Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tabloid yes, random no:

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

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

Ukrainian cassualties in the counter offensive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Sorry for the discord links)

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2023

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

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

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

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

Infobox map

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

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

Exact date of start of counteroffensive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The expectation was built by West and Zelensky, talking for months about the counteroffensive and with his world tours. Now, they have the need to explain the poor results, moving the counteroffensive start date here and there. emijrp (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Losses in infobox

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

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

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

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

Participating brigades

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

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

"Fronts"

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

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

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

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

Isn’t this just an offensive?

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

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

Ukrainian/West Equipment Destroyed by Russia

"Ukrainian/West equipment destroyed by Russia

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

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

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

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

Lukashenko’s claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oryx a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

- Roshel Senatorz

- UR-77 Meteorit

- Novator (light armoured vehicle)

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

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

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

Russian units

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

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

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

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

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

Cohesion

I read through the main part of the article that details what happened on each day. It reads like a totally random selection of villages and dates and numbers of tanks lost. This is not good. It is undue whether some blogger thinks there is rain, and how many Bradleys a Polish expert counted. Especially in light of the real experts stating it is too early to tell. I would suggest we take a step back and don't try to turn this into a live blog. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Should Kherson be counted as another front

I measn just looking at the map, the Kakhovka Reservoir offers a real and tangible geographical barrier separating it from the front in southern Dontesk/Zaporizhzhia. Shouldn't it be considered its own front? Actions in Kherson have no bearing or overarching operations with operations in southern Dontesk/Zaporizhzhia and eastern Dontesk/Luhansk. Scu ba (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Premature to be discussing this at all. Pretty much every expert agrees that the odds of a Dnieper crossing is slim to none. If there is a real organized attempt to establish a bridgehead, then it can be discussed. ProjectHorizons (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

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

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

Is the ‘Tavria Front’ part of this battle?

The Ukrainian MoD has published semi-daily updates about fighting on the Tavria Front, including Russian personnel and equipment losses. Could these updates be applied here? I’m unsure, as I don’t see Tavria on the available map. Tomissonneil (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Tavria is the Ukrainian name for the geographic region which is roughly equivalent to Kherson oblast plus west Zaporizhzhia oblast. Essentially, the “Tavria Front” is the southern front. HappyWith (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)