Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive/Archive 3

Source check
Greetings, some notes regarding latest edits by @Jjmclellan82. Source - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66306150

Editor text: A repair workshop had a dozen vehicles that needed repair, mostly M2 Bradleys. Source: where they are now trying to repair more than a dozen armoured vehicles - most of them US Bradleys.

Editor text: The BBC reported that Mastiff armoured vehicles, supplied by Britain, had also been damaged and destroyed. Source: Travelling the southern front we also saw British supplied Mastiff armoured vehicles damaged and destroyed.

Editor text: The 47th has had to turn to its older Soviet-era equipment such as the T-64 tank. Source: The 47th Brigade is now using some of its older, Soviet-era tanks to clear minefields. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Source check
Greetings, some notes regarding latest edits by @Jjmclellan82. Source - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66306150 Editor text: A repair workshop had a dozen vehicles that needed repair, mostly M2 Bradleys. Source: where they are now trying to repair more than a dozen armoured vehicles - most of them US Bradleys.

Editor text: The BBC reported that Mastiff armoured vehicles, supplied by Britain, had also been damaged and destroyed. Source: Travelling the southern front we also saw British supplied Mastiff armoured vehicles damaged and destroyed.

Editor text: The 47th has had to turn to its older Soviet-era equipment such as the T-64 tank. Source: The 47th Brigade is now using some of its older, Soviet-era tanks to clear minefields. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Casualty figures
Surely better than a tweet with a wild claim of figures can be provided for casualties on the russian side on a hotly debated topic? AnnexPoland (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As long as it fits their narrative, the biased wikipedia mods will consider it trustworthy Andreax2014 (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I've marked the part with a tag for now. When I'm less busy I'll see if I can find a better source myself. HappyWith (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, however, I can't find any media talking about specifics of Russian casualties for this specific counteroffensive, maybe we could use Ukraine's running list of Russian casualties they keep and update daily, and subtract everything from before the counteroffensive? Scu ba (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Ukrainian source will be inflated as a result of wartime propaganda. We should find a neutral source. Maybe the ISW has data on this? 24.132.155.180 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Same happens with the Russian numbers. it is part of the Russian propaganda, that Ukraine will dry up their manpower earlier than Russia. This is a highly anti-humane way to view war and just shows the failure of Russia to simply win the war, but besides this simple reality, that Russia lost already the war, it makes all numbers at the same time bias, even if they are correct. ISW is just quoting other statements. They are not a neutral option, they have no real option, because their statements are founded on other named sources, except ISW announces something clearly as opinion of ISW at the start of a Update-segment.
 * It is simply impossible to make accurate numbers about causalities in an active war. historians will make the correct numbers years later. BUT it is possible to create a median by using the reasonable claims of both sides and finding the middle-ground.
 * Sadly we only heard the causalities on tanks by Russia (50) that is rubbish by our identified destroyed individual tanks in videos. They try to trick the statstics by talking about tanks and ignoring their Arty-systems and IFVs. 2003:DF:A707:4636:C44F:561C:F25B:5894 (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are we using twitter as a source for russian casualties? Salfanto (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Declaring Russia to have already lost the war just shows that you aren’t interested in neutral presentations of the facts and that your opinions on this matter should be dismissed. Wars can change very unpredictably. 70.115.27.99 (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made this point on this talk page before. Two weeks into the offensive the casualty section said that Russia had already lost 25 thousand kia. I pointed out that would be almost physically impossible and was just told that is the only source that can be used so it has to be used. Surprisingly Russia has not lost any more soldiers in a month and a half of difficult fighting!
 * The truth is something that all of us amateur military historian have been saying for months if not years. In the articles about this war, wikipedia has a bias in favor of Ukraine and Ukrainian propaganda. I am on the side of Ukraine and even I see it. We can either keep sticking our heads in the sand or do something about it.
 * All of you will also notice that it is basically impossible to make any point even in a talk section without a pro-Ukraine account bursting in and accusing everyone of being a Russian spy.
 * As someone who cares about the military history contained on Wikipedia, we need to get it together on this war. 74.109.240.116 (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there needs to be a much better source cited. The two sources in "Ukrainska Pravda' don't even talk about losses in the counteroffensive, they talk about casualties in Bakhmut. Rsemmes92 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Then someone that supports the Ukraine considers that Wikipedia has a bias in favor of Ukrainian propaganda, then should not Wikipedia take note? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.231 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Urozhaine
The part about the battle for Urozhaine is getting a bit bloated with day-to-day stuff. It’s kinda okay for now because the battle is ongoing and info is scarce and people are understandably hungry for info, but once it’s over, I’m going to go through and aggressively trim the section to include only the info that ended up being relevant in the long term. HappyWith (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Whoops, looks like @Scu ba did this for me literally five minutes ago right before I wrote this comment, so the problem’s solved. Thanks! HappyWith (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Haha sorry, didn't even notice this was a section on the talk page. I was the main contributor to the bloat and had been planning on trimming it down for a while. Scu ba (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If I had one last complaint, it would be that we probably shouldn’t cite five ISW reports for five adjacent days to source a general claim about the battle over that time. It’s technically verifying it, but in terms of how it displays it veers into WP:CITEKILL territory, and is a bit annoying to navigate for the reader, who has to click on all the refs and go to the one part in each report where they briefly mention the same thing in Urozhaine.
 * This might not be possible to fix now, but maybe a while after the battle’s over, some mainstream western media outlet will come out with a retrospective about the battle as a whole where they mention the info, and we can just cite that a single time. HappyWith (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I just kept those because they where the sources for the bloated segment, we could remove them if needed. Scu ba (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we just need to make sure whatever replaces it still verifies the claims we’re making in the article. HappyWith (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, cut it down to three sources, I feel like that is sufficient. Scu ba (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Territorial gains/losses
I couldn't help but notice that the portion of the inbox for territorial changes gave the claims from both Ukraine and Russia. Would it not be simpler (and more accurate) to use only independent assessments of territorial control, such as those by the ISW? Jamham420 (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The ISW often relies on Russian military journalists and Ukraine's official statements. So I think using other reliable sources is fine, but I agree that using firstly ISW statements is recommended. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Delete subsections of the southern front section
I don't know who decided to arbitrarily divide the southern front section but it was a pretty bad idea. This article was already divided into three sections and now it turns out two of them are further divided into three. At least in the eastern front it makes sense because the subfronts are well-defined, but can anybody tell me in what village does the "Melitopol axis" start and in which does it end? Same for the "Orikhiv axis" (aren't these two literally the same?). The whole point of the counteroffensive is to end the Russian connexion between its mainland and Crimea so this whole front we're dividing into smaller sections is supposed to eventually dissolve and these sections will stop making sense at one point.

We should have the southern section front undivided. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It seemed like a better idea at the time, but yeah, I agree. Especially since I found an article recently that explicitly combines some of my clumsily defined "axes" into unified parts of the front. I'll try to recombine the Orikhiv and Melitopol sections when I have time later today. HappyWith (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It was not a good idea at the time. 74.109.240.116 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I've recombined the "Orikhiv" and "Melitopol" axes. HappyWith (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest, it's very unlikely that the three axes will merge. I think the separation was good considering the amount of effort that would likely be required to develop the text in total until the end of the counteroffensive. I mean, if it does turn out that the axes don't merge, then the whole section would need to be rewritten and split. The same could also have been said about the inverse: if the three subsections continued but the axes merged, then the section would need to be rewritten. But the latter case is much more unlikely... Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah honestly I don't see that much of a problem with the two-axis layout that currently exists. I think it shows the progression pretty well for the reader, since it covers adjacent villages one after the other. HappyWith (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2023
Remove part about integration of M1 Abrams tanks into Ukrainian armored formations - as of August Ukraine still hasn't received any tanks of this type. Gaustuwu (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gaustuwu, can you tell me which paragraph you want to remove? and can you provide some source for your claims? -Lemonaka‎  02:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Should change name to 2023 Ukrainian Summer offensive to future proof it.
Remembering this archived topics on this question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Ukrainian_counteroffensive/Archive_1#Isn%E2%80%99t_this_just_an_offensive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Ukrainian_counteroffensive/Archive_2#How_is_this_a_counteroffensive?

Reminding that the current fighting is an offensive, since the frontline was static beforehand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterattack

Warning that there may be more 2023 ukrainian offensives, its advised to use a name that properly references the time, and the conditions of the fighting, since in the future it will be extremely confusing to understand otherwise.

A name such as "2023 Zaporozhye offensive" or "2023 Ukrainian Summer offensive" would be recommended, despite what contemporary media names it. Franfran2424 (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * as per the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine, we will change the name of the counteroffensive if it stretches into 2024. Scu ba (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Map removal
Why was the map removed? Genabab (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * because it was just focusing on the southern front, while there is an eastern front, and the only way to include both would just be a map of the entire country which wouldn't be helpful for anyone. Scu ba (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a better map that includes the whole frontline. I think this works pretty well. HappyWith (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Villages recaptured in Russia's positional offensive in Luhansk oblast
Could you please provide the dates and source regarding your edit that said that Nadiya and Novojehorivka were recaptured by Ukraine? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest I just looked at DeepStateMap. Here is a source saying that the AFU managed to recover the two villages. I don't have the dates. Presumably 30 July per DeepStateMap. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Better sources are probably needed than that… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh, I checked the diff and it’s more or less not an issue because of the wording.
 * But…for the love of Asmodeus can we agree to end the habit of the day-by-day play-by-play? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree that a better source is needed. If there are conflicting reports, I think it's wisest to defer to the ISW map. Therefore, I'll re-add those 2 villages in the total until more counter evidence is found or until an independent analysis concludes it's more likely for them to be under Ukraine. Besides, writing "up to" already implies the number is an upper bound, so it's not a problem to count villages without geolocalized evidence.
 * "can we agree to end the habit of the day-by-day play-by-play?" Well, that's what Territorial changes is all about... Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alexiscoutinho Can you please provide a source for these villages even being re-occupied by Russia? I've scoured all ISW reports from August and there are no mentions of these villages. Scu ba (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They were recaptured in late July. I'll try to compile the sources for each village and mention which had geolocated evidence or not. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ah, my bad, ill go and look at the July reports. Scu ba (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alexiscoutinho, So I checked all the ISW reports in July from the 20th to the 31st, and the only mentions of these villages are four unsuccessful Russian assaults on Nadiya
 * 7/21
 * 7/24
 * 7/27
 * 7/28
 * and a report that Russian forces captured "heights between Novoyehorivka and Nadiya", not the villages themselves, and the ISW noted that this was likely exaggerated to make the Russian military look better/less incompetent.
 * 7/29
 * The ISW has not reported that these villages where captured by Russian forces, so again, I'll ask, where are you getting this from? Scu ba (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources are inside the HTML comments. Furthermore, I've already indicated that 3 villages are claimed advances. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * you can't site telegram raw, you need paid professionals to disseminate fact from fiction. Do you have a genuine source to this? 14:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Scu ba (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Rybar's telegram is leterally used all the time by ISW as a genuine source since he has contact with people directly from the frontline. Furthermore, I implicitly link the relevant ISW report as a primary source all the time (unless it's publication is still pending). How would you want to explicitly source that mini-section? Put a link to ISW's mainpage and/or also the link of that channel? I think it wouldn't be adequate/relevant (or maybe I don't how to to effectively cite multiple instances from the same source). It would only make sense to explicitly source stuff if a Timeline section in the article was made. But I don't know if that's desired. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. We don't write the article in the infobox. Put sourced material about the supposed capture of the settlements into the article body first, and then add it into the infobox once the article body supports it. I've been a bit skeptical about the material in the "territorial changes" parameter for a while, so I'm going to BOLDly remove anything not sourced in the article itself for now. HappyWith (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Directly citing Rybar is not acceptable. The ISW's job is to disseminate reports. Scu ba (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the ISW will report on any russian advance soon, they're too busy crying about the botched ukrainian offensive...once it was BAKHMUT HOLDS! now it is MELITOPOL HOLDS!!! Andreax2014 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * xD Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A command F in any of those reports either shows nothing for the villages you claim Russia captured, or where reports of failed attacks. Again, where is your source that Russia took these villages. Scu ba (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is getting annoying now. Read the article and find out. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have, you are getting annoying. Scu ba (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 🙄 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We've moved past this point. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Supposed Russian capture of Novomlynsk
@Alexiscoutinho The exact ISW report makes sure to point out "the absence of photo or video evidence for this claimed advance" by nebulous "Russian sources". The burden is not on me or the ISW to disprove the claimed advance, it is on the editor who wants to add in the claim to bring a source that confirms it. I'd argue, if there aren't any other sources referencing this or proving/disproving it, that means it either didn't happen, or it wasn't very important. In both scenarios, we don't include it.

By the way, we shouldn't include unsubstantiated Ukrainian claims either, and I wouldn't object to anyone removing those either. I just haven't really come across those as much. HappyWith (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification. Please don't take my undos personally (but do you have any specific replies to my reasoning?). Though I would like to hear from other people regarding the adequacy of including speculation and claims in articles. Are there any Wikipedia recommendations? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My main reasoning for removing the claim is that the ISW itself seems to be casting doubt on the claim by noting "the absence of photo or video evidence for this claimed advance". I've googled "Novomlynsk" and found essentially nothing except this lone ISW report that was never followed up on. The Russian wiki entry for the village doesn't mention it, the Ukrainian wiki entry for the village doesn't mention it, it's just this one report.
 * I'll check out the actual Telegram channels it sources to see what exactly the claims look like, just in case, but I don't think we should report any unsubstantiated claims that have nothing beyond them - otherwise we'd be writing all day about every little Telegram post from both sides. I think WP:NOTNEWS is a relevant guideline here. If something important actually happened, there would be - or will be later - more sources covering it and confirming it. HappyWith (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've commented out those sections in case we need them in the future, if they ever get confirmed. However, if the counteroffensive ends and those claims are still not confirmed, then the comments should definitely be removed as they won't be relevant to the current topic anymore (maybe relevant elsewhere). Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may wade into the discussion, I support the idea of limiting or leaving out claims where sources specifically indicate that there is no evidence to confirm the claim that is made. From ISW, it is clear that even the Russian milbloggers cannot agree among themselves very often about what is happening. Often, ISW reports mutually contradictory posts from various milbloggers.  As well, it frequently states that there is no visual evidence to support the claims made.
 * Thus, I would suggest that we leave out any isolated/unsupported claims completely or if there are really significant (i.e. a massive breakthrough by either side) that there is currentlybsupoorting evidence for the claim.
 * Thoughts? Bluenose Gunner (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Accidently posted preceding when trying to edit!
 * Last part meant to say that I suggest we leave out isolated/unsupported claims or that they be included only if truly significant (such as a massive breakthrough) but with the caveat that there is not yet any confirmation of them.
 * Thoughts? Bluenose Gunner (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is criteria I was pretty much already behind. We can relax this slightly for very recent developments where there is gonna be less confirmation, then go back once time has passed. HappyWith (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For settlements, use this website to find the names: https://www.geonames.org/search.html?q=Novomlynsk&country=UA
 * Novomlynsk does exist, in Kharkov at N 49° 52' 44	E 37° 43' 55. Known in Ukrainian as Novomlyns'k Franfran2424 (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been 76 days since this claim, and there has yet to be any third party confirmation or geolocated footage confirming that Russia captured the settlement. So we can assume, as Russia frequently does, they simply lied about it. Scu ba (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Idiom that maybe should be removed
" the Ukrainian armed forces finally broke radio silence on the operations in the Kherson Oblast, with Operational Command South spokeswoman, Nataliya Humenyuk, announcing that".--Would it be okay for anyone to rewrite - without radio silence? Good luck (while i try to fix other articles). 2001:2020:313:F598:A894:7BFE:6EFB:8ED5 (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Can a report that originated in TASS be used as a source?
So, I was doing some digging, and it turns out that the origin of the most recent Russian claim (43,000) of Ukrainian casualties comes from a TASS publication, not from a press release by the Russian MoD, where the previous estimate (26,000) came directly from Sergei Shoigu himself. While TASS has long been disregarded as a potential reliable source for this war, their’s is the most recent claim of Ukrainian casualties for this campaign, and I wanted to see what other users thought before making any changes.

Source:

https://tass.com/politics/1656797/amp Tomissonneil (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * if it is explicitly made clear that it was TASS or the Russian government making the claim then yes. Otherwise, no. Scu ba (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This claim is in the article now, albeit not with this exact source as a reference. HappyWith (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Casualties numbers on the ukrainain side
It is stated that the ukrainain casualties numbers 43000, however the source says the following: "The losses do not include the number of wounded servicemen and foreign mercenaries evacuated to hospitals in and outside of Ukraine or the servicemen eliminated in rear areas in strikes by long-range precision weapons."https://lug-info.com/en/news/ukrainian-manpower-losses-since-beginning-of-counteroffensive-top-43-000 As such, these 43000 casualties are killed in action and do not include the wounded ( if a heavily wounded soldier is not evacuated he will die from his injuries). The word "casualties" should be changed to "killed and captured". Akb0y47 (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The number may include many injured in field hospitals, from lighter injuries that dont demand a evacuation to another hospital.
 * Its definitely improvable, should be changed to "at least 43000" and would include KIA and some of the WIA. Franfran2424 (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes the 43000 includes kia, mia and captured. However it doesn’t include wounded, as stated in the article the wounded evacuated to field hospital or regular hospitals are not included in the casualties. The russians cannot differentiate between the heavily wounded and the light wounded, they can only count dead or captured. Akb0y47 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Crimean raid
There was a raid in Crimea that supposedly captured territory I don’t know if they are still there and what territory they gained https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-special-forces-daring-amphibious-raid-crimea-raised-flag-russia-2023-8 HuntersHistory (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/24/europe/ukraine-crimea-operation-russia-intl/index.html HuntersHistory (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reports say Special forces landed on the western shore of Crimea, near the settlements of Olenivka and Mayak, Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance group landed in the area of Cape Tarkhankut, shelled the camping on the seashore and fled in the direction of Odesa, Special units on watercraft landed on the shore in the area of the Olenivka and Mayak settlements,” HUR said, it is unknown what Ukraine goals was but it is said to be achieved,Unofficial Russian social media accounts have spoken of firing near a campsite at Cape Tarkhankut – the westernmost point in Crimea – before dawn on Thursday, also Ukraine has flew it flag over Crimea once again, [10]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BFmVxEjWrA0&pp=ygUvVWtyYWluZSBmbHlzIHRoZSBmbGFnIGluIHJ1c3NpYSBvY2N1cGllZCBjcmltZWE%3DHuntersHistory (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC) HuntersHistory (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry just notice it is included but maybe you should add that it is unknown if they are still there. HuntersHistory (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

"There were also claims of gunfire being heard in the towns of Tavriisk and Sosny"
I have just added a clarification needed tag next to the name Sosny, I remember having done this months ago. I can't find anything about a place called Sosny in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. I don't think we should just keep the mention to a place that does not exist. Does anybody know what to do? I'm clueless. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is an alternate spelling of "Solontsi"? Scu ba (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It could be, even if they're quite far from each other. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect there is a translation problem to blame here. The original quote, in Russian, is: «ВС РФ, вероятно, отбивают попытку высадки десанта ВСУ. Стрельбу также слышно в Таврическом и Соснах», — об этом заметил российский «журналист». "Соснах" is an inflected form of whatever town or location is being talked about, I think. Could this be some other word that looks identical to "Sosny" when conjugated this way? Part of what makes me think this is that this article says "Tavriisk" is the other village, but for me Google Translate is translating " Таврическом" as Tauride. Maybe something similar happened with "Соснах", and it's referring to a very similarly named village? I'll look into this later.
 * It's also worth mentioning that this is all just coming from claims by Russian milbloggers, who may have made a typo or completely made stuff up. If we're not successful in finding out what "Sosny" is, we should probably just remove the claims as being BS. HappyWith (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Another possibility: "Sosny" literally is the plural of "pine" in Ukrainian and Russian, as in "pine trees". Could the milblogger be talking about a pine forest? Not sure if that makes sense with the geography of the region. HappyWith (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as my armchair general knowledge goes, that part of Ukraine is just largely empty steppes. Per this map there's no pines in that part of Ukraine. I've also thought that Sosny could maybe be a neighbourhood or district of Nova Kakhovka, which is next to Tavriisk.
 * We need the help of a native Ukrainian speaker. And I support removing this info if we can't figure out what it means. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The original quote is actually in Russian, but otherwise I agree with what you've said. HappyWith (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think could help in that case. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to made some research but without any results. The name should be indeed Sosny (Сосны), otherwise the sentence grammatically does not make sense. There is no designated locality with the Russian name Sosny (I guess Ukrainian would be Сосни, but this is not relevant for my conclusions) in either Zaporizhzhia or Kherson Oblast. Tavricheske is in Orikhiv Raion of Zaporizhzhia Oblast. This means that Sosny is not a locality but either something else (for example a former children's summer camp) or an abbreviation for something else (xxx Sosny, Sosenskoye or anything this war criminal was too lazy to write in full). I tried to search using different options but could not find anything. The easiest is to drop it. Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's remove it then. Thank you for your help. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

27 August
Firstly, it is imperative that all information in the infobox is explained in more detail and sourced in the article body. On the other hand, Robotyne is still contested as Russia still has a presence in the southern outskirts. Furthermore, using newspaper articles as sources of captures is only adequate as secondary supportive sources, the primary main one being from a group of specialists, like ISW for example. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses secondary sources. Like newspaper articles. And ISW is also a secondary source.  Volunteer Marek   04:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've clarified what I meant. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even call the Forbes source a newspaper article. Aren't the pages on Forbes with "/sites/" in the name blogs? HappyWith (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alexiscoutinho, there actually is a paragraph about the liberation of Robotyne in the current article, though the Forbes article I cited is not used as a source.
 * Quote from article: "On the 23 August, the 47th Mechanized Brigade hung the Ukrainian flag over the village's administrative offices and announced that the village was liberated.  The importance of Robotyne, and why it was so heavily contested, is that it marks the southern edge of the dense Russian minefield along the front, which has effectively bogged down Ukrainian forces and prevented the efficient use of Ukrainian armor. With Robotyne cleared, and the minefield behind them, Ukrainian troops can now strike the second line of Russian defenses, consisting of static fortifications. "


 * I am aware they the ISW still marks extreme southern Robotyne as under Russian control, though it is unclear what their source is for showing it this way. Other Ukraine war maps such as the ones produced by DeepState.Live & Militaryland.net show Robotyne as under full Ukrainian control, though their reliability has not been established. I will not revert back to the previous version, since the current one seems to be the general consensus, however, I believe a reasonable argument can be made for marking Robotyne as liberated.  Physeters ✉ 21:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Key phrase - the Ukrainians announced that the village was liberated. It's not 100% clear the village is fully liberated in reality and not just in their claims. In fact, while the wiki article says Robotyne is "cleared", the ISW report says nothing of the sort, referring to a "potential liberation" in the future. I'm going to remove that wording. HappyWith (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The wording of this paragraph, and the fact that it remained unchanged for three or four days is what initially lead me to add Robotyne to the infobox. If this paragraph is overly optimistic, and the article I found as determined to be unreliable, then the current list of liberated settlements should be left as it is.  Physeters ✉ 22:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, better to play safe and wait until there is a consensus. 😉 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

30 August
Why are we butting on the same issue again? It was already agreed with and  to put only confirmed uncontroversial stuff in the infobox. I've only kept the listing of Robotyne there because its status has been relevant recently. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * it's been confirmed. it is no longer controversial. Scu ba (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1- Confirmed how? What evidence?
 * 2- Uncontroversial how if the Russians still claim otherwise?
 * Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Confirmed by an announcement from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, Geolocated footage, and an assessment from the ISW
 * 2) Uncontroversial as Russia no longer claims control over the settlement
 * Scu ba (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1.1) Announcements are not confirmations/facts by default, this is basic.
 * 1.2) The geolocated footage was not from Robotyne itself. Look at the map and see that they are talking about a completely different place. I've also watched the video and it's in a completely rural setting.
 * 1.3) The assessment from the ISW still says that Russian sources still don't recognize a Russian retreat. Note that ISW's maps don't make the distinction between visually confirmed and claimed Ukranian advances. They try to show the most likely situation at best. They aren't 100% neutral either which is obvious, but it's still the best source we got. Therefore, even if they painted Robotyne blue in the map, that's only what they think/assess is the situation (Not actually. I've reread the Aug 28th report and they did not say that they assess that Ukraine fully recaptured Robotyne. They only quote the Ukrainians and paint the village blue because that's what the color means: claimed/reported Ukrainian advances. "Malyar announced on August 28 that Ukrainian forces have liberated Robotyne (10km south of Orikhiv) in western Zaporizhia Oblast.[72] Malyar stated that Ukrainian forces had liberated the settlement as a matter of fact during a television broadcast and not as a formal announcement, which Ukrainian officials have typically issued for previously liberated settlements.[73] Ukrainian officials may have meant for a video of Ukrainian forces raising a flag in Robotyne on August 23 to act as an announcement of the settlement’s liberation.[74] Russian sources denied Malyar’s announcement and continue to claim that Russian forces maintain positions on the southern outskirts of Robotyne.[75] Russian milbloggers claimed that fighting continues in Robotyne itself and in the surrounding areas.[76]") . They also didn't paint Lobkove blue, but we still included it based on what the text of the reports said. The text of the latest report makes it clear though that there isn't a consensus on Robotyne yet: "Russian sources claimed that fierce fighting is still ongoing on Robotyne’s southern outskirts.[63] North Ossetian “Storm Ossetia” and “Alania” volunteer battalion claimed that the intensity of fighting declined in Robotyne and that the central part of the settlement is still contested as of August 29.[64]".
 * 2) I don't know what was Russia's MoD latest take on Robotyne, but multiple Russian milbloggers still say it's contested. For example, a post from today (and this journalist is usually one of the first to report Russian retreats).
 * Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, the map caption explicity says that light blue means "Claimed Ukranian Counteroffensives", so we should not rely on the map at all. It's only a guide and gives a rough idea of the situation. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ukraineian forces released a video raising the flag over the city's municipal building, and gave a tour of the downtown to journalists. it is safe to say they own the urban part of the village.
 * that was the whole point of the geolocated footage. they are no longer fighting in Robotyne, they are fighting south of Robotyne, past the settlement. Only way they could've done that is if the settlement is fully cleared.
 * how are you able to say we should advocate for true neutrality and that the ISW isn't a good source and then say Mikhail Zvinchuk is a good source?
 * I never cited the map.
 * Scu ba (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * they are fighting south of Robotyne, past the settlement. Only way they could've done that is if the settlement is fully cleared.
 * This isn't really true. The line of contact is not a horizontal line. They may have bypassed parts of the village, with some Russians holding out in the southern outskirts a miles or so to the east or west. Is there a neutral source flat-out saying the liberation is objectively confirmed? HappyWith (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * yes
 * 
 * Scu ba (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll be honest, I'm really torn here. The headline of the CBS article says it is liberated, yes, but that seems like it's being a bit clickbaity, as the article body itself doesn't say it's confirmed, only says that officials announced it. Most articles phrase it that way - as an announcement of liberation rather than proof. Frustratingly, the ISW also phrases it vaguely - even though their interactive map actually does seemingly show Robotyne as 100% liberated. I don't really know what to think now.
 * @Scu ba Do you have a link to the thing where Ukraine gave a tour of downtown Robotyne to journalists? I can't find it. HappyWith (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * even though their interactive map actually does seemingly show Robotyne as 100% liberated. Them painting Robotyne blue in the map doesn't mean much to our discussion as a clarified in the amendment of my first big reply (underlined text) and in my small comment at 15:46. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Robotyne and another small settlement that was retaken in recent days are in Zaporizhzhia — one of four regions Russia unilaterally declared dominion over last year after staging bogus "referendums," despite not controlling the ground militarily." -CBS article.
 * I think that was in the ISW aug 27 report, but the ISW has pulled the report so idk anymore. Scu ba (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That report has a different url format: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-27-2023-0. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * also: "Ukrainian troops have been storming Russian positions near the decimated industrial city and, further south, they've finally broken through the first line of Moscow's defenses to retake the small town of Robotyne." -CBS article Scu ba (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are multiple “neutral” sources confirming it. For the time being I’m fine with this compromise implemented by Alexiscoutinho.  Volunteer Marek   16:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, the text in the article itself needs to be updated with respect to Robotyne, not just infobox. Last date we have right now is 11 days ago.  Volunteer Marek   16:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The text in the article should be put in first. Ideally, the infobox shouldn't have anything in it that's not reflected in the article body, so I've removed Robotyne again. HappyWith (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ukraineian forces released a video raising the flag over the city's municipal building, and gave a tour of the downtown to journalists. it is safe to say they own the urban part of the village. It was safe to say that Ukraine controlled the majority of the settlement at that time. Saying that the whole urban area was controlled including the southern outskirts is another story. Even the map left 2 pockets of Russian control in the south that day. This is what the ISW reported on the 23rd: "Geolocated footage published on August 23 by Ukrainian sources, including Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Valery Zaluzhnyi, shows that Ukrainian forces erected a flag in southern Robotyne, indicating that Russian forces likely have limited remaining positions in the village.[80] The Ukrainian General Staff reported unspecified Ukrainian successes in the directions of Novodanylivka (5km south of Orikhiv) and Novopokropivka (13km southeast of Orikhiv).[81] Russian milbloggers largely claimed that fighting is ongoing for control of the Robotyne and that Russian forces repelled Ukrainian attacks in and near the settlement.[82] Some milbloggers claimed that Russian forces pushed Ukrainian forces from central to northern Robotyne and that Russian forces maintain control over southern Robotyne.[83]" Even after the 23rd, there have been claims of Russian counter attacks towards the center of the settlement, so the situation could have changed since then. Therefore, it is not safe to say "they own the urban part of the village."
 * how are you able to say we should advocate for true neutrality and that the ISW isn't a good source and then say Mikhail Zvinchuk is a good source? I just wanted to give an example of Russian sources still contesting Robotyne's capture and tell that Rybar is a legit/decent source, not a bad source. I still consider ISW the best as indicated previously. But I do admit that my original tone on Rybar wasn't clear, thus justifying your skepticism.
 * I never cited the map. Great then. Though it could still apply to other people.
 * Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * >controlled the majority of the settlement at that time.
 * August 25, 5 days ago, Ukraine's control has only increased since then.
 * >Rybar is a legit/decent source
 * This isn't Ruwiki
 * Scu ba (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ukraine's control has only increased since then. Still claims...
 * This isn't Ruwiki That CBS article also doesn't impress me at all. Generic statements like "Robotyne and another small settlement that was retaken in recent days" and "to retake the small town of Robotyne" have much less value than a detailed ISW report that clearly says that there are conflicting claims.
 * Alexiscoutinho (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is an important point. If the only sources we can find that “confirm” Ukrainian victory are ones that use weird vague language like these, then isnt that a sign that things are still up in the air? If it was confirmed via geolocated footage of some sort, surely some reliable outlet would have said that in an unambiguous way, but none of them have. I think the fog of war is just particularly opaque right now, and all we can do is wait for it to clear. HappyWith (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Ukrainian troops have been storming Russian positions near the decimated industrial city and, further south, they've finally broken through the first line of Moscow's defenses to retake the small town of Robotyne" is a very black and white, clear and concise sentence stating that Ukraine controls Robotyne Scu ba (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it totally black and white? The sentence could be parsed as "they've finally broken through the first line of Moscow's defenses in order to retake Robotyne." Like I said in my comment above, the fact that the best sources we have to support the full liberation say it in such indirect, vague ways makes me think it just hasn't been confirmed. HappyWith (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is pedantic. Scu ba (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal also states "Ukrainian troops took the village of Robotyne". Is that totally black and white enough? Scu ba (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't access that article, so I'm not sure what the context is, but as I said in a reply below I found an open Meduza article that says the same thing, so yes, I'm good to add it in now. HappyWith (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How can you prove that Rybar is good source and says more facts is better than general staff of Ukraine? Hyfdghg (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't prove the inverse either. Both sources are used by the ISW, so they are both relevant in their respective side. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if bloggers are relevant to the Russian information space. you CAN'T CITE BLOGGERS on Wikipedia like this. Please, I'm begging you, read WP:BLOGS. Scu ba (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ISW doesn't always says facts, it can link to Russian mibloggers propoganda from Telegram very often and plus Russian mibloggers that supports Russia aren't good source enough, since they can take info from Russian forces that are fighting in the front with Ukrainian forces, but Russian forces can very often say propoganda and when they say that some of settlement they captured they can send a video from settlement around 10 km from frontline. There is Ukrainian user that have his map and his channel is called DeepState, he very often watch geolocation footages to know facts on the front and didn't trust Russian sources, DeepState also have Telegram when he says the most information from the front line this channel also he post news from real world.
 * DeepState>ISW. 195.26.18.101 (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * if this isn't good source enough for you, then write in Telegram DeepState, his channel is in Ukrainian language but he also good know English language and talk with him about why he is better source that ISW. You can write to him in every post, and this user he will reply. 195.26.18.101 (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 🤦‍♂️ Alexiscoutinho (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ? 195.26.18.101 (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Fighting is south of Robotyne

 * Ukraine is now engaged in combat for the village of Novoprokopivka, the next village south of Robotyne. A little hard for Russian forces to continue to hold the southern outskirts, unless they are buried or invisible.  Scu ba (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's add it in, then. I did a bit more research, and this Meduza article - finally - flat-out confirms it: After liberating the village of Robotyne in the Orikhiv operating area, the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) continued their offensive on the fortified Russian defense lines east and south of the village. HappyWith (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Haha I was literally reading this Meduza article as I reloaded this talk page. It also mentions capturing of some strategic heights above Novoprokopivka on the night of the 29-30, but I'm not sure that's significant enough to mention. Scu ba (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think so, if we can work it meaningfully into the larger coverage of the battle. Speaking of, I think we probably need to re-structure a lot of the material about Novoprokopivka and the other settlements south of Robotyne, as it's kind of turned into a chronological and locational snarl of random events in an order that isn't super easy to follow as a reader. HappyWith (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been editing this as if it where Battle of Bakhmut which was chronological, but since there is so much fighting on so many different sectors this article has quickly turned into a mess. We should probably go on a town by town basis. (which should also somewhat be chronological) Scu ba (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It also mentions capturing of some strategic heights above Novoprokopivka Simply no. It says "On August 29 and 30, Ukrainian units were spotted on the outskirts of Verbove and on the elevations east of Novoprokopivka." East, which has nothing to do with the space south of Robotyne and north of Novoprokopivka. Therefore, that info is still irrelevant to the southern outskirts of Robotyne discussion. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * By a simple topographical look-up Robotyne is a height above Novoprokopivka... Scu ba (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What is this? Now we're assuming something is confirmed just because some sites say so? And if Russian sites say otherwise we just assume it's false? That Meduza "report" is a joke compared to ISW's (it's more like a normal article). No authors explicitly mentioned, no direct citations, biased language... No new evidence is provided. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Now we're assuming something is confirmed just because some sites say so?
 * If it’s a reliable site, yes. The ISW is not the only source out there. HappyWith (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Who decides if a source is reliable? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RS, check for a list here: WP:RSP Scu ba (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is another article from the New York Times: "With Robotyne Recaptured, Ukraine Takes Next Step in Counteroffensive".
 * After penetrating Russian defenses to retake the village of Robotyne, Ukrainian forces have pushed the fight a few miles east, but formidable obstacles lie ahead. ... U.S. officials on Thursday confirmed that Ukrainian forces had punched through a major line of Russian defenses around Robotyne and were engaged in fighting near Verbove. HappyWith (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just look at any map. Fighting for Novoprokopivka doesn't intrinsically mean it's being attacked from the north. In fact, the Meduza article which you later mention explicity says it's being attacked from the east. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're trusting bloggers over multiple reliable news sources. That's not how Wikipedia works. If the Wall Street Journal says that the town is liberated, and the only counter to that is Ivan Ivanov running a telegram account going "nuh-uh", one of these has precedent over the other. Scu ba (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think you are better than the ISW? Does the ISW reference the WSJ or NYT? No! Does the ISW bother listening or at least considering what the Russian journalists say? Yes! Who cares if these big media outlets claim it's liberated (in fact they didn't say words like fully/entirely/100% recaptured and are clearly just repeating what the Ukrainian command said)? I contest their reliability. Actually, I don't even need to go that far. I contest your interpretations of those articles. Those articles just used blanket generic terms like "liberated the village" on so on. Even if the Russian do indeed control some pockets in the southern outskirts, the articles wouldn't be lying because they could argue that they meant that most or basically all the important areas of the settlement were taken and not that they were strictly saying that Ukraine captured the entirety of the "town proper". You are clearly being biased in this case. Ommiting information from the other point of view when there is no factual, undeniable evidence against the veracity of my citation. Let the reader have the freedom to decide who to trust. By your biased argument in the revert description, you would attempt to erase all mentions of Russian milbloggers claims in the ISW report itself, which is clearly the wrong path.
 * I wrote those 'sections' in a very balanced and professional way, stating only the facts and showing both points of view for controversial matters. It was already a big compromise. You should even thank me for highlighting Robotyne in the infobox. But you didn't respect that. Will revert that specific undo (1173334639) indefinitely. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not even that confident that we should put Robotyne in the infobox, but I'm sorry, this is insane. I believe the ISW literally has referenced both those publications in the past, but even if it hadn't, it would be ridiculous to only use them and their trusted sources as references. They have a lot of biases and make mistakes - I distinctly remember their coverage of the battle of Bakhmut being completely on another planet during the darkest part of that battle, for instance.
 * Those articles just used blanket generic terms like "liberated the village" on so on.
 * This doesn't make any sense. How is "liberates" - which is what Meduza, WSJ, and NYT are saying - different from what our infobox says, which is "recaptures"?
 * The New York Times is obviously reliable, as a quick check to WP:NYT confirms: There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. If reliable sources are saying it's recaptured, they don't need to provide open-source evidence - we can just trust them, because they are reliable. In this specific case, I'm still a little bit on the fence, but I am increasingly leaning towards saying that it's liberated in the article and infobox. HappyWith (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * it would be ridiculous to only use them and their trusted sources as references. It is also ridiculous to only listen to WSJ and NYT articles and simply ignore 'my', just as reliable if not more, source. That's why I think the most prudent solution would be to only include uncontroversial information in the infobox, only stuff that all sources agree (which is what I had done prior to Scu ba's revert). And all sources agree that most of Robotyne is under Ukraine based on the Aug 23 video. However, not all (reliable) sources agree that Robotyne is fully taken. ISW's tone is clearly putting the responsibility of the claims on the claimers. They report from both sides and don't say one is lying because they simply can't prove one way or the other.
 * How is "liberates" - which is what Meduza, WSJ, and NYT are saying - different from what our infobox says, which is "recaptures"? Well. It depends on the definition we are using in the infobox. If "recaptures" means "fully recaptured" or just dominantly/confidently controls the bulk/majority of a settlement. But even if those articles write the word fully, the tone still conflicts with the ISW's, as explained above. I respected the WSJ/Meduza citation, but my citation clearly wasn't respected.
 * If reliable sources are saying it's recaptured, they don't need to provide open-source evidence - we can just trust them, because they are reliable. If it's an uncontested source, then I fully agree. But it isn't fair for my citation from a reliable source to be disregarded. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Russian milbloggers are not a reliable source. The ISW is a reliable source, but it is not saying "here are these Russian claims, they are true", it is saying "here look, here's a sampling of a bunch of OSINT from today that includes random claims, draw your own conclusions". HappyWith (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They also did not say the Ukrainian claims were true. Therefore their tone is clearly neutral and shows that there is indeed a real uncertainty on the ground (fog of war). Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. The way they word things indicates they believe it is probably liberated, by using words like "confirmed" rather than "claimed". They haven't said anything at all about Robotyne in the last few days, indicating they don't think there's much left to say. HappyWith (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply no. I've reread the parts on Robotyne from the ISW reports since Aug 28 and they never indicated they believed on the Ukrainian claims. They have been careful enough to not use the word "confirmed" where there was still doubt, unlike those other articles. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Which are, again, a sample of statements from bloggers. Scu ba (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As to the "confirmed" wording part - sorry, I was misremembering the exact wording. This is the report. The wording was "acknowledged the liberation", not "confirmed", but it still gets my point across - that they were wording it in a way that suggested they agreed with Maliar's statement. HappyWith (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Ukrainian officials formally acknowledged that Ukrainian forces had liberated Robotyne" Doesn't mean the ISW acknowledged the statement. It simply means that Ukraine formally recognized the capture of Robotyne. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting the the ISW still puts all of Robotyne in the "Claimed Ukrainian counteroffensive" category, multiple days after first marking the area as liberated. If there's reliable evidence that Russia has control over southern Robotyne, wouldn't they have put the area in the "Claimed Russian control" or "Russian advances" category by now? That fact that the ISW has not done this implies that they either believe the Ukrainian's statements to be true, or that they find them more credible than conflicting reports.  Physeters ✉ 02:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It just shows that between a Ukrainian claim and a Russian claim in a heavy fog of war area, they will prefer to paint the Ukrainian claim (who knows why they chose that specific color pallete... why don't they have a grayzone or warzone color? probably to make the map easier to read. justifying what I said to not put too much emphasis on the map. words give a different kind of nuance which is more relevant in the cases we are dealing with [because we are not including in the article info about specific territorial changes in the middle of the fields]). Maybe they might even think that the Ukrainian claim is more likely, but they show caution not to confirm either way in the text. They also don't explicitly say that they believe the Ukrainian claim is more likely. I honestly think this shows much more professionalism on their behalf. They respect the uncertainty (fog of war). Therefore their reports are much more 'scientific'. It's like confidence intervals in physics and hypothesis vs theories vs laws. In exact sciences, quantifying the uncertainty is vital and I think the ISW is appropriately representing the level of uncertainty of the situation here. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the ISW's reports have been cautious about the status of Robotyne, but that does not explain why their map is so bold in portraying the village as fully liberated. Why wouldn't their cautiousness extend to the map? A similar example of the ISW being cautious can be found in how they portray the area west of Verbove. Over the past couple of days, many Ukrainian sources have claimed that they have broken through Russia's main line of defense in the areas west of Verbove, and that fighting has even reached the village itself. Russian sources deny this, saying that all Ukrainian offensive actions have been repelled. The ISW has been very cautious in their reporting of this area, showing a single road in the area claimed to be under Ukrainian control as "Claimed Russian control" on their map, implying that it may be under Ukrainian control. Geolocated footage has been published showing that Ukrainian forces are operating behind the main defense line on this road, but the ISW still shows the area as under "Claimed Russian control" on their map; an expression of their caution. There is arguably more evidence to show that Ukraine has control over this area than it does over southern Robotyne, but the ISW has chosen to show it as Russian controlled, and southern Robotyne as Ukrainian controlled. Why is this? Are Russian claims really any more credible at Verbove then at Robotyne? The only major difference between these two examples is that the Ukrainian government has clearly commented on one of them and not the other. If that is all it takes for the ISW to favor the Ukrainian side over the Russian, then it is not a very unbiased source, or it has a non-obvious reason to shade the map in this way.
 * P.S.: The ISW should really have a grey zone category for its map, as it would make its stance very clear and discussions like this unnecessary.  Physeters ✉ 04:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * does not explain why their map is so bold in portraying the village as fully liberated. Why wouldn't their cautiousness extend to the map? I don't know if that's really them being bold. I think it's more like them trying to follow their premise and map legend without scratching their heads too much on how people will perceive the map. If Ukraine officially claims something and there's no geolocated evidence against it, they paint blue. If Russian sources claim something and there's no geolocated evidence against it, they paint orange (look at Marinka for example). I believe they didn't paint Lobkove blue because the Ukrainian MoD didn't officially claim a capture (maybe the MoD didn't bother saying anything because it was a frontline, mostly grayzone, village and just let the milbloggers do the coverage; but I don't really remember what happened [would have to reread the reports]).
 * There is arguably more evidence to show that Ukraine has control over this area than it does over southern Robotyne, but the ISW has chosen to show it as Russian controlled, and southern Robotyne as Ukrainian controlled. Why is this? They don't mark it blue because Ukrainian officials haven't actually claimed it, it was just a random geolocated video (I think it was a Russian video). The Russians have claimed that the defenses weren't breached, thus orange. But it clearly wasn't controlled by Russia that day, so the area is appropriately not marked red. Furthermore, those were light infantry units, likely reconaissance. Therefore, the ISW still assessed that the main Russian defense line way outside the village wasn't overrun.
 * Are Russian claims really any more credible at Verbove then at Robotyne? No, they are the same, but those are the rules for changing/painting the map.
 * The only major difference between these two examples is that the Ukrainian government has clearly commented on one of them and not the other. Exactly.
 * If that is all it takes for the ISW to favor the Ukrainian side over the Russian, then it is not a very unbiased source, or it has a non-obvious reason to shade the map in this way. I don't know any better source though. I think it's the most professional one we get. However, I think we should consider that the maps have a slighly different audience, one that doesn't care about reading all the details and nuance of the report. The maps already have several types of labels and although it would be very handy for us if they had a grayzone/warzone color, it would probably make the map more difficult to understand for the more casual readers. Besides, the ISW may think that including a grayzone color would make the look less reliable because there would be a bunch of unknown/gray areas and dumb people could blame the ISW for not knowing it all. Sure, there could also be a little bit of bias towards Ukraine by merging confirmed and claims together in blue and implying "deal with it" to the reader if they don't approve this move, but it isn't really that harmful considering the text is very detailed (even if still biased at times). Alexiscoutinho (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This tea-leaf reading of the ISW's word choice ignores the real point - that the majority of reliable sources who are now saying anything about Robotyne are saying Ukraine has captured it. HappyWith (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've yet to encounter any media source still claim Russia holds any position in Robotyne. Scu ba (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That has no value. ISW is still the most respected/well rounded source covering the Ukraine war. It's not going to be a bunch of lefty big American journals that are going to disqualify ISW's reports. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wall Street Journal is literally right-wing. HappyWith (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I take that word (and others unnecessary) back then. But I'm still behind my argument. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your persistence to regurgitate pro-Russian propaganda on wikipedia and discredit the NYT, WSJ and Meduza is asinine. The only people saying that the village isn't under Ukrainian control are bloggers. Every major media studio and think-tanks whose sole job it is to disseminate information have said the village was liberated. Why do you insist on taking the word of a few social media accounts over actual media companies with editorial boards, and think-tanks with industry professionals and researchers writing for them? Scu ba (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So many distortions. I'm done arguing with you. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't threaten me with a good time. Scu ba (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scu ba @Alexiscoutinho Both of you need to seriously tone down the aggressive language, calling each other "delusional" and "regurgitating ... propaganda". This is already turning into an edit war, and we don't need to make it worse by getting uncivil. I admit I've contributed to this a little myself, but we should all calm down a bit. HappyWith (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye Aye captain, sorry I'm quick to anger. Scu ba (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alexiscoutinho If you are "done arguing", stop reverting. I loaded up the Twinkle ARV tool to see how many reverts you've done in the last 24 hours 48 hours, and it loaded up ten reverts, far, far over the 3RR. (I couldn't figure out how to get the collapsible list template working, so I listed all of them commented-out as to not make a gigantic message.)
 * You might not see this immediately, and you probably didn't even realize you had racked up this many reverts, so I'm not going to report you right now, but you need to stop. Either discuss, or stop edit warring. HappyWith (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What would you expect when I was forced into a 1 vs 2? Scu ba was reverting just as much too. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s not an excuse. People have been banned (even threatened with indef blocks) for making like three reverts over a span of three months and similar.  Volunteer Marek   17:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s not an excuse. I know, but that was my reasoning. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s not an excuse. I know, but that was my reasoning. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

you'll lock out of undo's before me ;) WTF. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it’s worth nothing that @Scu ba has also gone way over three reverts. I wasn’t able to run the tool on myself when I tried, but I might also be over too, so I won’t be doing any reverts for the next couple days either. HappyWith (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize. Scu ba (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This feels like a revert to me, though I accept it... Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't that material months-old? I'd describe it as just routine trimming, as we have to do with these current-events articles that accumulate fluff and unnecessary info over time. HappyWith (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is. Though I had recently rewritten/improved it after this uncomment/revive by . I got kinda baited, but it isn't a problem. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I did not see that at the time. Though I guess if you're fine with the edit, it shouldn't be a problem. If you want to discuss specific parts, feel free to let me know. HappyWith (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Have we come to a conclusion on whether Robotyne has been liberated or not?  Physeters ✉ 02:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think there is rough consensus that it has been. Alexiscoutinho is the only editor in opposition, to my knowledge. HappyWith (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I understood, was also in favor of a compromise. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That was a few days ago. I think now it’s clear they got it.  Volunteer Marek   17:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)