Talk:Northern Ukraine campaign

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected.
The merge request did not gain consensus; however, the stability issues look to be unresolvable for any reasonable DYK timeframe. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that on the first day of Russia's 2022 Kyiv Offensive, the U.S. secretary of defense announced that Russian troops had advanced to within 20 miles of Kyiv? Source: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-attack-a05e7c4563ac94b963134bba83187d46
  • ALT1: ... that Russian troops entered Kyiv on the second day of the Kyiv Offensive during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Source: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/vladimir-putin-invades-kiev-ukraine-war-boris-johnson-nato-b984633.html
  • Comment: I do not yet have 5 DYK credits, so no QPQ required yet.

Created by Mhawk10 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC).

• I'd like to express fundamental concern that the topic is inherently unstable and unready for DYK. As I outlined in 2022 Hijab row in Karnataka and others in Battle of Snake Island, high-tension current events where passions are inflamed around the world and much is still unsettled are poor fits to ensure that they can be placed on the Main Page while remaining faithful to DYK standards and neutral. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I kind of agree. Right now the page even has a tag to that effect, and there's a discussion going on about whether it should be moved to a different title. At best, any news would be WAAY out of date by the time the hook is approved. This article will also indefinitely reach GA status in the future, so I'd say that a re-nom once the page stabilizes is inevitable. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • any news would be WAAY out of date by the time the hook is approved this isn't WP:ITN; the hooks above are well cited and meet all the hook criteria. I believe that the page can be kept in line with the quality of a DYK-level page for the duration of it being on the main page, especially with it being ECP'd. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• I also agree with this sentiment. This is an ongoing event. It's great that there's confidence that the page will be kept high quality as it proceeds, that's good, but it means that whatever form of the article is reviewed at DYK won't match what is actually on the main page a week later. More generally, even if this was on an event that had concluded - new information can come out that can drastically shift interpretation. See Jessica Lynch for one famous example. I don't think this is in DYK scope, unfortunately (nor almost any ongoing battle). SnowFire (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• I tended to support Attack on Snake Island because that event was in the past; this is ongoing and presumably will be for some time. If it passes DYKnom, it may be pulled again for re-reviews due to ongoing development/edits while waiting for its time on the main page. It's a lot of extra work for DYK volunteers. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Now that there is a community consensus to not refuse to consider articles on the Russo-Ukrainian war, does anybody else want to take a look? — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• New enough, long enough, cited, no QPQ needed. However, there is currently a merge tag on the article, and it keeps getting updated daily. This may be more appropriate for the In the news section. I suggest nominating this under the GA criteria once the events are over. --evrik ^(talk) 14:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a better way to integrate the "List of battles and sieges of the theatre"?

Would be great if someone could solve this problem. It's an eyesore imho. KajMetz (talk)

Seems like this has been phased out in favor of the timeline, so I guess it was fixed. HappyWith (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

On new information coming to light about Russia withdrawing troops after negotiations.

Russia didn't retreat from the surrounding areas of Kiev/Kyiv as the article mentions. They were in negotiations with the Ukrainians in Istanbul in which one of the terms of the treaty was Russia withdrawing from the Surrounding areas of Kiev. The article should be changed to reflect this new information coming to light. The result should be listed as either "Russian tactical withdrawal" or "inconclusive" to reflect the true nature of Ukraine not having a effect on Russia withdrawing, but rather Russia withdrawing due to treaty terms NotYourAverageUser (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Source? HappyWith (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.wionews.com/world/putin-says-ukraine-signed-peace-treaty-with-russia-in-spring-of-2022-then-threw-it-into-garbage-of-history-605673, and https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/russiaukraine-signed-peace-treaty-vladimir-putin-says-then-shows-document-101687079021115.html. NotYourAverageUser (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The key phrase here is “Putin says”. Putin also says Ukrainian Judaeo-Nazis murdered fifteen gonzillion Russian speakers in Donbas. He’s obviously not a reliable source here. HappyWith (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

He said word for word fifteen gazillion? or are you just exaggerating just to dismiss a point? Not very scholary NotYourAverageUser (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

he also showed a treaty with the Ukrainian delegations signature. NotYourAverageUser (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Both of those articles call it a "supposed draft of the treaty", essentially saying it's unclear whether the document is real or not. My point was that Putin constantly lies about things to suit his own interests, so he's not a reliable source on his own. Those articles, plus this [1] support my assessment, putting Putin's assertions in scare quotes to show they're of unclear truthfulness. HappyWith (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

perhaps we should have at least something in the article stating that Putin said this, are we supposed to believe that both sides of the war both politically and media are telling the truth? Oh yeah the independent was one of the major players in building up the Iraq war and then later changed their minds on the subject. See how easy it is. NotYourAverageUser (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. Russia and Ukraine haven’t signed any treaties since before the 2014 invasion.  —Michael Z. 04:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin recently showed the treaty on video himself with the Ukrainian delegation signature on it. look at the sources above and do more research on other news articles. NotYourAverageUser (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

They say “Putin says.”  —Michael Z. 03:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

do you think the word of the president of russia should atleast be mentioned in the article? Thats a serious claim. NotYourAverageUser (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

this is the same as saying hitler's words should be mentioned in the Holocaust article, i agree with michael, taking putin's words for something is stupid, he did some pretty idiotic claims ("Zelenskyy is an judeo-nazi cocaine-snorting clown that massacres innocent Russian people in Donbas!", "Ukraine is nazi and was made by Bolsheviks", "Ukraine and the west started the war/are attacking us", "Azov did Mariupol Hospital attack" etc), his claims are NOT reliable, like i said, would you take a nazi's claims that the holocaust is a lie? no? so you shouldnt take putin's words about anything related to this war either. SnoopyBird (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me you didn’t type that with a straight face.  —Michael Z. 03:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think the word of the man in charge of the world's second largest nuclear arsenal is quite serious. Why don't you actually get down to what im saying instead of avoiding it. Aren't you a Wikipedia administrator? NotYourAverageUser (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

and here's some sources: https://www.wionews.com/world/putin-says-ukraine-signed-peace-treaty-with-russia-in-spring-of-2022-then-threw-it-into-garbage-of-history-605673, and https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/russiaukraine-signed-peace-treaty-vladimir-putin-says-then-shows-document-101687079021115.html. NotYourAverageUser (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

They say “Putin says.”

Putin also said those were not Russian forces that invaded Ukraine and occupied Crimea in 2014. Putin said Ukraine is all Russian land. Putin said Ukraine was committing genocide. He said Zelenskyy’s not a Jew.

This is very serious, but those are not serious claims. They are blatant lies and atrocity crimes.  —Michael Z. 02:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how his claim is blatant lies and atrocity crimes? That doesn’t seem very scholarly. We have evidence of Zelensky mentioning negotiations that line up with said time period. Rather than dismiss it outright due to purse ethnic bias/narcissism, I think it’s worth exploring.

From March of 2022:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/03/20/politics/zelensky-putin-ukraine-negotiations-war-cnntv/index.html

Additionally, there was a Foreign Affairs article that mentions an agreement between Russia and Ukraine in the spring. I would link it but it’s behind a paywall so here’s another writer quoting some of that article:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/ 70.115.27.99 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"that doesn't seem very scholarly", we are not a university publication or anything, dont understand why you think we should act as such, also, Ukraine and Russia have hardly negotiated anything since the start of the war, small exceptions only like prisoners swaps and the grains/ports deal, but neither side accepts any attempts at negotiating peace, truces, etc. SnoopyBird (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop being disengenous

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Purpose page:

"Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge."

all branches of knowledge means giving the opinion on two sides of a conflict.

How is prisoner swaps and grains/ports not major negotiations?

Im also looking forward for you to start using sources to back up your claims, how am I not supposed to believe that your not coming with stuff. NotYourAverageUser (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Don’t bother. If you look at his profile you’ll see he has a very strong bias that precludes him from considering anything that might clash with narratives he’s already formed about Ukraine 70.115.27.99 (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Prisoner exchanges is the exception. For the grain corridor, Ukraine negotiated and signed a deal with the UN and Turkey, not with Russia.  —Michael Z. 02:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

None of that says Russian forces weren’t forced to withdraw from their assault on Kyiv.

The Foreign Affairs article you mention says Putin is interested in Ukrainian capitulation, not a compromise that preserves Ukrainian sovereignty.

It is absolutely scholarly to call a lie a lie and a crime a crime, and many sources have done so.  —Michael Z. 02:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

No you haven’t. You just dismissed the source outright by claiming Wikipedia isn’t supposed to maintain scholarly standards. If you even bothered to look at the link I provided you’d clearly see claims made of an agreement signed between both parties regarding the withdrawal of troops from Kyiv. Look man, I get it, you are ethnically Ukraine despite living your entire life in Canada so you feel like you have some dog in this fight and must protect the honor of your people for ethno narcissistic reasons but way more qualified people than you or I in the realm of state craft have made claims in opposition to what you have said. And your response is to scream and whine about crimes and Holocaust denial as if that is relevant to the discussion at hand (it’s not) 70.115.27.99 (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t read this discussion very closely but no personal attacks, please. I heavily advise you to strike out that material, and discuss the content itself, not the editor you are talking to. HappyWith (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

More reporting coming out of Politico confirming that there were peace talks in spring of 2022. Paragraph 8 of the Politico article “Many people we talked to hastened to add that Kyiv and Moscow actually discussed peace before” which links to this article from Spring of 2022 discussing peace talks. This is the source linked in the story: https://www.ft.com/content/7b341e46-d375-4817-be67-802b7fa77ef1

source: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/08/18/milley-had-a-point-00111878 70.115.27.102 (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

...And if you read that linked article, it's about Ukraine promising not to join NATO in exchange for security guarantees from the West, not about a small-scale Russian withdrawal from Kyiv. HappyWith (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Cite reliable sources please (no, Putin himself doesn’t count). Also rather hilarious that this narrative only appeared a year after the retreat. Nicodene (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Structure

The structure of this article is kind of a mess. Some of it's chronological, but most of it isn't. Feels like it jumps around randomly in time throughout, which makes it a bit hard to follow. HappyWith (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm specifically talking about the subsections under "Russian advance on Kyiv" here, forgot to mention. HappyWith (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Was the merge really needed?

Like i get that they were both on/at a northern direction of parts of Ukraine but one was about taking Kyiv and Kyiv oblast, the other was about Sumy Oblast, Chernihiv and Kharkiv (which really isn't really fully eastern)

I saw the argument that battles like the battle of Kontop were related to Kyiv offensive, which is true, but i think those should have been just moved to Kyiv offensive instead

Also like, the actual Kyiv offensive lasted a month, right? The Northeastern Campaign was 2 months in the first phase and 9 months in the second. Second phase even went to literal north-eastern Ukrainet related to Kyiv offenisve or Eastern offenisve. The merged article is chronologically a mess Slimebor (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry about the chronological messiness. I'll try to fix that myself if I have the time.

The "second phase" of the northeast campaign was merged into eastern Ukraine campaign, not here, so that shouldn't be a problem. HappyWith (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

In reality the Wikipedia article grouping together engagements in Sumy, Kharkiv and just some of Chernihiv oblasts was always Wikipedia WP:OR. Analysts divide the war into several phases with the first ending once fighting in northern Ukraine was over. I think it makes much more sense to group this fighting into one single campaign than on two different ones with the second actually having ended later (this was more original research). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Vasylkiv

Tomissonneil, you have readded "detail" here about supposed Russian losses from military transports for which there is absolutely no evidence that such events took place - and it is not as if they haven't looked. It is in essence, disproven. I see no reason to give weight to this by adding further text when it is a fringe claim. We don't just add everything just because it appears in a newspaper, even though some editors adopt this practice. It is why we have WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ping participants in AfD discussion: @Curbon7, Liz, Last1in, Mzajac, Mr.User200, and AirshipJungleman29:. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, just consider both accounts of the events, according tu Ukrainians two Russian Il-76 were spoted and allegedly shot down. No wreck appeared. According to Russian claims ZSU shot down one Ukrainian Su-27 by error over Kyiv in a FF incident, namely, Stepan Ciubanu.link Mr.User200 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Newspapers are usually primary sources, so unless there are secondary sources that explicitly talk about the event, including some level of WP:DEPTH and a discussion of WP:LASTING impacts, it should not be included. In this case, we can't even prove that the supposed event even occurred, much less show any sort of analysis of it. I do not think this should be included in the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)