Talk:2024 Kharkiv offensive

Splitting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Strong oppose this article has not met the criteria for splitting. WP:SPLITTING: Below 8,000 words, an article may not need splitting based on size alone, and at 6,000 words and below a split would generally only be justified based on content issues. This article has 3,318 words. It does not seem likely that it will increase in the future and if it does the appropriate time to argue for a split would be then and not now. Note that the "content issues" part refers to two or more distinct topics sharing similar titles (e.g. Coffea and coffee). It is not the case here.

Beyond what Wikipedia rules say it also does not make much sense. Fighting in Vovchansk is the main and most notable engagement in this offensive. It is the only populated place other than Lyptsi that reliable sources say have great importance, with the rest being small rural villages, and Lyptsi hasn't even seen any fighting. Giving fighting in Vovchansk its own article would make this one lose quite a lot of its point of existing. Super Ψ Dro 14:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Split — The overall (parent) article is related to the entire offensive. Through my watchlist, I discovered the article was recently merged amid a edit war between Bortak42 (supporting creation) and Super Dromaeosaurus (opposing creation) (see edit history of “Battle of Vovchansk” here). I am not here to talk about the editors, but one small comment to note from the edit history is that this was merged without any formal merge process, as even stated by Super Dromaeosaurus.

Back to my Support comment reasoning. Before the most recent merge of the article, the article size was nearly 14,000 bytes. However, it also had 18 references and a detailed timeline. Several RS sources seem to focus on Vovchansk, including Forbes, Politico, Reuters, and The Guardian. To me at least, splitting this into its own battle article seems ok to do, given sources do specifically mention it. Having a section specifically for the battle does give undue weight to it, but that undue weight is also supported by direct RS sources about it. Basically, battle has enough RS sources to clearly be split (I believe), similar to how Battle of Kherson or Battle of Melitopol (Battle of Melitopol being a good example) was split from Southern Ukraine campaign. Campaign/offensive articles are the overview “parent” articles and battle articles focus on the specific engagements/towns. The only valid arguments for not splitting, in my opinion, are ones focusing on content (i.e., not enough content for a split article). Battle articles do not have to be super big, so split size is not super relevant here. Battle of Re'im is a perfect example of a 6,200 byte sized battle article, where the community consensus at an AFD was to “Keep” rather than Delete/“Merge” back into the “parent” offensive article.

TL;DR — Support split. Bytesize articles are not easily valid for offensive/battle/campaign articles given recent community consensuses. Edit war needs to stop. Article had 18 references pre-bold/edit war merge, which is more than some community consensus “keep” battle articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support split: I think this section of the article is great to be its own article. I would be glad to help in the process of its creation. Vamos Palmeiras (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Vai Curintia. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait. While I am normally in support of splitting in cases like this, I don't think enough time has passed to officially separate sources about the Battle of Vovchansk and the overarching Kharkiv offensive without being bare-bones pages on either end. I think waiting a few months would be good in deciding how sources go. Jebiguess (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Bortak42 was not an extended-confirmed user. Per WP:RUSUKR I think this means their comment should be striken out. I am not doing it myself because I might be wrong. Super Ψ Dro 16:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I have struckthrough it. Since this is a formal discussion, non-EC editors are not allowed to participate. Had this been just an average discussion, non-EC editors are allowed to discuss/participate. Hopefully that clears up the guidelines for WP:RUSUKR. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support split even if it means turning both into drafts. Let's not forget that Vovchansk is officially a city and not a tiny one. There is plenty of coverage in RS to make a great article about it. We just need to stop neglecting it. Take for example the battle of Krasnohorivka, almost nobody in MSM talks about it, yet it still has enough worthy content to build a decent article. It relies quite a lot on ISW which is fine imo. This proposed battle of Vovchansk article, could have a lot of meaningful content if the ISW reports, for example, were not neglected. I'm personally giving priority to building the Krasnohorivka article and map templates, which explains why I encourage others to absorb more responsibility here.

The offensive article would still have enough content, there's literally 12 other settlements that we can talk about besides a one sentence mention. And as a parent article, it could also summarize the info from the battle of Vovchansk article. Thus maintaining it's importance. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just saw now the commendable contributions by Scu ba in the timeline (though arguably a lot of those citations will eventually need to be trimmed down due to lack of notability). That is what I was talking about with not neglecting ISW free content. And a lot of that wasn't even about Vovchansk. Therefore this page doesn't need all the Vovchansk details to be useful. The Vovchansk summary subsection needs to be separated from the timeline section though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, even I felt like it was repetitive as I was adding it, but as per other articles about offensives during the war I feel it's better to give too much information, and then we can go back and trim it down when the fighting is done. the ISW doesn't treat the fighting in Vovchansk as anything special when compared to the rest of the front. Scu ba (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Wait: As it stands, right now, there is nothing too notable about the fighting in Vovchansk versus fighting in, for example, Lyptsi. However, I feel that, as a policy, we should strive to break up big campaign articles like this into individual battle articles. So I say wait until the fighting is over, and then we can reassess if the fighting in Vovchansk is notable enough to have it's own page (and maybe a page on Lyptsi?). Scu ba (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Wait This is premature. The present content does not indicate this is individually notable to warrant its own article. We need to consider WP:NOTNEWS v what is encyclopedic content and whether this will survive the WP:10YEARTEST. There is no clear benefit or P&G based reason to split it off yet. Being noteworthy (its a big ciy) is not the same as WP:NOTABLE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casualties in infobox

Official sources from both Russia and Ukraine have released casualty claims. I’m not sure precisely why they’re not in the infobox, but if there aren’t any objections to it, I think we should add them in. Tomissonneil (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason they're not there now is due to this discussion a while ago, and the points of the editors there still stand; it would probably be best to simply redirect the reader to the casualty claims section than giving unnecessary attention to claims which are not always made in the best faith. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I see. I thought that because so much time has passed, we now have a clearer picture of what’s going on, but I see your point. Something I will point out though is that there are many pages who’s infoboxes contain casualty claims made by the combatants, such as in the current Israel-Hamas war, but with the added stipulation of who’s making the claim, i.e. "Per (whoever)", but I get if that’s not wanted on this page. Tomissonneil (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If there is a TOC section for casualties, then a link in the infobox is redundant and should be avoided. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Should be renamed to 2024 Kharkiv incursion

Considering the territory Russia captured is four times smaller than what Ukraine captured in Kursk Oblast in August 2024, and that's referred to as the "2024 Kursk incursion", it seems a bit illogical that this is referred to as a proper offensive. Besides, they never went much further from the border, and were contained 10 km from it, at the furthest point, so it does seem like a border incursion in more aspects than less. 79.140.150.24 (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Rather than downgrading Kharkiv from Offense to Incursion, Kursk should be upgraded to Offensive (imho) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:86A:951D:F0F5:F0FD (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda Posters

Scu ba, you reverted my edit removing the word "propaganda" in the caption for the video of the posters. These posters are not called "propaganda" by any reliable source. Propaganda itself is a loaded term. Best avoid it if there's no reason to use it. The word "liberation" is also propagandistic. JDiala (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The posters where clearly propaganda calling for the annexation of the city, "We are with Russia! One people!". Also, what else would you call a country freeing it's own territory. is Liberation of Paris propaganda for using the term "liberation" Scu ba (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a political poster. Political posters and slogans are not usually called "propaganda" unless with an intention to discredit. Indeed, the term "propaganda" is itself (ironically) a propagandistic term. It's generally used as an epithet. Now, if reliable sources use the term in reference to this poster, I would not object to it, but reliable sources using the term in reference to this poster have not been presented. I suggest a more neutral descriptor like "pro-Russia poster." See WP:NPOV. JDiala (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You are rejecting reality. the posters are propaganda. information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Calling Ukrainians "One people" with Russia, and calling for Kharkiv to be annexed "with Russia" is biased or misleading information, promoting a particular political cause or point of view. You couldn't get a more textbook definition of propaganda if you tried. Scu ba (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but words like "biased" or "misleading" are just your opinion. Hence OR. JDiala (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Claiming Ukrainians don't exist and they're actually just confused Russians is biased and misleading. Scu ba (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

What is Russian poster doing on the occupied territories if not spreading wartime propaganda, it is a thing You know. Plenty of sources: https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/donbaspropaganda https://www.pism.pl/publications/russia-using-peace-propaganda-as-path-to-victory-in-ukraine https://rsf.org/en/occupied-territories-ukraine-russia-propaganda-machine-continues-absorb-local-media https://euneighbourseast.eu/news/stories/disinformation-on-telegram-how-russian-propaganda-works-in-temporarily-occupied-territories/ https://rsf.org/en/russian-propaganda-how-kremlin-trains-war-correspondents-work-occupied-territories-ukraine https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/10/27/how-russian-propaganda-built-an-alternate-reality-in-occupied-ukraine-a82900 https://zmina.info/en/articles-en/how-kremlin-propaganda-in-the-occupied-territories-of-ukraine-has-changed-over-10-years/ In the liberated city of Kherson, Ukrainians have been tearing down a glaring symbol of occupation -- billboards spreading Russian propaganda. RS says exactly that. Please stop soapboxing. YBSOne (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Is this an appropriate image appropriately placed? WP:IMGCONTENT tells us: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The 2022 recapture of Vovchansk is not mentioned in the Background section where the image is placed. The MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is not established. The image MOS:SANDWICHs text between the infobox. It is poorly placed. As to the clip itself, the first half of it is not showing what the caption tells us it is showing. One of the posters shows a Russian flag with the slogan "мъӀ c poccиeй Oдин нapoд". While one might take the caption at its word (ie it is pro Russian), the meaning is not apparent to non-Russian speakers. For all most of us will know, it could be saying, "Russia, go fuck yourself!". The caption should be MOS:CAPSUCCINCT and avoid POV loaded terms or MOS:EDITORIALising. "Pro-Russian" and "propaganda" is a tautological construct that falls to editorialising and is not succinct. "Liberation" is acknowledged as a POV loaded term (see WP:MILNAME) and "recapture" would probably be more appropriate. Considering the relevant WP:P&G, there are multiple issues with this image, as used in the article at present. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I wholly disagree. The background section is talking about the liberation of the Kharkiv oblast during the 2022 counteroffensive, during which Vovchansk was liberated. The caption clearly mentions what the posters say, ie, pro-Russian annexation so that entire argument is a fallacy. It is not a loaded term to call a country liberating it's own territory as liberation. If anything it is a loaded term to use recapture because it makes it sound like the settlement is Russian and was captured by Ukraine. Scu ba (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  The background now mentions Vovchansk, which addresses one concern, though half the clip is showing other stuff - not what the caption describes. There is still the issues of MOS:SANDWICH, MOS:CAPSUCCINCT and the tautology. As to [t]he caption clearly mentions what the posters say, they do not say pro-Russian annexation. One says, мъӀ c poccиeй Oдин нapoд. We should be telling our readers what it says in English because this En Wiki. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Cinderella and JDiala here. There is a severe lack of MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for the Vovchansk recapture video; for one it is not even mentioned in the background section, as said, and secondly a video showing Ukrainians tearing down pro-Russian posters does not have much encyclopedic value for this article; it would be more suitable in a Wikipedia article actually about Russian disinformation/propaganda, and is what I would expect to see in a Ukrainian news article or a Reddit post around the time of Vovchansk's recapture, not in an encyclopedia on the subject (and serving only as background to a later event at that). If the clip is kept here (for some reason) the word "propaganda", despite however true it may be, should be removed as redundant and adding nothing not conveyed with "pro-Russian", and "liberation" changed to "recapture" for the aforementioned reasoning by Cinderella. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the Kharkiv mentioned on this page limited to Northern Kharkiv?

I often think about this—does the offensive described on this page pertain solely to movements in Northern Kharkiv? According to recent reports by ISW, Russian forces are focusing seriously on Eastern Kharkiv, having recently captured the village of Synkivka . Why is the Russian troop movement there not included on this page?

If so, why not simply rename this page to '2024 Northern Kharkiv Offensive' or '2024 Northern Ukraine Offensive'?" Bukansatya (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this article covers exclusively the Russian offensive into north Kharkiv in May, while events in eastern Kharkiv Oblast are covered in eastern Ukraine campaign and Luhansk Oblast campaign, which already mention the recent capture of Synkivka. This page remains at the current title as it appears to be the common name and is largely unambiguous as the fighting east of the Oskil river did not begin in 2024. It would not make sense to include all information on fighting taking place in Kharkiv Oblast on one page, as the events in the north and east are in no way connected or part of the same offensive. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes and no. This article doesn't cover Eastern Kharkiv, but it does cover incursions elsewhere, mostly raids into other parts of Kharkiv, as well as Sumy meant to distract Ukrainian forces since they would be too small to stand alone as their own articles. Scuba 17:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Timeline

@Scu ba Now that the main offensive is over (and has been for months), I think it's time to replace the timeline with a much shorter and condensed paragraph-format section; despite the time you've put into having information on every single day since May 10, having such nonessential content clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS (even if verifiable by the ISW; fighting continuing without frontline changes will in no scenario be notable in ten years; only notable Russian or Ukrainian gains or other developments need inclusion) and should be cut. The entirety of the content after early June can reliably be condensed into 3–4 paragraphs with no information of encyclopedic value being lost; here's a diff of the most obvious trimming (and re-alignment of content to what the sources actually say) that should be done prior to transferring away from a day-by-day timeline; let me know if there's any objections. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

go ahead, I'll continue to add the day by day in the meantime. Scuba 03:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Scu ba The reason I trimmed the current month's content is because little of it is notable or has any long-term encyclopedic value. Can you elaborate on your reasoning beyond "don't do this"? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Due to recentism the most recent information could turn into further developments. Keep trimming efforts to content that has proven to have not developed in a meaningful way. Scuba 15:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

In no scenario are "fighting continued with no frontline changes" and "conflicts were reported in x, y, and z" statements going to be notable (see also this article being the only one on Wikipedia reporting on such non-meaningful information, owing to its undue size). Not everything (or rather most is not) verifiable from an ISW report should be included. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You could argue that, but we should wait to trim recent data until it isn't recent anymore. I'm all for trimming everything from August and before, and we can start trimming September stuff when we get into October. Scuba 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yea that was the first thing I thought..after reading the first like week I was like wait this is actually gonna go day by day. I can see why it was done and it has lots of info. But even breaking it down into months until the end of the year would be better for readability . -Tracer9999 (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

feel free to change it, but I'm going to keep adding days when they happen due to that simply being the way news is broken. Scuba 17:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)