Talk:2024 Kharkiv offensive/Archive 1

Archive 1

Isn't this premature?

It's been less than a day. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we don't know yet whether this will be a significant offensive or not --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Should this page be titled Kharkiv Campaign instead?

In my opinion, the title "2024 Kharkiv Offensive" for this page is not quite accurate. Why?

Because the definition of "Counter Offensive" itself according to Merriam-Webster is "a large-scale military offensive undertaken by a force previously on the defensive". And also, it has not been a full day since this campaign was launched, so the Counteroffensive that is meant is more of a first defense effort. Bukansatya (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It should be 2024 Kharkiv offensive, not counteroffensive but it didn't even start for sure. 37.248.161.197 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Makes more sense. If the name of this page is changed to "2024 Kharkiv Offensive". With that, it can cover many events and battles that may occur in the near future without limiting the content. The page does not only focus on the defensive efforts of Ukrainian forces, but can also cover events such as the battle of Volchansk that are likely to happen soon. Bukansatya (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"Russia began a new wave of offensive actions in this (Kharkiv's) direction. Ukraine met them (Russian forces) there with our troops, brigades, and artillery," Zelensky said during the press briefing with Slovak President Zuzana Caputova in Kyiv.

Source: https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-russia-launches-new-counteroffensive-in-kharkiv-oblast/ (jabz) 18:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I've already reviewed the article, and while I appreciate the information presented, I believe there's a slight bias in the framing. Russia initiated an offensive operation that hasn't even been underway for a full day and lacks a dedicated page, while the counteroffensive announced by Zelensky has its own page. In my interpretation, aims to halt Russian advances and prevent them from reaching Ukraine's northernmost defense line. Of course, this is just my perspective, and I'm open to hearing your thoughts as well. Bukansatya (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Too early to call it an offensive

Yeah we have to follow the very reliable mainstream media whatever but we have to at least wait until some times later until the Russian did indeed launch a large scale offensive. This is just one day and even a mainstream media article like this https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-05-10/russia-trying-to-break-through-ukraine-defenses-kharkiv-region-zelensky was unsure if it was a large scale attacks or just a feint. Also many media have the habit of proclaiming this and that as a Russian objective and when the Russia didn't actually do it the media claim the Russian failed on achieving it. Too early for this article. Dauzlee (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2024

Replace the {{See also|Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War#2024 Kharkiv offensive}} (located in section "Offensive") with {{See also|Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War}} Hoben7599 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Why though? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Baltic fleet in Kharkiv?

Is the Russian Baltic Fleet actually engaging in the kharkiv offensive or is that some false info someone edited in the information box? 2A02:8108:9940:24B8:2160:79C0:5E29:F227 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think someone made a mistake. Bortak42 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

May have been Naval Infantry units idk RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes it’s correct, the 11th AC (a Coastal Troops formation from East Prussia Kaliningrad Oblast. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe military infobox guidelines would advise against including higher-order units like the Russian Navy or the Baltic Fleet here. Paging @Cinderella157 for assistance. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Obviously inappropriate because it is misleading - was it all of the Baltic Fleet? I have amended the infobox, though the order of battle isn't in a great state either. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Vovchansk

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I was editing the Battle of Vovchansk page trying to improve it, then i noticed you put a redirect to this page. Don't you think it's significant enough to have it's own page? I feel like it is similar to the Battle of Balakliia during the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive. Some references citing about this battle: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There should be a separate article because this is a battle that could be written about more. Bortak42 (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

We can write more about anything. But not anything should have a page. Super Ψ Dro 18:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This article has only 1,103 words. The recommended length that an article must have to split another article from it is 6,000–8,000 (see WP:SIZESPLIT). We have way too many people creating way too many articles for random engagements of the war. Have you noticed other wars don't have such long campaignboxes as the one of this war does? [6]. Vovchansk in particular is the largest inhabited place directly affected by this offensive. I don't see why should we split covering fighting in the most important place of this offensive into another article. That strips this article from covering a big part of the scope it is supposed to cover. I invite you to expand this article instead. It is also worth mentioning that the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, larger in scope and more important so far, does not have any articles on battles in individual villages. Super Ψ Dro 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, regarding the length of the campaignbox you could also argue this about the creation of pages for every missile strike or bombing. Half of those articles in the campaignbox are not even about battles or offensives in this war, but it does make the campaignbox itself longer. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You're correct in that, though I think they're supposed to be included. Super Ψ Dro 19:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Template:Campaignbox/doc indicating that we have to include all of these bombings, it might be worth looking into how much the campaignbox can be shortened if some of the less notable incidents are excluded. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@SaintPaulOfTarsus: I also agree that such bombings should be removed from the campaign box. They are only relevant for the articles of the places where they occurred (or dedicated bombing compilation articles/templates), but are meaningless for the development/progression of the war. Furthermore, they'll always suffer from selection/omission bias as we know editors are more likely to write more about Russian strikes in Ukraine than Ukrainian strikes in Russia, Donbas and Crimea; reflecting the same omission bias of the Western media. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Same goes to "massacre" links. Which are mostly from the beginning of the war, the peak moment of information warfare. Just keep articles with a battle and territorial change section. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The battle is seemingly over anyway. Smeagol 17 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Do you not think that the Battle of Vovchansk deserves to be a subsection separate from the rest of the timeline? If it isn't going to be a separate article, which I agree that it doesn't have to be, it still seems to be one of the main objectives of this offensive (behind theoretically Kharkiv) and should warrant being separate from the main timeline, as I originally had it so when I copied some content over from the redirected article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What about separate it by direction/front, like in the 2023 counteroffensive page? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

At least for now there is only the two fronts of toward Vovchansk and toward Kharkiv, and it is likely the two directions will connect in the coming days. Vovchansk so far has been seen to be the only real "battle" of the offensive, with the rest being routine village captures (all with populations under 2,000) that have not involved any urban warfare like that seen in Vovchansk, hence why I wanted the main timeline and Vovchansk separate. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should either have a timeline or divide engagements by geography. Not both at the same time. All battle articles eventually drop the timeline anyway. Super Ψ Dro 07:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I do think engagements should be divided by geography, but as I said it is hard to do now as the two "fronts" will likely merge in the coming days or week and thus the only distinct geographical difference one can make for now is in Vovchansk. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, there is a dedicated timeline linked under the Timeline section. Therefore, this article doesn't need to force itself to cover events in chronological order. As such, date subsections would be better displayed as separate paragraphs instead. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• The section is the exact same as last time I merged it. I will merge it again if it gets further neglected by editors. It seems editors prefer the timeline for now. Super Ψ Dro 11:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  At this stage, it can simply be a section, and once the battle is over, you can think about a more developed version as an article, but not necessarily. Bortak42 (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Timeline Adjustments?

Is it possible rather than doing it by day we should sort it by May 10th-June 1st? SCPdude629 (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to provide any reasons as to why this should be done? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If the structure of the article must be adjusted, my preference is to separate it geographically, between events of the Vovchansk area and the Lyptsi area. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Split. I think the dating format for the time being is fine. I just believe it should be generalized. We don't know how long the battle is going to last, and I don't believe it'd be best choice to go day by day after a long enough period of time. What defines long enough, maybe a week and a half? 2 weeks?

I think if we want to keep it the same general format, we either start specifying it by months depending on how long this goes on, or we generalize the content of the article by focusing on major events. Surreal12 (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Tatarigami_UA

Tatarigami_UA (a ukranian officer considered a reliable source by Oryx blog among others) recently did a thread debunking an economist article, so i hope this article won't end up as a source here

https://x.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1792832017807380515 D1d2d3d29 (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. 👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Casualty claims

Someone please finally remove these casualty claims, because it's no longer funny. Bortak42 (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It might be better to make that section balanced instead. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Do the Russian MoD’s casualty claims on Telegram refer specifically to the Kharkiv Offensive, or to total losses across Ukraine? I’m not fluent in Russian, and don’t have telegram, so I don’t know. Tomissonneil (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

They break it down by sector. For example, in the first section of today's report about the Kharkov region they write:

The losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces amounted to up to 150 military personnel, a tank, two armored combat vehicles and two cars.
During the counter-battery fight, the following were hit: a 122 mm Grad MLRS combat vehicle, a Polish-made 155 mm Krab self-propelled artillery mount, a 155 mm Bogdan self-propelled artillery mount, and a 122 mm Gvozdika self-propelled artillery mount.
The field ammunition depot of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was destroyed.

which sounds realistic/feasible ngl. I used the browser built-in page translation feature to keep the text formatting. Then the bullet points will split the sections. In the last section in part 2, they give the total material losses:

In total, since the beginning of the special military operation, the following have been destroyed: 601 aircraft, 274 helicopters, 24,271 unmanned aerial vehicles, 522 anti-aircraft missile systems, 16,074 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 1,304 combat vehicles of multiple launch rocket systems, 9,664 field artillery guns and mortars, as well as 21,783 units of special military vehicles.

which isn't what we want though.

Therefore, one could write weekly partials in this sector of the front (not 100% sure if they themselves write weekly partials). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s actually pretty helpful. I’m in favor of the former being added, as it’s pertains to this page, and is from an official Russian source. Tomissonneil (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

👍. Though it would be a hassle to find each report without Telegram. I don't think the ISW links to every report, maybe you're lucky though. Alternatively, one could increment the url id until a report post is found (it never has videos unlike most posts, and it's always long, 2 part and with bullet points). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. It does write weekly summaries which makes our lives much easier. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge the article with Eastern Ukraine campaign

After some time, you may come to the conclusion that the article is too short, too little is happening and these events are not so important that they should have a separate article. They should be included in the article about the Eastern Ukrainian campaign as part of it(section of this article), and not in a separate article. it would be best to merge it.

Completely disagree, Bortak. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"Capture" vs "recapture"

I know this is small but saying "Russia recaptures" in the infobox makes it sound like they were Russian settlements that were captured and occupied by Ukraine when it was actually the other way around during the 2022 offensive. Cganuelas (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

We cannot always write both precisely and understandable by those with zero background knowledge. Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It may make it sound like that, but it still is true that Russia captured them initially and is now capturing them a second time two years later, thus they recaptured them. To anyone who knows that the captured villages are actually in Ukraine it should be obvious that they were not Russian territory prior to 2022. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday hailed Russian advances in the Kharkiv region and the recapture of a symbolic town further south that was one of the only prizes of Ukraine's underwhelming counteroffensive last summer".[7] Mellk (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've written "reoccupies" instead. This in my view fixes the issue. Super Ψ Dro 10:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's less neutral though... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's less neutral. I think it's precise enough to get the point across to the reader that....

  "Hey, some villages were and are taken back by the Russians because of this or that" versus @Cganuelas's point. Just helps make it more direct in that the Russians have in fact taken back that territory. Surreal12 (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  What is the terminology used by most sources? I tend to see capture/recapture used. This probably makes more sense since the settlements were taken by force rather than troops simply appearing to occupy the settlement. Mellk (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's a fair point, and I can agree with you here. Recapture just...I'm not sure how to explain it. But you're right regarding "taken by force". Surreal12 (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2024

If y'all want to seriously improve this page and prevent it from bias, do include russian ministry of defence's estimation of the Ukrainian loses. They have recently reported: “Ukrainian losses over the past day totaled up to 1,330 people.

The "North" group advanced into the Ukrainian defenses in the Kharkov region, and groups in other fornts have also improved their positions. Zlosa267 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to write weekly partials from the MoD as suggested in #Casualty claims 2. That is kinda planned as there is an "unbalanced section" banner. Regarding your second request, I'm afraid you'll have to be much more specific than that. Unspecified advances and "improvement of positions" hardly means anything and is hardly notable. Furthermore, a reliable source should also be given (the MoD has recently lost its credibility for territorial changes and capture statements, again). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You gotta understand that both sides of the conflict lie about their losses and the losses of their enemies. You say that MoD has lost its credibility, remind me how authentic the reports of Ukrainian MoD are then? They claim to have destroyed 70% of the brigade's forces and made it combat ineffective, while the brigade continues to carry out its assigned missions. Can we talk about the elite Kraken Battalion? The brigade has been taking enormous losses since the incursion and its members have been surrending to the RAF en masse (just look it up on telegram). Let's talk about the MLRS and howitzers Ukraine has been losing in the north very recently? Or do you want to make this articles biased by talking about the casualties of one side only and wait for your reliable sources to push their accurate narrative? (I completely understand that you're e not the only one who's been pushing the one sided narrative but there are other users in here so I propose you to remove them). Zlosa267 (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Bruh. You are taking massive precipitated conclusions. If you took the time to read my past comments and contributions you would notice that your interpretation of me is completely erroneous. Consider reading WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Just trying to help you.. Would appreciate a retraction of your accusations. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Not gonna retract my accusations until the biased reporting about the military casualties here stops.

Well, since you put forward the Ukrainian claim that half the soldiers of a russian brigade were killed, how about you also put forward the Russian claim?

The 415th separate rifle battalion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, defeated by the Fearless, was withdrawn to the area of restoration of combat capability; at the transfer stage, the corresponding reserves were utilized (up to 150 personnel in the Chuguevsky direction). were destroyed by a missile attack).

This was stated by the North Group of Russia (yes, this channel is officially run by them): https://t.me/warriorofnorth/538 Zlosa267 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Not gonna retract my accusations until the biased reporting about the military casualties here stops. This is not a place for unconstructive commentary, especially for a non-extended confirmed user, due to WP:RUSUKR.

how about you also put forward the Russian claim? As I said before, that was planned since a while ago. As nobody seems to be willing to put the time into that, I guess I'll do it myself right now.

Oh, and the reliability of North Group of Russia is not established and likely won't be due to being WP:SPS. At most it can be cited with WP:INTEXT attribution, which I will do for the MoD. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Retracting my accusations. The page looks quite balanced now. Well done. Zlosa267 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Zlosa267, please note that the talk pages for Russo-Ukrainian War topics are under general sanctions, and there are heightened expectations that you keep your comments on-topic and civil. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

https://t.me/warriorofnorth here's the reliable source you are seeking for. They publish videos daily from the frontline which is quite reliable imo. Zlosa267 (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done (did the original request to include MoD figures). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Casualty Claims

There seems to be a bias of information here as Ukraine claims a number of losses while the other side seems irresponsive or vague. Even if Ukraine claims to have killed over 1500 troops, there's no way of knowing due to fog or war and lack of official estimation. This feels like a ploy to lie and boost morale rather than stating what was hidden between the lines. SCPdude629 (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)SCPdude629

Personally I would just omit such casualty figures from either side since they are all bogus, unless of course a certain figure was widely mentioned in RS. Mellk (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Casualty claims in this war are mostly a form of information warfare and as such should not be given too much attention nor propagated, especially in infoboxes. I just moved the claim as first step to take a compromise, but if there's rough consensus, then I guess we could remove it and only cover good quality estimates. Daily casualty figures also suffer from WP:NOTNEWS. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the Russian MoD does give daily updates on Ukrainian personnel and material losses in their Telegram. But nobody covers it, so even I thought they didn't make estimates until a few days ago. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian MoD does exactly the same on their twitter and their estimates are completely off the moon. Bortak42 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Same with all the claims of human wave attacks Salfanto (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed. It is too early to tell and the only ones listing casualties are coming from the horses' anus that is, the Ukrainian and Russian MOD. It is best to remove it until we get a clearer picture (i.e. third party estimations). 42Grunt (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I somewhat disagree, meaning that I feel they should at least be mentioned on the page, but we need to properly label them as either Russian or Ukrainian claims, rather than as fully "confirmed". I also think they shouldn’t be in the infobox until the battle is over, but only with the above stipulation. Tomissonneil (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This claim refers to total losses across all of Ukraine, not just this offensive. I’ve removed it, as it’s well outside the scope of this page, and replaced with claimed casualties in just this sector, which is much lower. Tomissonneil (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Losses claims in the infobox

Greetings, please don't equate Ukrainian and Russian casualties claims by adding them both into the infobox. They by far do not have the same reliability. I'm removing both of them from the infobox for now. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

How about doing the same thing that the article 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive did. Salfanto (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Though I don't know if there's consensus for heavy. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is put "For more details, see § Casualties and losses" is the casualties section of the infobox Salfanto (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

No objections from me. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that it's ok with people before such an edit is made Salfanto (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There are more compelling arguments than this. This potentially WP:PPOV point simply doesn't stick. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Your revert [8] violates WP:EDITCON : you are supposed to reach consensus after your edit was reverted. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

👌. Though my previous statement still stands. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you agree to adhere to Wikipedia rules? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't bait me. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this over?

It seems the offensive has tar pitted into the interminable murder drone/artillery olympics that characterizes...well...pretty much everything since 2022 really. My source is the deep state war map, which hasn't meaningfully budged in a week.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:F515:5DF7:12BD:E655 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Just because the map hasn't changed much recently doesn't mean offensive operations aren't ongoing; the ISW's report for today confirms this: "Russian and Ukrainian forces also reported continued Russian offensive operations in the Lyptsi and Vovchansk (northeast of Kharkiv City) directions throughout the day on May 28" (1) Calling it "over" would be somewhat ill-considered. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, while I agree that the murder droning and artillery weather is ongoing, I guess the point I was trying to make is the "offensive" has ended in the sense of no more strategic/tactical manuever, and the ongoing violence is just "par for course" as it is along the entire frontline. In chasiv yar, in robotino, in others, all of these murder drones and artillery fall like rain day after day but dont characterize a discreet offensive or in many cases even a battle. In other words, the kharkiv offensive lasted two weeks, it was stopped, and now it's just "the front." 2605:A601:5553:B000:F515:5DF7:12BD:E655 (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, but it also has only been a week or so since the pace of Russia's advance in the region slowed down, and we don't know if they may make further advances there. I still think its too early to call it "over", and even if it was undeniably "over", we of course need reliable sources that claim it is over, or at least claim it is no longer a big offensive that it was initially made out to be. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It could be "just beginning" as well. The main push still hasn't started. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this what you meant by the article is still in development? A supposed main push? Super Ψ Dro 12:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Both. The article is still in development as it's still very incomplete. It's missing a lot of battle detail in the main section for example. There are battles which nobody talks about with much richer battle info. A supposed main push And regarding this, the ISW and afaik all analysts assess that what happened so far is not the main push of the Russians. The analysis section of the article kinda covers this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I won't lie I would be mega surprised if Russia can punch through any further towards Kharkiv or even around Kharkiv. WWI 2: Electric Drone Murder-Loo is real. I think they will camp where they are and just attrit attrit attrit. Then they will charge with a new offensive from Sumy, get drone slopped and then camp and attrit attrit attrit. It's all attrition all the time everywhere, endless positional warfare. That being said yes I agree we need sources to verify that "it's over." Just keep in mind it's possible that mainstream sources like the nyt and guardian can "forget" about the offensive and dont cover it from a mil science standpoint after the initial burst, coverage just peters out, it's happened before (looking at you Dnieper campaign). Though they do cover it from a politics/human interest standpoint (kharkiv offensive causes Zelensky to cancel trips/kharkiv offensive causes traumatized Ukrainians more trauma)... 2605:A601:5553:B000:99C7:FC0:9C:FF02 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. Any more and I'll archive the thread. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No, not yet. Heard they are about to open another front from Zolochev, they have been transferring manpower and equipment there. Zlosa267 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Control of Vovchansk

As of May 29, 2024, according to the Russian head of the Kharkiv Oblast, Russia currently controls approximately 50% of Vovchansk. This can be added to the Battle of Volchansk. Bortak42 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Vovchansk

All the content that is in the Battle of Vovchansk section is already discussed in the article body. I feel like repeating this information again in the form of a separate section for fighting in this one settlement is giving it undue weight compared to the rest of the article and the offensive as a whole. What do other people think about this? I feel like it should just be absorbed into the timeline, if it isn't already there. Scu ba (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Get rid of Vovchansk section and give battle of vovchansk it's own article maybe? 2605:A601:5553:B000:99C7:FC0:9C:FF02 (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree completely – the "Battle of Vovchansk" section is simply the result of an article merge (here). SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree too. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There should be a separate article, I tried to separate it, but a certain individual keeps interrupting it. Bortak42 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Every article frames Vovchansk as key in this offensive, so i think it could get its own article. That being said if other cities in the offensive become just as important you could argue to keep it here, keep every city-battle here. I haven't seen much mentioned about the other 10 odd cities in the offensive other than Lukiantsi (i think). But vovchansk is the key so far, it's mentioned at least once in every kharkiv offensive article. 2605:A601:5553:B000:FD9E:AE38:CBE8:69B9 (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Just because it is a key event in the offensive doesn't mean we need to split it off into a separate article — we had a separate article before but this article is in no way close to splitting length, so the Battle of Vovchansk article got merged here, and then that section was created. I do think we should have a separate section from the timeline about the battle of Vovchansk due to that significance, as it is clearly the most important battle of the offensive thus far. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Western weapons across the border

In the past few days, multiple countries - France, US, Germany - have been added to the group of states that allow the use of their weapons to strike inside Russian territory, with an emphasis on responding to the offensive towards Kharkiv. This should be discussed in the article since many sources talk about this topic in the context of that offensive. 2600:1012:A023:593F:D927:2113:DAB3:1232 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Changes

The areas controlled by Russia are already connected, but this is not on the map and at least 11, if not more, villages are controlled. Bortak42 (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you provide a source for that claim? The major map sources and news outlets don't seem to be making the claim. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

On page there is that Zelene was captured yesterday and Lukiantsi was captured today. Bortak42 (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The Zelene capture was not confirmed. In fact, it seems now that Ukraine regained control over it. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

At the moment a map of 2022 is shown. This is worse than an outdated map.

Musicmouse (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The map is indeed from 2024, but the blue area is probably not very helpful for readers. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

End Date May 24 2024

I already have a comment about this above but since some time has passed there is now more confirmation - according to mainstream (if biased) sources the offensive officially "ground to a halt" and became the static front line at this point in time, that is, no longer had either the strategic or tactical maneuver of an offensive.

"According to open source mapping, little to no further gains have been noticeable in the past week; on May 24, Ukraine’s General Staff announced that Ukrainian forces had already begun counterattacking operations in the area."

https://kyivindependent.com/we-took-out-so-many-of-them-ukraine-stabilizes-kharkiv-front-after-brutal-russian-offensive/

Here is another, an OP-ED, which states the same, in essence, Russia advanced and got stopped after a week

https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/33655 "OPINION: Russia’s Kharkiv Offensive is a Strategic Failure for Now"

The reason for this stymieing, is in both articles it states that Ukraine has basically total vision over the entire battlespace and can simply blast any Russians with drone slop - tanks, artillery, even individual infantry, they all get slopped by ukraines 100000 drones the second they take a step. Offensives of any kind are literally impossible at this point in the war, so it's no surprise Russia was ground to a halt.

I understand this is subjective, but given that Deep State War map has been frozen around Kharkiv since May 20 2024, I think there is at least some support for my cause. The biggest argument against me is not that russia can further advance, but rather that ukraine can push them out again. I don't see any evidence of either of those, so I think May 24 is at least a possible end date.

Several issues with your request, the biggest, perhaps, is being a duplicate of #Is this over?. Too soon. Summer has yet to start. This is likely the first phase of a larger operation. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no any proofs to tell that offensive is over. 37.248.174.157 (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

6.4.2024 - Swarms of Ukrainian Kamikaze Drones Stop Russian Offensive in Kharkiv Region

"The Kremlin maintains the line that everything is still going well and forcing Ukrainian forces to retreat, while most other sources tell of a Russian offensive out of steam amid crushing losses.

"“How is the situation now? It sucks. From October to the present day, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been slowing down and stopping our offensive in one area or another with the help of special [separate] UAV detachments… The result is dozens of knocked out and destroyed tanks and infantry fighting vehicles/armored personnel carriers/MTLBs.”

"It went on to say that Ukrainian drone operators appear to be supplied with hundreds of FPV drones per strike team and are able to launch as many as 10 explosive-carrying drones to attack and destroy a single Russian combat vehicle, and up to four to hunt down individual Russian soldiers."

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/33768

Comment to the above post: Drone warfare has become a very common thing in this war. It should be noted that the AFU have launched constant counterattacks trying to dislodge the outnumbered Russian troops back to the border, but so far this appears to have been unsuccessful. The Russians, as follows from the post above, also use FPV drones to stop the AFU's major counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region. They have been using FPV drones and lancets to reduce the Ukrainian Armed Forces counterattack potential. So there is nothing special about the use of UAVs by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, because the Russians also use them...

Sources: https://t.me/warriorofnorth/776 https://t.me/warriorofnorth/775 https://t.me/warriorofnorth/784 https://t.me/warriorofnorth/758 https://t.me/warriorofnorth/751

Is there even a request here? Or is this WP:FORUM? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure Zlosa267 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

War crimes and misconduct

Needless to say, let's be very careful when covering such allegations. It wouldn't be a surprise for such Ukrainian (and Russian) statements to be used for information warfare. The statements could be distorted, biased, taken out of context, amplified, etc. Extra scrutiny should also be employed when selecting sources to not include sensationalist publications. Avoid claims, cover facts. In this stage of the offensive, the best we can do is add detail to the 'Offensive' section. Talk about the advances, battles, village captures, etc. Stuff that can be immediately verified, as was done with the battle of Avdiivka. Thanks. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is one side that has committed hundreds of war crimes and killed thousands of civilians. I completely reject bothsideism here. You inserted some original research hidden comments into the content. Regarding the looting I can clearly see it is a house and not some kind of military depot or something. We have an entire article dedicated to Russians looting Ukraine [9] so it shouldn't be too surprising. It's not like we're supposed to be the ones analysing evidence, that is the work of sources, and unlike RT or Sputnik for example, Militarnyi has not been deprecated as a reliable source. If its reliability is to be doubted a deprecation process should be started first.

Regarding the basements thing not being a war crime I can agree but I think you'd agree the info does fit with the rest. Perhaps the subsection's title can be renamed. And regarding the human sheilds claim I have to agree that it seems dubious but I still think it is worth including. I think your addition of "alleged" was appropriate wording. Super Ψ Dro 22:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree, no Wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE. Alleged? What do the sources say? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Because other wars are more interesting to media today most of these events have went unreported by Western media. Trust me, I'd rather use The Guardian or The New York Post before Ukrainian websites I've seen three times before, specifically to avoid situations like these. Maybe the ISW has something about to say about these cases though. Super Ψ Dro 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

👍. Though you would still need to see through the ISW bias to check if there are actual facts. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there again. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE is not applicable here. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Where are the Russian allegations of Ukrainian soldiers dressing up as civilians to escape? I hadn't heard about them before and you can add them. About Isn't failing to evacuate the civilians (especially those who can't run) also a Ukrainian war crime? feel free to add them if you find reliable sources though I really hate that sentence for several reasons. Super Ψ Dro 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Who said it's a war crime? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure they're referring to an inline comment by @Alexiscoutinho in this revision, where he said that comment along with many others about how the (allegations of) war crimes section is greatly unbalanced. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't heard about them before and you can add them. Unsurprisingly the Russian allegations come from Russian analysts and milbloggers. Iirc, one or two people said that, but a few days ago. Won't be easy to find in Telegram. I also don't follow Russian media much to know if they give voice to such claims, like pro-Ukrainian media. though I really hate that sentence for several reasons. Yeah I know. I meant it more sarcastically. The locals had enough time to evacuate if they wanted. Those who stayed made their choice and accepted the risk (and if they couldn't move but wanted to go, then the Ukrainians should have evacuated them. I'm referring to the wheelchair guy. Seriously, what was he doing there?! In the middle of the road where hell was breaking loose. That story still has many unknowns). There could be many reasons why the other civilians stayed. You can't put all the blame on the Russians if something happens to some of those who choose to stay. This is war and Ukraine knew an offensive was looming.

Oh, and regarding that human shield claim, I think we could reinclude it with balance, i.e. Ukrainian soldiers also took positions in that hospital that was later obliterated. That could also be considered using human shield if civilians were inside. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is one side that has committed hundreds of war crimes and killed thousands of civilians. I completely reject bothsideism here. Come on man... You know Western English media has complete domination over this information space. Furthermore, the past is the past. Let's not carry past biases into this battle of Vovchansk that's only a couple of days old.

You inserted some original research hidden comments into the content. What OR? It's just a comment. I mean something that would normally go in a talk page. I put it there as motivation/basis for this discussion. I think it can be removed now.

Regarding the looting I can clearly see it is a house and not some kind of military depot or something. That still doesn't mean anything. That 'white thing' could literally be anything. Could be an injured baby, an injured dog, a bomb, something left behind by Ukrainian troops (idk a beacon?), some gold bars, etc. Do you really think these soldiers would risk their lives clustering like that near a vehicle when there are constant FPV drone strikes and even Ukrainian airstrikes happening around just to steal food or whatever idk? That's why I insist that statement is propagandistic until more evidence is given/a proper investigation is conducted.

We have an entire article dedicated to Russians looting Ukraine That mostly covers events from 2 years ago. Should be not used as evidence here.

It's not like we're supposed to be the ones analysing evidence, that is the work of sources, and unlike RT or Sputnik for example, Militarnyi has not been deprecated as a reliable source. I don't like that argument. We still have the duty to build and encyclopedia and report events with due weight and no POV pushing. The whole point of this discussion is to make sure we don't fall into information/propaganda warfare.

If its reliability is to be doubted a deprecation process should be started first. I hope we can establish a local consensus about that specific case here though.

Regarding the basements thing not being a war crime I can agree but I think you'd agree the info does fit with the rest. Perhaps the subsection's title can be renamed. And regarding the human sheilds claim I have to agree that it seems dubious but I still think it is worth including. I think your addition of "alleged" was appropriate wording. 👍. The wording is important. If we convey that those are still allegations without definitive conclusions, then I'm not really against keeping them. But I still think the commented out things are kinda cheap accusations, not quite encyclopedic. I didn't outright remove them because I thought they could be relevant in the future (i.e. could turn out to be true). For now, I would prefer to reword them or keep them stashed until more evidence is given (WP:ECREE). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Come on man... You know Western English media has complete domination over this information space. so I don't want this to become WP:FORUM but let's just say that hasn't avoided people from knowing Israel has killed over 30,000 civilians. The truth always comes out. What OR? It's just a comment. I mean something that would normally go in a talk page. well it was unsourced reasoning. Indeed it should have gone first here.

I simply do not agree with your view on the looting video so I think it's best to let it to a third opinion (perhaps Cinderella157 can help here). But we currently have sources claiming looting and no sources saying otherwise. My point with the RT-Sputnik thing was that we have no reason for now to doubt Militarnyi as a valid source. Therefore we have information that is verified by a source. No reason to remove. That the article about Russians looting Ukraine hasn't been updated is irrelevant, and we have no reason to believe Russian forces have become more humane.

As for the subsection title on second thought I think it is appropriate to leave as is. So it's just the looting and human shields issues that are pending. Super Ψ Dro 08:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I propose that if we find certain cases problematic we still mention them briefly. Something like "Ukrainian officials/police/media reported on instances of looting, killing of civilians, taking of civilians captive and use of human shields". I think it is of the readers' interest to know one side is acussing the other of certain war crimes, so that they can perhaps read into the possibly non-encyclopedic details of these cases. Super Ψ Dro 08:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

hasn't avoided people from knowing Israel has killed over 30,000 civilians. yeah, though that case is somewhat different as there are still strong international or more left leaning MSM against the Israeli actions. But we currently have sources claiming looting and no sources saying otherwise. I don't think that's good reasoning. Firstly, it's not really about "have sources claiming", but "have a POV claiming". Secondly, just because the other side doesn't speak out doesn't mean it accepts the accusations. For example, Ukraine mostly ignores Russian statements of casualties, advances, etc. Their silence doesn't mean they concede, nor that we should push the Russian statements into articles as uncontested. no reason for now to doubt Militarnyi as a valid source. I think that looting claim is a good reason for doubt, but I won't push forward with RSN because I'm a bit lazy rn. we have no reason to believe Russian forces have become more humane. I don't think that's the right mentality to have when building these articles. We should always have a fresh mind and cover the events with fairness and without past prejudice.

I propose that if we find certain cases problematic we still mention them briefly. yeah, I think we can convey caution with the wording. Mellk's comment below is great btw. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: If you don't mind, what are your thoughts? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is sourced to Ukrainian outlets that simply repeat the claims by authorities. For exceptional claims like these, we are not going to write this in wikivoice while using articles by anonymous authors from an outlet like Militarnyi [10]. For example, the Guardian says "Ukrainian officials have accused Russian soldiers in Vovchansk of capturing dozens of civilians and using them as 'human shields' to defend their command headquarters – a claim that has not yet been independently verified."[11]. Mellk (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I am in favor of using The Guardian instead and use their wording. Super Ψ Dro 10:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

We can mention such claims as unverified. Otherwise, this is not really much different to using Russian sources like TASS that simply parrot claims by whatever official with no evidence. Mellk (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I accept referring to the looting as "purportedly showing looting" and appending "a claim that has not yet been independently verified" to the human shields allegation. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the ISW comment, I don't think it helps. Their commentary and analyses are notoriously biased and what they said regarding the current events is just conjecture. Those are still all unverified and potentially cheap/propaganda claims. I've adjusted the wording in the commented out allegations to express this, and reintroduced them. We have to be very careful to not add light commentary that inadequately sways the reader's opinion or perception of the sensitive accusations. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would only mention ISW if a different source mentioned them, especially if there are exceptional claims. I do not see why every update they write needs to be included here. I have seen some articles where the daily updates are only citing ISW, which is hardly due. Mellk (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If they are cited for territorial changes, then there is no problem as they are not biased, just careful and conservative. But they'll still often be the first to report a Russian advance because they follow geolocated footage closely. The battle of Krasnohorivka relies on it a lot. If I dedicated the time here, I would fill up that Offensive section with relevant ISW coverage. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, sure, though I think other sources usually mention ISW for territorial changes anyway. But not sure about the rest of the commentary they include. Mellk (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Reading the section 2024 Kharkiv offensive#Allegations of war crimes and mistreatment of civilians, I am of the view that the section is trying too hard. The death of a civilian that refused direction under martial law and was then shot while fleeing is unfortunate but not necessarily a crime or mistreatment without fuller context - etc etc. The allegations that are made in this section are not particularly notable in the context of this article or the broader context of the war and the scale of allegations made elsewhere. By contrast, they are relatively trivial. I would cite WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The weight given to these here would appear to be WP:UNDUE. We all know that the Russians have been particularly bad boys but the Ukrainians aren't snow white either. In the context of this article though, throwing tinder onto a bonfire is pretty pointless. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  For now, I proposed in the article to reframe that section to not indulge "war crimes" accusations nor allude to them (I substituted it with "misconduct"). I agree that that term was being used lightly. Regarding the See also link, I suggest that we only include it if there is compelling evidence by independent and non-biased sources. Otherwise I kept all the content, for now (which doesn't guarantee it will remain relevant after a future top-down revision). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  It does not look like there are formal accusations of war crimes for all of these incidents yet from reading the cited sources, so I would agree that "allegations of war crimes" is premature. The original version simply called them war crimes and looks like WP:OR. I also would agree that this is approaching WP:NOTNEWS territory. Of course, I can understand why some people feel that every death should be mentioned, but this does not align with the policies. Mellk (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have trimmed down a bit the section and removed the subsection title because "Impact on civilians" works too. Mentioning all details may have been undue, hopefully this looks better to users now. I have also readded a part of the ISW's commentary which I do believe is relevant, and which I don't think can be identified as biased. I agree I might have used the term "war crime" lightly. If users still see problems with the text it could be trimmed down even more, because I believe the claims deserve at the very least a brief mention. We could limit the looting claim to a 4-word mention if other more authoritative sources are not found.

The death of a civilian that refused direction under martial law and was then shot while fleeing is unfortunate but not necessarily a crime this is stupid for self-explanatory reasons. Super Ψ Dro 16:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Introducing the illegality of martial law because of the illegality of Russia's invasion is not a self-explanatory reason. It is certainly a matter that would be argued in a court. Take that aside, it would not necessarily be a crime under martial law. My key point is one of proportionality; the scale of crimes (allegedly) committed by Russia across the war and where these fit on that scale. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have added another source on the looting so this is now supported by two different sources. I have also trimmed down the info cited from Militarnyi. I considered replacing it with this source from Sloboden Pečat [12], a Macedonian rather than Ukrainian news website with its own article in Wikipedia. But it's literally just one sentence about the video.

Open to hearing other suggestions. Maybe the ISW comment shouldn't be given its own paragraph. As I said I think it should remain but if there is consensus among editors that it should be removed I won't oppose the decision. Super Ψ Dro 16:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I've made further tweaks in that section. They're explained in the edit summaries, notably: readded video description for the sake of transparency. It's unlikely that a reader will watch the video, thus I think it's important to mention what's objectively shown in it. and I still think that ISW citation is problematic as it indirectly suggests/cheaply hints that Russia is committing war crimes in Vovchansk based on past accusations. It also exacerbates unbalance as it neglects past accusations of Ukrainian war crimes. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion the description of the video does not add much value. I am also not sure if editors are allowed to describe videos themselves rather than paraphrase the source's description. Because your description is subjective and another editor could describe it differently and because it is not backed by any policy any of two descriptions would be just as valid. In my opinion it is original research. Though to be fair the words that aren't in the article are not many. What do other editors think? Super Ψ Dro 19:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion the description of the video does not add much value. Maybe. More opinions could be helpful. Because your description is subjective What is subjective? I only stated visual facts. Perhaps what could be argued is that the object isn't white and is not covered by something removable (the veil). But the gist I wanted to convey is that the object is not discernible. I think we all agree that that's a fact. What do other editors think? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If the police can do that in certain situations, then there may be understandable explanations in a warzone. The soldier could have thought the civilian's action could have put other people at risk. Furthermore, soldiers don't carry less-than-lethal weapons around, so any intervention can be deadly, sadly. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's leave the matter here because it won't lead to anywhere. I mentioned it originally because Russian soldiers have zero right to enforce martial law over Ukrainian civilians in the territory of Ukraine, and because it is definitively necessarily a crime, which should be punished. Super Ψ Dro 19:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's leave the matter here 👌. Especially since I intervened in a reply to Cinderella. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Changing the name of the section to Misconduct allegations misses the point. Detaining and interrogating civilians in a war zone is not ipso facto misconduct. Nor is a dead civilian in a wheelchair. Aspersions that they may have been deliberately shot is good propaganda - it isn't even a direct allegation. Being shot after refusing a direction and then running away is also not ipso facto misconduct. Not every car that gets stolen is reported in the news. Looting is a war crime but evidence of a single small scale instance is not in itself notable. Using human shiels is a war crime. Alleging the use of human shields without any substantiation is just propaganda. If we acknowledge there is no substance to this, why are we reporting propaganda?

WP is not a news repository. WP:NEWSORG sources are a qualified source. Not everything in the news is encyclopedic content. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. This material has only recently been added and it is being challenged. There is an onus to gain consensus for it to be retained. At the moment, I am seeing no consensus. All this is so thin that giving any weight to at all is UNDUE. Russia has its own can of blackwash and a big brush. There is no need for us to embellish or gild the lily. There are multiple reasons in P&G for not retaining this material. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not getting removed. You're the only user in this discussion apparently seeking this. As I said I am open to even limiting all of this to passing brief mentions, which I believe is too extreme for all four so far claims. I will seek all possible measures to retain the content if users attempt to remove 100% of it. Hiding claims of crimes against civilians in a war with frequent and multiple such cases, even when at the very least mentioned by major reliable sources (ISW, The Guardian, probably more), now that's good propaganda. You could help here by many ways rather than posting an unreasonable request. Super Ψ Dro 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

""Minister: Russia captures, executes civilians in northern Vovchansk"" is not propaganda. Moreover, it is also not a "misconduct", this is far the understatement. The section should be rather named "Reports on the treatment of civilians" or something like that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a eye-catching headline but the detail in source really doesn't live up to it. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You're the only user in this discussion apparently seeking this. I wouldn't consider his opinion an outlier here. I generally agree with him. I've mostly tolerated the content for the sake of compromise, because I know you're flexible and I appreciate it, not because I think it's ideal or the best for Wikipedia. Considering how the final article should look like, I still think those events should only be contemplated if they turn out to be true and turn out to be criminal (meaning the shooting of the running civilian probably wouldn't qualify). Otherwise they're just propaganda. In fact, we currently risk spreading propaganda if those claims turn out to be false or distorted. Though given the current amended wording, the potential harm is greatly mitigated and therefore, as of now, I'm still willing to compromise some things. But there might be another problem: given the unbalance in POV, I would still feel compelled to cover the Russian accusations (if I can find them again). If restoring balance seems to require having a claim vs claim contest, then this whole thing feels wrong. It would be like information warfare on a small, localized scale.

Hiding claims [...] even when at the very least mentioned by major reliable sources [...], now that's good propaganda. Just because something is mentioned in RS doesn't mean it's not propaganda, nor that it's of encyclopedic value. WP:NOTNEWS exists for a reason after all. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So instead of me cutting off some text to still find dissatisfaction from the other side let's work out a final version. What exactly do editors think the text should be like? Alexiscoutinho, I incite you to edit the text, remove details you don't deem necessary, etc.. I am willing to have Militarnyi and its cited info removed since now we have another source for the looting claim. But let's end this already. Super Ψ Dro 19:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I've made my adjustments, note the intext comments. Cinderella157, if you still maintain your motion to remove the contentious content, I would personally act as an observer, i.e. let you make further cleanup edits/enforce guidelines. However, if it comes to a tie-breaker situation, I would still support your motion. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the looting ref, I would still encourage you to switch it, to remove {{bsn}}. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Regarding the taking people into basements that actually seems the most realistic claim to me and it is known Russians did this in Kyiv Oblast, so I wouldn't remove it as you suggested in the hidden comment. The human shields claim is weaker. About looting I think the info cited by Ukrinform shouldn't be removed either. What do you mean that I "switch" the reference? Also, regarding content removal I'd want the opinion of other users as well. Super Ψ Dro 09:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, what would be necessary to remove the neutrality template? Super Ψ Dro 09:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've checked that alternative Macedonian reference and it isn't any better because of this sentence "The released video, allegedly taken in Vovchansk, shows a large group of robbers taking loot from a private house and loading it into a truck." So don't switch. Regarding the neutrality template, I think keep until we add info about the impact on civilians caused by Ukrainian actions, until we add Russian accusations/claim, or if the Ukrainian claims are dropped. Keep in mind that the template says "may" which doesn't necessarily assert unbalance, only highlights a concern. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

But is there any problem with the current existing text anymore? Super Ψ Dro 15:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

For now maybe not, I feel I've done my part. I'm not suggesting to remove the banner yet though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Let's leave the situation develop for some weeks. Add Russian allegations of Ukrainian war crimes if you find them backed by reliable sources. Though I note I haven't even heard of them, and I check daily updates on the war. If we cannot find sources to use I think we should remove the template. In any case, thank you for another nice and cooperative interaction, Alexis. Super Ψ Dro 17:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Based in the latest interaction at Talk:25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes where I asked for sources to replace a fringe claim with a better source to no avail, I am removing the neutrality template because it seems to be currently based on the absence of supposed Russian claims on the use of human shields by Ukraine which I haven't even seen beyond this talk page. I am not confident reliable sources will be able to be brought to defend these claims, and even if they are, leaving a section tagged for days because certain reliable information is missing is not appropriate. Super Ψ Dro 07:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see keeping a maintenance banner up while the article is in development as inappropriate. It is just as temporary as those Ukrainian accusations without solid evidence. Something which was kept mostly due to goodwill compromise. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. If you disagree with the content or the sources there's not a lot to do here as most are reliable. If you think the section is unbalanced then add the content you believe is missing. Super Ψ Dro 11:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This RS debate in RUSUKR topics is a rigged game as, in general, many shitty sensationalist mass media sources are regarded as RS a priori. I guess it wouldn't help much if I added the accusations from Russian military officials from Telegram. And I don't feel compelled enough to dig through Russian sources in Russian (because you'll hardly find them in English sites) that haven't been blacklisted yet to relay such statements.

Let me be blunt and transparent, I am kinda holding hostage some of those Ukrainian claims. It was part of the compromise. I think you are better off.

Look, you've earned my appreciation despite our personal thoughts seemingly being polar opposites. I hope you can understand were I'm/this is coming from. And I apologize if you caught some heat when I threw you in an already very heated discussion with MAE. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I coincide with what you say in the last paragraph of your comment. If the issue is (still) the content itself I can admit that. What I didn't agree with was keeping the template because the section does not cover Russian claims, which is what I had understood. I will leave this issue for some days or weeks in case you need to cool off and disconnect after that discussion. But I will revisit this issue again. I think. Super Ψ Dro 15:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Let me also record here my concern/disapproval of Volunteer Marek's recent edit summary, specifically with the only remaining objection being “I don’t trust reliable sources”, which is a cheap and false accusation completely distorting my argument on the issue. Needless to say, I would appreciate a retraction, but that is hardly possible in an edit summary. I think a more fitting maintenance banner would be the WP:UNDUE weight one. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It was a specific reference to this comment of yours: in general, many shitty sensationalist mass media sources are regarded as RS a priori.

No idea why “undue” would be relevant here. Surely “impact on civilians” and/or “allegations of war crimes” are relevant to the topic. Volunteer Marek 23:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Re reading your comments again, this comment: Let me be blunt and transparent, I am kinda holding hostage some of those Ukrainian claims. is even more problematic. Volunteer Marek 23:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It was a specific reference to this comment of yours: [...] It's not a matter of not trusting the secondary source, but not trusting the primary claimer.

Surely “impact on civilians” and/or “allegations of war crimes” are relevant to the topic. They are relevant, as long as they are actually backed by compelling evidence. That section is not a place for fringe/cheap claims. I think the "undue" template ties well with the condition of removal of info of allegations. The template says "may", which includes the outcome of the claims being true or not. If the claims don't consolidate, then we gave undue weight to them by voicing them in Wikipedia. If the claims are confirmed, then we gave the accusations due weight. Since we can't be certain right now, the "may be undue" template is perfect.

this comment: [...] is even more problematic. Being honest doesn't scare me. The compromise effectively could be understood as that. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• We have three editors here citing WP:NOTNEWS as reason for not retaining this material. This leads to WP:VNOT and WP:DUE - including insinuations of war crimes and misconduct without a substantial basis. The rational for inclusion given in this edit appears to fall to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS/WP:SOAPBOX. While Alexis' comment, ... I am kinda holding hostage ... is unfortunate phrasing, the comments linked would appear to be at least as WP:BATTLEGROUNDy: It is not getting removed ... I will seek all possible measures to retain the content if users attempt to remove 100% of it. Since the WP:ONUS to retain this material has not been met, there is reasonable policy based reason for its removal. It is only the threat of potentially disruptive behaviour to follow that has restrained me from acting in accordance with policy. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTNEWS as reason for not retaining this material. This leads to WP:VNOT and WP:DUE
  It has grown above the news as reports started using it describing the context of the situation near Kharkiv, see Civilian killed by Russian forces while evacuating border town, Ukrainian prosecutors say | CNN

  insinuations of war crimes
  If there are no sources saying so, the section name and the wording can be changed.

  While Alexis' comment, ... I am kinda holding hostage ... is unfortunate phrasing, the comments linked would appear to be at least as WP:BATTLEGROUNDy: It is not getting removed ... I will seek all possible measures to retain the content if users attempt to remove 100% of it.
  It's actually "I am kinda holding hostage" that is the battleground, no victimblaming please. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Grown above the news? How? The link is still news but two days later. It clarifies some matters, such as it happening in the early hours of the morning (dark) but it still does not evidence a war crime ipso facto. Victim-blaming is a spurious allegation. The comments I linked were directed at me. WP:VNOT and WP:DUE still apply. The WP:ONUS to include has still not been established. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have commented on "war crimes" insinuations above that the wording may be changed.

  Now regarding NOTNEWS. Well reading WP:NOTNEWS it says that Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and some news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics. Now how to determine which "news" are worthy to include and which are not? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Editors citing NOTNEWS have done so for a reason - but thank you for some clarification of what this would be. No matter how one dresses it up, it is still NOTNEWS. One can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The ONUS for inclusion is still not met. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Again: some news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics. How to determine which "news" are worthy to include and which are not? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  If the wording is changed and proper context is given, then I think this episode could be moved up, to the base Impact on civilians sectionit would be good. However, the episode would lose quite some notability as it would become another one of those tragic accidental civilian casualties in the heat and fog of war of battle. Something great for news but not necessarily encyclopedic. However, I would not contest it's inclusion in that base section for now. I think a new enduring notability assessment would be required at the end of the offensive to decide what individual episodes stay, if any, and what episodes should be trimmed out. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)