Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

Add the offensive operations committed by Ukrainian before June 8th. Heres my idea.

"Between June 3-4, Ukrainian offensive operations flared throughout the entire frontline, with reports Ukrainian forces advancing 400 metres in Ivanisky Forest in Kharkiv Oblast, and fighting near Bakhmut. The strongest fighting was reported the Zaporizhia-Donetsk Oblast administrative border, with Ukrainian forces advancing north of Rivnopil and liberating the settlements of Novodarivka, Neskuchne, and Levadne.

On June 5th, Ukrainian forces forces began making gains on the northern and southern flanks of Bakhmut, with Malyor reporting advances of 300-1,600 metres in the direction of Orikhovo-Vasylivka, and 100-700 metres near Ivanivske. Colonel Serhiy Cherevaty also claimed gains near Zaliznyanske and Bohdanivka."

etc for each day IdioticAnarchist (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good but can you add sources? AncientWalrus (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian cassualties in the counter offensive.

I belive we have enough info to be able to add cassualties both claims and confirmed ones.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1022148283004616724/1117093683867701263/image.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1022148283004616724/1117093684173881354/image.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1022148283004616724/1117093684484255865/image.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1022148283004616724/1117093684798836856/image.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1022148283004616724/1117093685046296606/image.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1022148283004616724/1117093685331505198/image.png

(Sorry for the discord links)

(20 AVs and 3 tanks confirmed but there are a lot more images going around even of destroyed leopards, can do a search for images.) Adamelestratega (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses actual sources, not your personal discord server, if it gets reported in the media or through the right channels, it'll get added to the article. Scu ba (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

https://tass.com/politics/1630355 (Russian claims) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.212.208 (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2023

Please change "1 Leopard 2A6 destroyed" to "There are at least 4 destroyed Leopards 2A6/2A4". Please change "4 destroyed Bradleys M2" to "More than 8 destroyed Bradleys M2"

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-awards-medals-after-claiming-hits-leopard-tanks-us-bradleys-ukraine-2023-06-11/

https://www.rt.com/russia/577806-ukrainian-leopard-bradley-destroyed/amp/ https://www.rt.com/russia/577781-destroyed-leopard-bradley-video/amp/ https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-has-destroyed-its-first-ukrainian-bradley-fighting-vehicles https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1667170442015121408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1667170442015121408%7Ctwgr%5Ee15d3c34ffff93785931cb18aefdae2f283f3903%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedrive.com%2Fthe-war-zone%2Frussia-has-destroyed-its-first-ukrainian-bradley-fighting-vehicles https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/footage-vikhr-destroy-bradley-ukraine https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1666826985723535361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1666835315372294146%7Ctwgr%5E4faa136b8d0bf3389de7c6a6bbc66bed019a772b%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.embedly.com%2Fwidgets%2Fmedia.html%3Ftype%3Dtext2Fhtmlkey%3Dcfc0fb0733504c77aa4a6ac07caaffc7schema%3Dtwitterurl%3Dhttps3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FWarMonitors%2Fstatus%2F1666835315372294146image%3Dhttps3A%2F%2Fabs.twimg.com%2Ferrors%2Flogo46x38.png 2806:370:204B:1447:AC97:7BE0:EA90:1884 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Only Reuters is reliable and that only says "Russia says..." Volunteer Marek 23:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

New ISW update and other western sources says ukraine is suffering heavy losses, evidence of the first Leopard 2 destroyed

Institute For The Study Of War: "Russian forces repelled a Ukrainian attack on the Zaporizhia front in a doctrinally sound manner, a notable departure from the performance of Russian units when surprised Russian air support appears to have played an important role." https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-8-2023

CNN: Ukrainian forces have suffered losses in heavy equipment and soldiers as they met greater than expected resistance from Russian forces in their first attempt to breach Russian lines in the east of the country in recent days, two senior US officials tell CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/politics/ukraine-forces-resistance/index.html

Moreover, since yesterday (June 8) and today, we have been receiving visual confirmation that the Russian army has destroyed the first Leopard 2 tanks that NATO has been providing to ukraine, shoudn't we add tis to the page? blob:https://web.telegram.org/e2f3216c-e7f8-4b39-b399-7263883e6dd8 blob:https://web.telegram.org/64a4e336-f1ef-4168-97ae-ead724dea753

Mattia332 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

One tank destroyed is article worthy? Should we make a itemized list of every single tank of the 3100 Russian MBTs destroyed in this war? 79.67.223.153 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worthy. It must be the first tank destroyed by Russia after one year of war. I dare you to find any mention of Ukrainian/West equipment destroyed by Russia in all the articles about battles. Search for "destroyed" word in them, you will find only mentions to destroyed Russian equipment by Ukraine, not the opposite. The coverage of this war in Wikipedia is pure fiction. emijrp (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess it was worth it, because many western media and people believe that the arrival of leopard 2 tanks can be a game changer in this russian ukrainian conflict. And the destruction of the leopard tank itself has been confirmed by one of the western media sources.

And I wonder why no one includes news about Russia successfully defending the territory it controls. Bukansatya (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Telegram is not a RS, rest is already mentioned: The ISW has noted that the Russian Southern Military District, in charge of the defense of the line, has acted with an "uncharacteristic degree of coherency." AncientWalrus (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't mention the loss of that leopard, which is confirmed by Bild Andrea e luca (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Who is Bild? HappyWith (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Bild AncientWalrus (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

So it’s a random German tabloid - not a reliable source. If this info is true, a more reliable source will eventually report on it. There’s no need to rush here. HappyWith (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Tabloid yes, random no:

It is the best-selling European newspaper and has the sixteenth-largest circulation worldwide.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild

AncientWalrus (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox map

The map shown in the infobox is not ideal. It contains far too many arrows preceding the actual counteroffensive (it shows all front movements since Feb 2022). Would be good if someone could edit the map to include only arrows starting from June 1 or so. I wonder if @Viewsridge (author of the map) has the code creating the SVG somewhere so that the map could be edited rather than recreated. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the map currently does not show the area around Bakhmut, so it would be nice to expand that as well. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Participating brigades

My suggestion is to add the 37th brigade in the article according to Russian source RYBAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipeder123 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Not a reliable source, even if you provided a link to the source (which you didn't). Also please sign your comments. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Losses in infobox

Related to the discussion in another seciton, I think it's already to the point that the losses in the infobox are way too cluttered. I think we should simplify the info there to just say "X number of tanks, Y number of armored vehicles, etc", and put the specifics in a new section called "Casualties and losses", similar to how other articles do it. HappyWith (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I know I'm just a random IP, but since when did Oryx, literally a blog, become a reliable source, especially for losses? 2601:85:C100:46C0:309B:9E1F:40EC:E9E2 (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that until now. You're right, good catch. This source [1] actually notes that the images aren't really verified yet, so they probably don't belong in the infobox. The infobox should only have really concrete, undisputable stuff. HappyWith (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for following up! I really appreciate it. 2601:85:C100:46C0:309B:9E1F:40EC:E9E2 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"Fronts"

Isn't in discussion of the invasion of Ukraine the Zaporizhzhia front defined as the southern part of the front going roughly from the former Kakhovka Reservoir to the Vuhledar area, and the Donetsk front as the part of the front going from there to Bakhmut or Lysychansk? Because currently the article divides the fronts along administrative lines. These make no geographic, tactical or military sense, so I disagree with this. Operations around Orikhiv should be considered part of the same front as operations around Velyka Novosilka despite them belonging to separate oblasts. Super Ψ Dro 20:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Note as well that we consider fighting in this Orikhiv-Huliapole-Velyka Novosilka-Vuhledar line as part of the "Southern Ukraine campaign", while fighting in Marinka, Avdiivka, Bakhmut, Soledar, etc. is considered part of the "Eastern Ukraine campaign"/"Battle of Donbas". Right now we're contradicting ourselves. Super Ψ Dro 20:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I just restructured the fronts to Southern and Eastern, and moved the corresponding information to the respective fronts. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Super Ψ Dro 13:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t this just an offensive?

I was under the impression counteroffensives were the smaller operations that occurred directly after an offensive, taking advantage of overextension and weak spots, while this is a full scale offensive planned from the ground up. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:A4C6:3332:DB51:51D1 (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the case, all of our sources in use call this a counteroffensive, so we use the same terminology. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Exact date of start of counteroffensive

How sure are we that the counteroffensive began on the 8th of June? That's when media reported it had started, but given the delay intrinsic in war reporting, would it not be better to be more careful about the exact date it begins? AncientWalrus (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if counteroffensive was scheduled for June 6th, the DDay of Normandy landings. But I don't believe we have confirmation yet. --Nilsol2 (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

In their 8 June report, ISW said there had been "counteroffensive efforts" since June 4, but these "efforts" also include localized shaping and probing operations, and also other "tactical gains", that may not fully constitute the counteroffensive beginning. Additionaly, they said for the first time that Ukraine conducted "counteroffensive operations" on 8 June. So, there could be an argument for the counteroffensive starting between 4 to 8 June. However, with the all the English media reporting it started on 8 June, I think we should continue stating for now that it started on 8 June, and put all of the efforts from 4 - 8 June in the prelude. When the situation becomes more clear, we may want to look more closely into changing the start date. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Do the most reliable sources really say that it started on the 8th of June? Or did they say on the 8th of June: it is definitely under way now? Early on in the creation of the article, I wrote "By 8 June the counteroffensive had started". We should err on the side of caution for something that isn't certain (yet) in the fog of war. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I checked all the sources given in the first sentence of the lede. None state "On the 8th of June the counteroffensive started". Instead, they say "it has started", not giving a date. So I added a "citation needed" template. Maybe better to add a "text source discrepancy" instead. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That is a good point. So, I think the given sources would definitely constitute stating that "by 8 June Ukraine launched a counteroffensive". 2G0o2De0l (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I created the page, and yes, I putted the date at the 8 June 2023, because the first big ground push in Zaporizhzhia was in the night of the 7/8 and the press started to report it the 8 of June, but it seems clear that the offensive (at least with artillery) started around 1/5 June. AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

What page do you mean? Also, I still think that we should put (for now) all of the counteroffensive "efforts" from 1-7 June in the prelude section. 8 June is still the first time ISW says Ukraine started their counteroffensive operations, and it is the first time our sources say it is as well, so we do not have sources confirming that any operations from 1-7 June are actually counteroffensive operations (only pre-counteroffensive operations). 2G0o2De0l (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@2G0o2De0l I mean "2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive". Also, note that the casualties for the Russian side that are visually confirmed by Oryx are from the 6th June onwards, I didn't take earlier, but there were a little bit from 1/5 June too. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it really makes sense to list losses from 6-7 June as of now, as all of the sources we have listed only confirm that Ukraine started counteroffensive operations as of 8 June, so the losses beforehand are not necessarily losses in the full counteroffensive as per out current sources. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Losses are now from 8 June onwards, one T72 was in excess but Oryx just listed another as being destroyed today, so it's even (not the same model but I chose to not go too deep in different models of tanks to help the reading, and list every model of T-72 under T-72, same for T-80 models). AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

UK Ministry of Defense intelligence briefing first report about a substantial increase in fighting on the frontline came on June 6th.

Note that most such sources try not to use the term counter-offensive, presumably because it is attached to expectations and part of information wareware waged right now. Most of the sources I seen that used 8th are relying on comment by Ukraine that it has started as AncientWalrus noted. --Nilsol2 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between a substantial increase in fighting and the start of the counteroffensive. What we need is a source like the ISW telling us when the counteroffensive started, as they are the experts at differentiating between per-counteroffensive and counteroffensive operations. Currently, the ISW only says that it started by 8 June (recognizing "counteroffensive efforts" took place since 4 June), so I think the current wording we have at least in the lead is fine. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the lead should simply state that the counteroffensive began in early June. We shouldn't do OR with various terminology ( pre/wider/main/full counteroffensive effort) from various sources. And focus on the known fact (Zelenskyy statement, increase in fighting etc) and everything else will shape up with time. --Nilsol2 (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that our best bet is still just waiting for some time in order to get better information. However, in the mean time I don't think we should just say something such as "In early June of 2023, Ukrainian forces launched a counteroffensive...". We know for a fact that the counteroffensive started by at least June 8, so we should be as specific as possible, and say something more like: "In early June of 2023, Ukrainian forces began executing pre-counteroffensive efforts, eventually leading to the start of a counteroffensive by at least June 8". 2G0o2De0l (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's not make the same mistake as Russian audience does, building an expectation of an "offensive" being exclusively a stereotypical, massive assault through vast empty fields with hundreds of tanks and thousands of soldiers. Our own definition of offensive starts with "military operation" which implies a multi-stage process involving many different actions, such as the long-distance artillery strikes weeks before any troops moved on the ground. I would just use whatever date most WP:RS started talking about the offensive and any single, precise day isn't the hill to die for at this stage. We may find out that what was the actual orders and schedule were on the Ukrainian side after the war ends, and then the dates may be updated. Cloud200 (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Why specify an arbitrary date? There's no need. We can just say beginning of June and future can tell. We should definitely not use the date when news started talking about it as there's an inevitable delay. AncientWalrus (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

100% agreed. Cloud200 (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. We really cannot consider our sources as reliable in telling us the specific start date, as, as you said, there is really no way of knowing for sure at this stage. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian/West Equipment Destroyed by Russia

"Ukrainian/West equipment destroyed by Russia

It must be the first tank destroyed by Russia after one year of war. I dare you to find any mention of Ukrainian/West equipment destroyed by Russia in all the articles about battles. Search for "destroyed" word in them, you will find only mentions to destroyed Russian equipment by Ukraine, not the opposite. The coverage of this war in Wikipedia is pure fiction. emijp (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2023"

While not pure fiction, Wikipedia coverage of the war is very pro-Ukraine. To address this lack of balance, what is preventing Wikipedia from publishing evidence of Ukrainian tanks lost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.249 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The "Casualties and losses" section of the infobox lists the number of tanks Russia claims Ukraine lost. Although, to be fair, most of the numbers provided by pro-Russian sources (especially Belarus' claim of Ukrainian casualties) are ridiculous. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Belarus’ claims should not even be mentioned, as they are absurd, contradict Russia’s own claims, aren’t based in any date provided. They’re clearly just made up. Tomissonneil (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Lukashenko’s claims

This is ridiculous that I even have to say this. They’re not based on any data provided by the Russians, Ukrainians or anyone else for that matter, they’re not even remotely realistic, and clearly Lukashenko just made them up. For example, if the President of Uganda suddenly said that a million Russians were killed in this war, would that be added to the casualties section of the main page? Is Wikipedia seriously beholden to someone who’s not part of either warring party just making things up? Tomissonneil (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tomissonneil Presenting the claims made by Lukashenko, as fake as they are, as similar to the ones made by a hypothetical President of Uganda is a sophism, since of course the word of the president of Belarus, which is the closest ally Russia has in this war, can not be understated, especially since there is an information war, and all the affairs related to this conflict, where Russia tends to overstate Ukrainian losses by a lot too.^[1]

The other day, I spent the whole afternoon taking into account all the visually confirmed destroyed equipment by Oryx on both sides, which seemed to me as a better evaluation of the losses of all sides, one that was at least partially objective for the losses, and a method that can be found on +20 other Wikipedia pages, but this was rejected by @HappyWith without prior discussion, and then an unknown IP, that didn't intervene anywhere else than this talk page backed this in the discussion section. Then, I propose to either come back to the Oryx recension, that is the most neutral to be found, or to let every claim by Ukraine, Russia or Belarus (which is a concerned party in the Russian invasion of Ukraine) be published on the page, especially when there are good sources reporting that Lukashenko did indeed say that.

(I tag every involved Wikipedist : @2G0o2De0l, @AncientWalrus, @Scu ba) AgisdeSparte (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What does it matter if Lukashenko actually said it or not? It’s not true, it’s even backed up by anything Russia, the ACTUAL country fighting Ukraine, has said. He literally just made it up. Why are Oleksii Arestovych’s claims (which up until January of this year were made while he was a government official) removed but this isn’t? Who cares if he’s Russia’s ally, when his bogus claims contradict what Russia actually claimed? Also? why is it in the infobox? The only information within the infobox should be confirmed losses, or the official claims made by the combatants. Tomissonneil (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing here @Tomissonneil! Agree that it shouldn't be in the infobox. But could be put in a sentence in the prose. I think the relevant policy here is whether Lukashenko's claims are due. They aren't for the infobox. AncientWalrus (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I definitely have to agree with Tomissoneil on saying that there really is no reason for claims made by Belarus to be in the infobox (if in the article at all). The infobox should be for things that are confirmed, and clearly a statement by Lukashenko is not reliable. However, I am equally confused as to why the info from oryx was removed with such a quick discussion. On our page for orix, we cite a quote from forbes saying oryx is "the most reliable source in the conflict so far". 2G0o2De0l (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

other articles on the war skirt around this issue by making a "reactions" section where we could put something like

• Alexander Lukashenko, president of Belarus has claimed that (XYZ)

we could also do this for other world leaders. Scu ba (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The talk headings should be neutral @Tomissonneil, so "Lukashenko casualty claim" rather than "do not belong". Please edit. AncientWalrus (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all your messages after a quick thinking ; there seems to be a consensus. For the casualties from Oryx, I'll think more about it tomorrow, and maybe put them in a subsection "Casualties", because they were somewhat precise and can take a lot of place in the infobox. AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

At most this is something that could be discussed in article text- as an example of ridiculous claims made in this war. Even then it would really be WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. Volunteer Marek 23:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Oryx a reliable source?

There have been two discussions mentioning using Oryx as a source for losses. The first discussion concluded that Oryx is not a reliable source for losses, and referenced a related source saying the images under discussion had not yet been verified. Now, this point exactly brings up the question I have. First, if it is the case that Oryx really is unreliable (or at least the unconfirmed images are), why would we list multiple claims of equipment losses by both Ukraine and Russia? These have no images to back them up at all at all, and very well could be simple informational statements, which does not seem consistent with the reasoning for leaving out Oryx. Second, from our page for Oryx, we cite numerous sources saying Oryx is reliable. Now, I agree in principle that if the images are not confirmed, they should not be added. However, can we really say that any of the other thousands of images used by western media throughout the war (and referenced by us) used by Oryx are confirmed? (pinging editors in related discussions: @Volunteer Marek, @AgisdeSparte, @Tomissonneil, @AncientWalrus, @Nythar, @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, @Scu ba) 2G0o2De0l (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The crux of the argument about the reliability of Oryx, isn't about false images, but rather how they are self published and fail to meet reliability standards for WP:SPS. They are open source, meaning they have a lack of traditional journalistic institutions that keep disinformation in check, and due to the nature of the platform, Oryx themselves does very little to fact check what goes on their site. However, that is just what I was told by another wikipedia editor and have no strong opinion either way. Maybe we could open an RfC for Oryx? Scu ba (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree that Oryx very well may fail WP:SPS. However, I still do not understand why we would be using Ukrainian and Russian claims of losses. These are clearly not independent, and in no way verifiable, so I don't see why we include these claims, but not Oryx. Yes, Russian and Ukrainian claims are claims from the relevant combatants, but doesn't reliability supersede this? 2G0o2De0l (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

For the lack of journalistic institutions, I mean, Joost and Stijn are authors of books about Armed Forces and worked for Bellingcat (among others) that is also quite frequently used on Wikipedia as a reliable source.

These are (not exhaustive at all), some of the articles were Oryx is used without any problem :

- Roshel Senatorz

- UR-77 Meteorit

- Novator (light armoured vehicle)

- List of equipment of the Finnish Army AgisdeSparte (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@2G0o2De0l @Scu ba What may be interesting to do, instead of putting them in the infobox, would be to create a subsection with the casualties, and in this subsection, we would put all the claims (like the crazy claims of Lukashenko) + the visually confirmed by Oryx in a table, I can do it if you want. AgisdeSparte (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a better proposal. The reason why I removed the Oryx stuff from the infobox is because, per documentation, the infobox is not a place for stuff that is in any way controversial, it’s for simple, 500% confirmed facts. HappyWith (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian units

The list of Russian units in the infobox is getting really extreme, making the infobox extend all the way down to "Southern front" on my computer. I think we should move the more specific info from there into "Units involved", leaving only the general details in the infobox. Thoughts? HappyWith (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I came here to say exactly this, just to find your topic. Units should be limited to e.g. southern command. At most 5 bullet points. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I also agree. I think that we should limit it to army/corps level, as opposed to brigade or divisional. Tomissonneil (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Please cut liberally. I tried on mobile but it's impossible. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've performed the edits. HappyWith (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

Change "Russian sources also claimed that Ukrainian forces had attempted to land near and capture Hola Prystan and Oleshky, despite the two settlements being fully submerged following the Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam." to "Russian sources also claimed that Ukrainian forces had attempted to land near and capture Hola Prystan and Oleshky, despite the two settlements being fully submerged following the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam." (Fixed capitalisation) 108.53.227.182 (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

button not found in smart phone version Bluenose Gunner (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

Thank you Bluenose Gunner (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@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)

Good afternoon,

Thank you for the question. Yes, I am good with the single superheader. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Great. Glad we could come to an agreement. HappyWith (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Glad we have that sorted then. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 14:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

"where preforming highly attritional attacks"

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Overcoming the Fog of War?

Given all the claims and counter-claims, are there any fully independent experts that are able to confirm if the Ukrainian Counter-Offensive has just slowed down or totally stopped in-its-tracks? Also, are media reports of Russian counter attacks correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.203 (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

I'd like to explain my edit [2]: ISW mentions that "wider counteroffensive efforts" started on 4 June. It used to say 8 June in the article, I have no clue why, as the source clearly states 4 June. I also couldn't find the quoted wide counteroffensive efforts in the source. @Completely Random Guy previously changed the infobox to 8th of June, arguing that this is what the article's "start date" section stated for the ISW's date. I agree it's good to use the ISW's date, however, the ISW states 4 June not 8 June.

Alternatively, we could leave out a precise date for start. There simply doesn't seem to be a definitive start. "Around 4-8 June" might be more correct than either 4 or 8. AncientWalrus (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yea I agree that it's better to put like "Around" or "Circa". I like the use of the footnote which explains that the date isn't necessarily clear Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion on my end; the old "Start date" section before the rewrite (don't know how to tag it here) made it seem like both the ISW and Western governments corroborated each other for the 8 of June as the start. I, just following and observing what's been going on personally have heard 8 of June much more than 4 of June here in American news. The new "Start date" rewrite is much clearer. Sorry for the confusion. Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your hearing 8 June, yes, on 8 June western media started reporting that the counteroffensive had started. But since this article is about the start of the counteroffensive not about the start of reporting on the counteroffensive, it's irrelevant on which date media started to talk about it. The start will have been at the latest on the date reporting started. But it can well be before then. AncientWalrus (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

If that's the case, then I do recount seeing an article from TASS quoting Igor Konashenkov as a source that Ukraine lost around 7,500 servicemen since June 4. Does that count? Magellan Fan (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The article did state Konashenkov's quote, "In all, Ukrainian troops have lost about 7,500 personnel killed and wounded at the frontline alone since June 4, without counting soldiers destroyed in strikes by Russia’s long-range precision weapons and aircraft deep into Ukrainian territory," Magellan Fan (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Units need to be added

ГУР МО СБУ Алфа

and The International Legion of Ukraine

Are all also in the counter offensive. 2A02:2378:104B:88F4:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Reactions

In my opinion, we should avoid the lengthy quotes in the "reactions" subsection, since quotefarms are frowned upon. What do you think ? AgisdeSparte (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Given reported Ukrainian bridgehead(s) near Kherson City, is it worth opening an additional section of the Counter-offensive superheader for the "Kherson (or Southern Western) front"? Bluenose Gunner (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

Spaceworker2 (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I am requesting to make a grammar correction as Dnipro Campaign is apparently misspelled as Dnipro Campagin. The relevation section states "According to pro-Russian Telegram channels, on June 26, Ukrainian forces crossed the Dnipro River and captured the village of Dachi in an attempt to establish a bridgehead.[110] However, since the Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, Antonivsky island, the island Dachi is located on, has been fully submerged. Additionally the ISW and the Associated Press assessed the village fell back on 23 April during an incursion as part of the Dnipro Campagin"

 Already done Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

added offensive maps from other oblasts

I think we should add the offensive map in Kherson and Donetsk, why? Because the counteroffensive this time is not focused on one oblast like the previous counteroffensive. This counteroffensive is taking place across the entire front / entire oblast currently controlled by Russia, and lately Ukrainian troops have been regaining territory in the Donets and Kherson regions. Bukansatya (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree fully that this article would be improved by better maps such as you suggest. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

issue resolved (jabz) 22:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Future arms aid contingent on this offensive?

Frankly, I think this statement is bollocks. Western leaders have repeatedly stated "as long as it takes". The statement in the article is backstopped by one (count'em) citation to an opinion piece, and I am of the opinion that it needlessly, and potentially erronously mischaracterizes the state of affairs. See also:fake news. AbominableIntelligence (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The sourcing for that claim is not strong enough and it doesn’t summarize anything in main text. Volunteer Marek 05:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Should the analysis of the Wagner Mutiny list more speculative downsides for the Russian military?

Apart from the reported minor disruptions in deployment in regards to Russian forces withdrawing to protect Moscow noted here and in other articles, I’ve heard retired general and former commander of all US forces in Europe Mark Hertling speculate about lowered morale among Russian operatives as a result of watching their leadership struggle for power on the Bulwark Podcast released 30 June 2023. Is his speculation (as informed by years of experience receiving intelligence briefings about Russia while commander of American forces in Europe and as presented on a podcast [linked below] that strives for factuality) worth adding to the article for the time being?

https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3cbk3ngAY&feature=share Trilomonk (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2023

In the analysis section:

Add a comma after “Moscow,” such that the sentence reads

“Despite the Wagner Group rebellion and the ease with which Wagner forces got near Moscow, no immediate benefits have appeared for Ukraine.” Trilomonk (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

In the last part of eastern front the word “position” is misspelled. Febi14 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Question: I don't wee what you're referring to. Could you please provide the misspelt word? M.Bitton (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Already done: it's spelled correctly in "resulting in Russian forces determining their position to be untenable". Xan747 (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2023

The claim in this part of the article isn't present in the source it uses as proof (Also on June 30, according to Andrii Kovaliov, the spokesman for the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Ukrainian forces have reached the outskirts of Ocheretuvate a village about 12 miles (19.3 kilometres) from the front-line prior to the counteroffensive.)

The advancemente to the outskirts of this town is not mentioned in the news article it uses as a source, and it also isn't even the truth to this date, as acording to deepstate map, or the institute for the study of war it is still 15km behind the russian lines. This claim should be removed and replaced with what the source actually said, “In the areas of Levadne – Pryiutne, Mala Tokmachka – Ocheretuvate, they have had partial success and are consolidating their positions,” said the spokesman, according to the Military Media Center..

So basically all we can say is that they claim unspecified advances in the area of these settlements. DuckTheDucker (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. I tried to make it not sound like it was taken directly from the quote but I don't think it matters. Thanks for pointing it out - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 23:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Number of Ukrainian soldiers is mis-represented according to an already added source

According to the citation 24, which is used to source the strength of the Russians, the number of soldiers, the same news article states that "The Russians are believed to have between 350,000 and 400,000 troops, and the Ukrainians probably have a little more." meanwhile, Ukrainians are written as having 50-60 thousand troops, which is few times less than the number of Russian troops. ALTGRENDPGDN (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the citation 23 states that "In all, Kyiv has 12 brigades totalling 50,000-60,000 troops ready to unleash in the counteroffensive. Nine of the brigades have been armed and trained by the West." which contradicts the citation 24. And also in the Strength of the Ukrainian side it is written "50,000–60,000 soldiers (Western-trained brigades only)" but according to the source provided, 9 out of 12 brigades are western-trained, not all of them. ALTGRENDPGDN (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The number of Russian troops provided by citation 24 could be the number of all Russian troops on all of the fronts, and if that is the case, then it should be written that it is on all front and not just the troops that are currently defending against the Ukrainian counter attack and engaging the Ukrainian troops ALTGRENDPGDN (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Total contradiction in the entire article. 79.139.153.71 (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Bias in the article?

"According to some Ukrainian sources, Russian casualties in this offensive far exceeded even the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive" What sources? And also, why is there no mention of russian claism on ukrainian casuaties? this gives off an impression of bias and partisanship. Should be fixed and ukrainian casualties' estimates should be noted also from the russian side. Andreax2014 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The infobox section specifies the number of Ukrainian casualties told by Russian sources. (jabz) 18:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It is heavily outdated... Andreax2014 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Shoigu just released a statement

Ukrainian Losses include:

26k killed

1244 tanks and armoured vehicles destroyed (including 17 Leopards and 12 Bradleys)

21 Ukrainian aircraft

5 Helicopters

Will it be added or are the mods too biased? Andreax2014 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Tip: Insulting "the mods" with personal attacks about "bias" is really not a great way to get people to do what you want or pay attention to what you're saying.

You'll need to link the source for Shoigu's claims, like a press release from the MoD or a source reporting on what he said. I'll happily add it in then. HappyWith (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Too much pro ukraine propaganda. Should be both sides of the story. According to this arricle, ukraine has been pushing and gaining territory, while russians had been only dying. When you go to independent sources and even ukranian off the record sources, they all agree in something. Is far far worse for ukraine than what western media and articles like this tells the peolpe. Please be professional and serious with this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.242.158.203 (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! If you have a reliable source disproving anything in the article, please share it here! Scu ba (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I just did in another thread but a colleague of yours said he didn-t know if an austrian COLONEL was biased or knowledgeable on the topic of war... I digress... Andreax2014 (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

then explain how he is an expert whose claims should be respected. The world is full of extraordinary claims such 200k Ukrainian dead with 300k to 400k more wounded. Should we include every claim made by someone? Bluenose Gunner (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The very wikipedia article on him begins with "military expert", he's the commander of one of the most important austrian military units, so yes, i would say he is rather knowledgeable. Andreax2014 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Would you say the contrary? Andreax2014 (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Who wrote the Wikipedia article to describe him as a military expert? Himself? Commanding a ceremonial guard unit does not require any ability to comment on strategic issues. I believe it was pointed out elsewhere that his comments were published early on in the counteroffensive when it's success is hard to judge. Time will tell if he is correct Bluenose Gunner (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It was actually published on the 3rd of June, one whole month since the beginning of the counteroffensive, so...any other reason why this shouldn't be added? Andreax2014 (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

He didn't say the whole countrroffensive failed, but only its first phase Andreax2014 (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore he was deployed in chad, CAR, Bosnia, Kosovo, and was a contingent leader in Kosovo and in Mali. I say its fair to say he isn't some random guy, but an expert career officer of the Austrian army Andreax2014 (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

As per my comment to you elsewhere, make the changes that you feel relevant as per WP:BOLD Bluenose Gunner (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I literally cannot. Andreax2014 (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

okay. That is a shame. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this video is important.

Please watch this video it has great explanation on how Ukrainian forces will get the Crimea. https://youtube.com/watch?v=tBszOd0_I6A 2A00:1FA2:26D:7E30:7853:8184:AC6C:4F43 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Random youtube speculation is not an acceptable source in the article. Scu ba (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmclellan82 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. No indication that Maliar has really done much in commanding the counteroffensive, and that's what's important here. HappyWith (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, neither Maliar nor Shogiu are actually doing anything in this counteroffensive. both are just sitting in their respective capitals and making announcements on behalf of each sides armies. Scu ba (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2023

Please add these sources and information from them: 1) [3] - we have claims of Russian loses, so to be fair there should be RuUssian claims. The one Russian claim in the infobox is not useful as it is too vague. 2) [4] In addition to the previous link, this link provides information for after two weeks of the offensive, with Russian claims. This would give a more balanced article. Cheers. Lilic (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done:

1. You need to write out exactly what it is you wish to change/add.

2. Your sources are dubious at best. Prensa Latina is the official state news agency of Cuba, that has claimed Ukraine started the war--a view that is roundly rejected by the vast majority of reliable sources. The World Socialist Web Site is an advocacy group listed in perennial sources, with the note Most editors consider it to be reliable for the attributed opinions of its authors. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for factual reporting. If used, it must be evaluated for due weight as it is an opinionated source. On a controversial topic such as this, no consensus for factual reporting should probably be taken as, "find a better source".

In any case, an edit request really isn't the route you should be taking to change the article; you should engage with other editors on the talk page to argue for inclusion of the material.

Xan747 (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I saw information which was misleading, and downright wrong. I raised the issue. It got fixed because I raised it and I am glad that the disinformation is removed. (Lilic (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC))

Good for you, but you are still missing the point that the edit request feature is for making specific changes, supported by reliable sources, that are either not likely to be controversial or for which you've previously obtained consensus to make. You unarguably did not meet two of those three requirements, which is an abuse of the function. Please do not do it again. Xan747 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The casualties section is incredibly poorly construed by the way. The infobox is better. But the casualties part could mention how claims of both sides have changed as the weeks have gone by. I guess what it is well known that claims of both sides are dubious but given that one goes out of one's way to point out doubts on Russian claims, and then does not mention Ukrainian dubious claims in that section, well, it makes one wonder why the information is so limited. I guess when people cannot edit they cannot add more info, but at least the info that is to be added could be better presented and there could be more of it. Like, eventually a table, if this goes on long enough, that shows weekly claims by both sides - I dunno if there is such level of detail being reported alas, but just saying in theory what might be good to strive towards, that is more data rather than less data. (Lilic (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC))