Talk:Battle of Kharkiv (2022)

Commanders in infobox

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a summary of key points of the article and entries in the infobox should be supported by the body of the article. Per Template:Infobox military conflict, we do not include ranks or positions. It should be evident from the body of the article that a commander entered in the infobox had a role that was key to the conduct of the military operation. Of the recent additions, Kisel is not mentioned in the body of the article and the ref supporting his entry tells us he was sacked. Gerasimov is mention in the article because he died - hardly a key contribution to the conduct of the operation (see also WP:NOTNEWS). Pavlo "Maestro" is not mentioned at all (who the heck are they?). Terekhov and particularly Synyehubov are mentioned in the article but only in attributing various press releases. Being a "talking head" hardly shows that they had a key and significant role in the conduct of the military operation. The inclusion of commanders in the infobox is an optional parameter. In all cases, the article does not support their inclusion as being "key". Cinderella157 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the infobox from the irrelevant commanders like Gerasimov, Synyehubov, Terekhov, and that Pavlo Maestro guy. However, due to the significance of the battle of Kharkiv in this war, I do believe that a commanders section would be helpful to readers and distinguish the battle's notability from smaller ones. I think Kisel should be included in the infobox still, as a quick google search shows most sources describe his unit as "elite", which increases the relevancy of not only his unit, but his leadership. I also discovered an article about Pavlo Fedosenko, a Ukrainian commander of the 92nd Separate Mechanized Brigade who earned a Hero of Ukraine award for his actions (in retrospect, this could be the Pavlo Maestro guy), which lends more relevancy to his inclusion as a commander in the battle. Fedosenko also has his own page in the Swedish and Ukrainian wikis which describe him as a top commander in the battle of Kharkiv.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fleet-commander-may-be-under-arrest-after-moskva-sinking-8ss25rgg2 - Kisel 1

https://sofrep.com/amp/news/ukrainian-intelligence-reveals-massive-losses-of-russian-1st-tank-army/ Kisel 2

https://news.yahoo.com/commander-92nd-brigade-tells-managed-132337556.html Fedosenko Jebiguess (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the inclusion and significance of commanders should be evident (and evidenced) by the body of the article and not because we think they deserve to be there. If they truly do deserve to be there, then the article should be edited to support the inclusion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Where in WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE does it say that? I'm not doubting you, I just would like to see the specific line/s you're referencing as I cannot find any that would denote the inclusion of commanders even with sources like I have backed up. What grounds do you believe are "truly deserve to be there"? Secondly, the infobox purpose guidelines say:

"As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox."

There are hardly any mentions of the units in the infobox in the article's text, and given the above statement from WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, commanders would fall under that scope of information that is hard to fit in the article text but easy to fit in the infobox. I'm not interested in an edit war nor bickering about semantics on the talk page, but I think outside opinions from other editors are necessary before we add/remove commanders on this page. Jebiguess (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

To my assertion: "the inclusion and significance of commanders should be evident (and evidenced) by the body of the article". WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states: the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. Where it continues: there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text. It gives an example of ISO codes and properties of chemicals, which are typically tabulated. Neither commanders nor units are comparable since it should be easy to write an article in such a way that tells the reader who did what and when. As to your observation about units, I would tend to agree that their inclusion can also be questioned. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I believe the inclusion of commanders and units in the infobox would not be supplanting information, instead rather showing key information that could otherwise not be implanted into the article well while still following Wiki's rules. Regardless, let's wait until other editors chip in on the TP before we edit those sections again. Jebiguess (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that there were no commanders present in the infobox and discovered this discussion. I believe that would be proper to add the commanders of the brigades considering that their contribution seems to be the most significant. Deteon (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The guidance is reasonably clear that their significance should be clear from the body of the article. It rains the case that commanders are not mentioned in the body of the article and therefore, they are not significant in the context of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I am aware, but at least one commander (Pavlo Fedosenko), is mentioned in the body of the article, and it seems he commands the main units in the city. Deteon (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Deteon, Fedosenko is mentioned four times in the article at present and twice before your edit today. All of these occur in the first section of the body of the article. The first is that he heard explosions. Two are attributions of quotes to effect that everybody was fighting and the Russians were repelled. These quotes are of questionable value per WP:OVERQUOTING. Only the last mention would indicate any action as a commander - he ordered a counterattack. Whether he commanded the main units in the city is not established, only that he commanded the 92nd Mechanized Brigade. I'm not convinced that these passing mentions are sufficient WRT the guidance to warrant his inclusion in the infobox - particularly, since he could be written out of the article (as it presently stands) without detriment. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing battle

Kharkiv is shelled almost every day (some recent news for example), and Ukrainian Wikipedia lists the battle as ongoing. I urge you to do the same for the English version of the article. Cannibal Rat (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Needs to be split

If we are talking about an actual battle in the city, then it lasted only 2 days when Russian troops entered the city and then withdrew. Everything else in this article is related to a broader theater of operations taking place outside the city in the Kharkhiv oblast. And if we are "defining" the battle by those parameters, then it should be listed as ongoing as Kharkov is still being shelled or hit by missile strikes and the oblast is still the site of combat as of December 2022. Knightoften (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2022

References

"Location" of the Infobox

The infobox's "Location" says the following:

Kharkiv, Kharkiv, Ukraine

First of all, I'd recommend changing the second Kharkiv to Kharkiv Oblast, because it is confusing right now.

Also cite the word "Ukraine" too. Yx6rx (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox strength and casualties.

The infobox is for summarising key "facts". As has been discussed many times elsewhere in articles about this war, contemporaneous "claims" do not rise to a level of certainty that we would represent them as "facts" in the infobox. Consequently, the general consensus has been to omit claims of casualties from the infobox until some time in the future when more definitive information might become available. In the meantime, the general consensus has been to report casualties in the body of the article where the nuance of the various claims can be captured in the appropriate medium of prose. The same can be said of various unit/formation strengths. Furthermore, the reporting of claimed strengths for various unit/formation falls to "detail" which is not what an infobox is for. I also note that https://topcargo200.com/oob/ is probably not a reliable source. Consequently, this information should be removed from the infobox and incorporated into the body of the article (if not already there) until we are availed of more definitive information that might be used. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)