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.
Map which shows territories controlled and regained from Russia in Ukraine is somewhat misleading[edit]
The first map at the top uses a very similar colo(u)r for bodies of water and territories that Russia no longer occupies. This makes the area around the Dnipro river confusing, as a reader could very well believe that it is territory formerly occupied by Russian forces due to the similar colors. A change in colors for this map (such as changing the color of territories regained by Ukraine to a color other than blue) could be helpful. Thanks Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow is already the color Ukrainian held territory is being used for, and any other shade could still be mistaken. Green would give the idea of "Ukraine good Russia bad" by implying Ukraine retaking territory is a good thing(while it might be a good thing for you or others, it goes against the idea that wikipedia should be a neutral source) Purple could work though, it is different from the rest of the map and is more neutral Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a light shade of purple would work best. – Asarlaí(talk) 08:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have realized that most maps in this article use the same format as the top one. Making changes would require a lot of time, as it is preferable to have the maps coincide with eachother colorwise, so keep that in consideration Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be a broader question on whether it should be included in the map at all. The other way around (territory recaptured by Russia) isn't indicated in any way, making the map unbalanced in terms of what it's trying to portray. Right now, for example, there is no indication that those two areas captured by Russia in the 2024 Kharkiv offensive were previously indicated as "light blue" on the map. So in effect, the map is presenting a biased view where Ukrainian territorial regains are represented, but Russian territorial regains are not. I think this should be addressed.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
maybe it would be better to get a gif which shows the evolution of front lines throughout the war every month or so, and remove the idea of "formerly occupied by ___" all together, which would make the map more straight forward and unbiased Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the map, has anyone ever explained how it is not in violation of WP:NOTNEWS? TylerBurden (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that remotely a relevant policy here? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the blue-shaded areas are derived directly from whichever areas were colored in red during the early period of the war (February-March 2022), and are thus prone to the errors inherent in breaking news reports. As a result, the boundaries of this blue area are highly suspect.
As an example, I recently found that the cities of Bohodukhiv and Derhachi were denoted as having been previously Russian-occupied, based on a vaguely worded report that an editor had seemingly misinterpreted on 26 February 2022. I demonstrated on the talk page that based on more recent retrospective sources, those cities had never been occupied in the first place. The map's primary editor indulged my request and shifted the blue area so that it fell just outside of the aforementioned cities, despite, in the case of Bohodukhiv, there being no evidence that Russian forces were ever anywhere near this city. On these grounds I can say that at the very least, some parts of the blue-shaded regions on the map are a total mess of synthesis and original research. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude Your response to this? Are Wikipedia editors frontline journalists now? TylerBurden (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a fair question. If there is any issue here, I would think it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I don't see how WP:NOTNEWS reasonably applies either? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The smugness is misplaced. NOTNEWS deals primarily with topic encyclopedicity (a freshly minted word). There is no question that the subject is encyclopedic. Moreover, NOTNEWS explicitly and repeatedly encourages editors to keep articles current. The opening clause of the policy is [e]ditors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage .... I still don't see what application NOTNEWS is supposed to have here. Regarding OR/SYNTH, the current front is IIRC typically sourced from the ISW. The blue shade of 'former occupation' probably relies on the reliability of former versions of the map. Any error once introduced will be retained until noticed (as in the case raised by SaintPaulofTarsus). The map is hosted on commons.wiki which has different policies to en.wiki. Handling such issues is consequently complicated. Either we can 1a. notify commons.wiki editors of errors once identified as at present; 1b. request the blue shading to be removed to eliminate risk of OR/SYNTH; or 2. migrate a copy of the map to en.wiki (put it under our jurisdiction so to speak) and use that instead. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the Prisoners of War section of the article, it says "Zelensky compared Russian soldiers to "beasts" after the footage was circulated." In the rest of the article, his name is spelled "Zelenskyy". It should be spelled like that here too. MORTALITY ANOMALY (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are concerns from editors regarding File:2022 Kherson-Mykolaiv Offensive.png, created by @Rr016:, that the image contains original research. Can editors, or Rr016 verify the source(s) for this map? This map is in use on some child-articles currently and has been removed by others under OR grounds from Battle of Kherson, in prep for a GAN. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the box where the belligerents are described, add for Ukraine "Supported by NATO", the same way how you added "Supported by Belarus" for Russians. Right now it gives the wrong impression that Ukraine is alone, while the support NATO is giving is a decisive factor, while Belarus's support for Russia is negligible. 2001:8F8:166B:4F6D:E1EA:3FEC:B4A9:4A0D (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not use edit requests for edits that require consensus. Read the FAQ, specifically Q4. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden
"...former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev clarified that there was never any promise to not enlarge the NATO alliance..."
This 'summary' of Gorbachev's response to the question of James Baker's 'promise' that "“NATO will not move one inch further east" gives readers the impression that Gorbachev uttered words closely resembling the claim that "there was never any promise to not enlarge NATO."
James Baker may or may not have uttered words to Gorbachev that he interpreted as resembling a 'promise'. However, nowhere in the published interview is Gorbachev quoted as even uttering the word 'promise'. The secondary source referencing the interview makes the claim "There was, he said, no promise not to enlarge the alliance." Gorbachev never said that.
The 'summary' suggests that Gorbachev viewed James Baker's "not move one inch further east" assurance as unimportant or that Gorbachev stated James Baker never said those words at all. Why not just quote Gorbachev directly: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all..." instead of claiming "Gorbachev clarified that there was never any promise"? Chino-Catane (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No disagreeing as such, but if it was never discussed by definition it could not have been promised. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You raise an important point. What you are describing is an implication, not a definition. "Mikhail Gorbachev's response implied that there was never any promise" reads differently from "Mikhail Gorbachev clarified that there was never any promise". Nevertheless, why even invoke the word 'promise' at all when summarizing Gorbachev's statements? Chino-Catane (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chino-Catane Because WP:RS did, it's their job to interpret material, not Wikipedia editor's.
The exact part of the source is: "There was, he said, no promise not to enlarge the alliance, though in the same interview Gorbachev also stated that he thinks that enlargement was a “big mistake” and “a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made” in 1990." TylerBurden (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There was, he said, no promise not to enlarge the alliance..." is not an interpretation. It is a false claim stated as fact. The evidence demonstrating the falsity of this claim is the referenced primary source interview. A text search of the interview reveals that Gorbachev never used the word 'promise' in any of his responses.
My edit, which you undid, offers no interpretations whatsoever. It directly quotes Gorbachev and allows his words to speak for themselves. You made the critique that my edit was "longer than it needs to be." I can accept that. You should accept that your "reliable source" is not reliable in this particular instance. Chino-Catane (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted Gorbachov incorrectly: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification (i bolded what you omitted). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not quote Gorbachev incorrectly. I omitted words for brevity and substituted ellipses to flag the omissions. If I had included everything, my edit would have been even longer than "longer than it needs to be". My omission was actually more severe than you indicate, as I excluded everything in that sentence past "...military structures would not advance..." What is your issue with the omission? Chino-Catane (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Done --JasonMacker (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
