others to absorb more responsibility here.
The offensive article would still have enough content, there's literally 12 other settlements that we can talk about besides a one sentence mention. And as a parent article, it could also summarize the info from the battle of Vovchansk article. Thus maintaining it's importance. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw now the commendable contributions by Scu ba in the timeline (though arguably a lot of those citations will eventually need to be trimmed down due to lack of notability). That is what I was talking about with not neglecting ISW free content. And a lot of that wasn't even about Vovchansk. Therefore this page doesn't need all the Vovchansk details to be useful. The Vovchansk summary subsection needs to be separated from the timeline section though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, even I felt like it was repetitive as I was adding it, but as per other articles about offensives during the war I feel it's better to give too much information, and then we can go back and trim it down when the fighting is done. the ISW doesn't treat the fighting in Vovchansk as anything special when compared to the rest of the front. Scu ba (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: As it stands, right now, there is nothing too notable about the fighting in Vovchansk versus fighting in, for example, Lyptsi. However, I feel that, as a policy, we should strive to break up big campaign articles like this into individual battle articles. So I say wait until the fighting is over, and then we can reassess if the fighting in Vovchansk is notable enough to have it's own page (and maybe a page on Lyptsi?). Scu ba (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait This is premature. The present content does not indicate this is individually notable to warrant its own article. We need to consider WP:NOTNEWS v what is encyclopedic content and whether this will survive the WP:10YEARTEST. There is no clear benefit or P&G based reason to split it off yet. Being noteworthy (its a big ciy) is not the same as WP:NOTABLE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to get rid of some biased edits[edit]

Can we get rid of @Tomissonneil's biased changes? This person made claims without providing a single source of reliable information (the sources this person refers to are from state funded propaganda medias). Alternatively, if you want to keep Zelensky's statement, do so, but also include Belousov's statement about 35,000 Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers killed in one month (which is related to the Kharkiv Offensive) if you don't want it to be biased. Zlosa267 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they’re biased, that’s why they’re not in the infobox, and why they’re called "Ukrainian claims". Russian claims are also in the casualties section, which you’re not complaining about because you’re biased. Go troll someplace else. Tomissonneil (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go troll someplace else. Yes, please. Zlosa267, all casualty figures in this war are biased as that is the juice of information warfare, along with allegations of war crimes and attack on civilians. That's why we include both sides. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Belousov's statement about 35,000 link? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here: https://www.qna.org.qa/en/News%20Area/News/2024-05/31/0016-ukrainian-forces-lost-over-35,000-soldiers-during-may,-russian-defense-minister-confirms#:~:text=31%20May%202024-,Ukrainian%20Forces%20lost%20Over%2035%2C000%20Soldiers%20During%20May%2C%20Russian%20Defense,Russian%20Defense%20Minister%20Andrei%20Belousov.
And here:
https://www.ttownmedia.com/news/national/putins-force-decimate-35-000-ukrainian-soldiers-290-tanks-4-abrams-tanks-7-leopards-12/video_540c39cc-4e19-56af-8f8e-2c4d610357c7.html
Not putting in RT's link cause that media is state funded and shouldn't be considered as reliable. Zlosa267 (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source seems fine, however the 35k figure is of the whole month and in all of Ukraine. Therefore, it would fall outside the scope of this article. Maybe it could be useful for the Casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian War article, but that article would probably still prefer totals since the start of the war. The casualty claims section here already covers the MoD figures, it just needs to be updated.
Let me also point out, Tomissonneil, that the Ukrainian claims may become 'bloated' soon because the sources and figures may be too disjoint. Talking too much about isolated claims may give the Ukrainian claims undue weight. Summarizing would help. Though I won't enforce this for now. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mmkay Zlosa267 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated it. The official figure in that direction in three weeks is 4,755 losses. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm okay. You might also well put Ukrainian claims of russian losses as of 31 May. Better to keep it balanced. Zlosa267 (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, but I don't know of a consistent source. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainska Pravda keeps a ticker on their front page. Scu ba (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, but it's for the whole war. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sumy episode[edit]

Is it too soon to expand the scope of the article? From what we know, this is just an unconfirmed raid. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is confirmed (https://t.me/creamy_caprice/5777), but might be isolated. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that is a telegram post, hardly anything confirmed. Scu ba (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The geolocation was very confirmed. The issue was that it was only a temporary raid. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
great, just don't cite telegram, or any social media. Scu ba (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly how it goes (WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS)... But anyways, I didn't even think about citing it directly in the article (the ISW already covers it). In fact, we should explain the raid better in the article based on the 12 June report. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved. Thanks Super Dromaeosaurus. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is included in the scope of this offensive?[edit]

I'm asking this question because recently Russian forces have captured the villages of Ivanivka [uk] and Tymkivka in the Kharkiv Oblast. Should the captured of these villages be included in the article or should they be put somewhere else? Salfanto (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They should be separate as they are different operations with different background and different characteristics. I'm curious though, when was Tymkivka captured? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today from what I read. Ivanivka was on June 9th Salfanto (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukrainians had already left Ivanivka before that. In fact, reliable mappers like Black Bird Group already marked it Russian controlled since June 6th, after a geolocation north of the village, but the actual Ukr withdrawal was earlier. I still can't find Tymkivka. Where is it? Is it even a village? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Тимковка (ru.wikipedia.org). "Liquidated" in the 1980s along with several other nearby villages. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Then why would news reports talk about a village if it was "Liquidated"? Possibly a reporting error? Salfanto (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's why we can't get carried away with generic RS labels, especially on WP:NEWSORG. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However on the topic of Ivanivka, should we add it to this article's infobox? Salfanto (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be strongly against it. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case of Ivanivka would be better covered at Luhansk Oblast campaign. This article is for the Russian incursions separate from the main frontline. Super Ψ Dro 23:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we make a note of what raions of Kharkiv are included in this offensive so that people don't get confused? Salfanto (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is necessary. Such a note would also be original research as I doubt there's any source saying "by the way this offensive extends into these raions of Kharkiv Oblast, also in this one in Sumy Oblast". Maybe it would be enough to note the raion when first mentioning a village anywhere in the text just in case someone wonders in what part of the front is the village located. Super Ψ Dro 12:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offense is Over According to Guardian[edit]

It has stalled out, though it did achieve its objective of drawing Ukranian reinforcements from the East, where Russia advances.

Some quotes:

"Russian soldier says army suffering heavy losses in Kharkiv offensive Anton Andreev says only 12 out of 100 soldiers remained alive after unit came under Ukrainian fire and drones in Vovchansk Anton Andreev, a Russian soldier from the fifth company of the 1009th regiment, painted a bleak picture of Russia’s offensive in the Ukrainian northern region of Kharkiv. His unit had been decimated, he said, with only 12 out of 100 soldiers still alive as they came under constant Ukrainian fire and drones in Vovchansk, a prime target of Russia’s advances."

"“They just chop us up. We are sent under machine guns, under drones in daylight, like meat. And commanders just shout ‘forward and forward’,” Andreev said in a video message."

"“You walk through the street, and everything seems to be fine,” he continued. “But then you get caught up in a massacre. During the first night, half the company immediately died.”

Russian state media and senior officials continue to say its troops are on the advance in the direction of Kharkiv. Putin has claimed that Russian losses were “of course several times less than on the Ukrainian side” and the Kremlin has also gone to great lengths to ensure that accounts such as Andreev’s are kept from the public."

“I haven’t heard from my brother since the 12 May when they were sent to Volchanks,” wrote Yevgeni, in one post on the social media platform VK. “I am concerned that the training was only a week. Is that even legal?” Yevgeni added."

"The independent Russian news outlet, Verstka published a report that alleged Russia’s military abducted hundreds of mobilised soldiers unwilling to fight and sent them into the trenches at gunpoint."

So I guess change it to Russian victory - drew reinforcements from the East - but with an aftermath section showing appalling casualties for Russia, Ukraine also suffered high casualties.

source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/16/russian-soldier-says-army-suffering-heavy-losses-in-kharkiv-offensive

Worth keeping the source in mind, but we should not jump the gun here. We already kinda did by expanding the scope of the article with just a single limited raid in Sumy Oblast. It would be silly to change this offensive to over only to restart it in a week or two. There are still very heavy clashes in Vovchansk and near Hlyboke. I've already stated too soon before, and I'm considering taking blunter measures to discourage this insistent creation of threads asking to end the offensive. We waited 6 months to call the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive over and there were still some people who disagreeed with it, even by the turn of the year! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. With the recent loss of Tykhe, I'm more inclined to accept it's over... Though I'm still very curious to know what will happen next. Regardless, we should have RS clearly stating it's "over" to make such a radical change. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAB-3000 M-54[edit]

This offensive saw the introduction of the FAB-3000 M-54 bomb https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-20-2024. It would be good to talk about this in the article. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Kharkiv_offensive&oldid=1230468240"