Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Stephen Harrison (1 March 2022). "How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is Playing Out on English, Ukrainian, and Russian Wikipedia". Slate. On Thursday, President Vladimir Putin issued the order for Russian forces to invade Ukraine. Since then, Russians have killed 352 Ukrainian civilians, including 14 children, according to Reuters. That information is now reflected on the English Wikipedia page for the "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine," an article that sprang to life mere minutes after Putin's televised address and has been collaboratively written by nearly 740 distinct authors as of Tuesday morning.
Jenny Nicholls (12 March 2022). "History is written as it happens by Wikipedia editors". Stuff (website). Retrieved 14 March 2022. It has been fascinating to watch two very different Wikipedia pages emerge in recent weeks – 2022 Wellington protests, with 151 referenced sources and seven images; and the page 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, with, as I write, 626 references and 33 images.
Ina Fried (15 July 2022). "Wikipedia blazes a trail to agreement in a divided world". Axios (website). Retrieved 17 July 2022. The Wikipedia article (at least the English language one) includes some of Russia's most outlandish claims — such as the idea that the Ukrainian government included Nazis — but authoritatively debunks them as false.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
For a start, it does not may most of that, it said there were talks (which may not have in fact even been genuine peace talks) that may have been scuppered by the West (but others disagree). Its hard to see how this could be reworked, or even its real relevance as even the source says "...that the parties were merely going through the motions and buying time for battlefield realignments or that the draft agreements were unserious.". Thus this seems undue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to see how this could be reworked — User:Slatersteven 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The text can always be reworked with the help of reliable sources. The opinion of those "others disagree" can be added, your quote from the source can be added. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised my objection, it is undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which and what opinion you characterize as undue, and why? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have said why, so once more. The source does not say this is a fact, they say SOME people they talked to said this. Other people they talked to disagreed, and some they talked to did not even think the peace talks were serious. This is why it is undue, even the source hedges its bets. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The added text mostly described the so-called "Istanbul Communique", and it is unclear what's undue in adding it into the article? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already mention peace talks in Turkey. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the addition was following and supplementing the current mention. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? there were many peacetalks, this was just one, what makes this one special? I will not be responding again until you come up with a good reason why this needs more of a mention than the others, assume silence is disagreement. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Pervomaiske has fallen under Russian control. Should we then have the map updated to a period more recent than April 2nd? 2603:6012:5940:17E:291F:6E2A:D0A4:A05A (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Pervomaiske, Pokrovsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast#History. There are currently three citations there relating to this (that I could see at a glance, mind, there might be more), one for a media report on Russian milbloggers claiming it, another for the Ukrainian media stating it and the third for the Russian MoD claiming it. CommissarDoggoTalk? 10:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map seems to be a mix violation of both WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS. It's not Wikipedia's job to provide live frontline map updates. A "collage" of notable images from the invasion would be more in line with Wikipedia policy and manual of style. TylerBurden (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157, let's update the Peace efforts section with more up-to-date info and better and more up-to-date sources [2] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the post I made to this TP didn't post. Given there is a main article, the section on peace efforts should be a tight bare bones summary. It certainly does not warrant the two sub-sections that I reverted. The previous text reinstated could be further trimmed. There is no issue with adding appropriate more recent material. It comes down to the execution. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main article is still far from perfect and is mostly filled with news sources. I observe these day's sources primarily talk about the Istanbul talks (Communique) and Zelensky's peace formula, you? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We only need detail about the ones that works, not the ones that fail. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends more on if they are covered by sources then on success. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, as we have an article for it, thus failures are not really that useful here other than adding just words. In fact we have two articles, because peace talks need to be coved in Russo-Ukrainian War than here. But I have had my say, assume silnce means no. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Objections are OK but only substantiated objections can affect the outcome and "failures should not be covered" aren't. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNOT. summary style does not mean everything. If there are deficiencies in the main articles, remedy them. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles deficiencies shall not stop us from improving this one. The section uses mostly news sources currently so the edit adding in-depth analyses was an improvement, you could just remove subsection headers if you oppose that, it's unclear what other objections are? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important recent developments not added yet?[edit]
The timeline section does not include information on the Russian gains since taking Avdiivka, the more destructive Russian missile/drone attacks & tactical air support, the offensive toward Chasiv Yar, the breakthrough to Ocheretyne, and the passing of the major US military aid bill. At the moment it just ends by stating, rather flippantly, that Russia took Avdiivka, mentions the disparity in Ukraine and Russian ammunition, and states the Russian warplanes downed in February. Since then, multiple major developments are not mentioned at all. Namely those I just mentioned; major increase in Russian air support, Chasiv Yar battle beginning, Ocheretyne salient (and the reported unit rotation issue that caused it), and US aid finally being approved to alleviate the disadvantages Ukraine currently has. The outlook on Ukraine and momentum of the war has actually shifted significantly since the seizure of Avdiivka and it just isnt included here when it should be. Massivebrain420 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are more people complaining about the article on the talk page than there are actively adding more content, and that includes many that have the necessary permissions to do so. Then again Wikipedia doesn't need to be first with adding news, see WP:NOTNEWS. Of course we could add every meter gained by Russia, the daily Russian terror bombings of civilians in Kharkiv that recently started, the US aid being approved etc, but since there is only so much space it might make more sense to wait for developments to actually reach some sort of point that you can summarize. For example, we don't know what effects the US aid will have yet. Unless there is some significant established event (like Avdiivka falling into Russian hands), I don't think it is urgent.
If you would like to change the article anyway but don't have permission to edit it, feel free to submit an edit request. TylerBurden (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody keeps ignoring me but I'm determined not to stop. Russia now has 510,000 troops in Ukraine. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
