Jump to content

Talk:Northern Ukraine campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 131.227.23.35 (talk) at 20:45, 3 April 2022 (→‎Ukrainian Victory). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Title

I just thought of something. Would it be better to characterize this particular article as the Kyiv Offensive (this would be in line with the Kherson offensive, describing a similar military advancement operation in another oblast)? And then when the battle for the city occurs that would be the Battle of Kyiv, since this is about the operation about the whole (ex. Battle of Chernobyl). Just trying to see if we could alleviate some of the potential confusion that might arise as a result of the title not really matching the current content very well. Curbon7 (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. I've started Draft:Battle of Kyiv (2022) so we can build out a background section before the battle gets hot and so we can avoid any lingering WP:CRYSTAL issues. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede image

@Mhawk10: The lede image is a zoomed-in version of the map used in this article. The original map shows what each relevant symbol and detail means, but this one doesn't. It has to be fixed, as in its current state, it can be confusing. Wretchskull (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do maps, but I'm going to ping LLs (talk · contribs · count), who created the image. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksiy Arestovych is an unreliable source

Several articles on Wikipedia are quoting Arestovych, whos announcements either say that Ukrainian forces have killed 50 Russians / that they have taken out 200 Russian 'units' in a single engagement, or that the Russian military is killing and injuring many children. In one case at least, he claims there have been more children than adults as casualties. The problem is, he is himself the propagandist of Zelensky's government. As a propagandist, he is invalid as a primary source. So who keeps posting what he is saying to these pages, and should action be taken?

On his own Wikipedia page, it says that Oleksiy Arestovych is "an organizer of psychological seminars and trainings" for the military, "Adviser on Information Policy", an advisor for "Strategic Communications in the Field of National Security and Defense", and in other places is regularly reported as Zelenskyy's own advisor. What this means is, he is a main propagandist for the Ukrainian side of the story, and as such, what he says is invalid. However, it is not for me to delete what is said, but rather to recommend that his name be suffixed with "a Ukrainian government propagandist".

In war the first casualty is Truth. But I think, along with a complete lack of any Russian sources for the current events in Ukraine, Wikipedia can do a better job of resisting that than it currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.160.246.12 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article notes that this is a Ukrainian government claim, not an independent claim. Curbon7 (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general, we need to be careful about using unconfirmed claims from government officials on either side. Where they are widely reported, it is always be worth including attribution to the individual who stated them if we choose to incorporate them to the article. Independent estimates should probably preferred and should carry the most WP:WEIGHT. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of Belarus

Lukashenko: Belarusian troops are not participating in the operation in Ukraine. "Here I read: "At about 5 a.m., the state border of Ukraine in the area of Russia and Belarus was attacked by Russian troops supported by Belarus." The scoundrels are extreme! Our troops do not take any part in this operation," BelTA quotes Lukashenko.

Recall that Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he had decided to conduct a special military operation to protect people from bullying and genocide by the Kiev regime, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, bringing to justice those who committed numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including Russian citizens.

On Thursday morning, Ukraine's military facilities were subjected to massive strikes. The DPR reported fighting along the entire contact line. The Russian Defense Ministry stressed that the Russian Armed Forces do not strike at the cities of Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry said. Precision weapons only hit military targets. Later, the Russian Defense Ministry announced the suppression of Ukraine's air defense systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.19.176.100 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any independent, reliable sources that support these claims? — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant grammar error

"At some point during the day, a Russian military column was destroyed by Ukrainian forces on a bridge in the city of Irpin, destroying at least one vehicle and leaving it's crew dead." It's. Can somebody please, please turn this into "its"? And shame on whoever typed it, unless it was a quick thing and they reviewed it not.

ProtectUkraine.org

@ThePaganUK: in this edit you inserted material sourced to "ProtectUkraine.org". Are you sure that's a reliable source for events on 25 February? I'm not able to find much more on the destruction of a column on that day; the only source I can find that mentions something like this is WaPo and it describes the destruction of a tank column in an article published on 24 February. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(
)

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Paratroopers landing in the city of Vasylkiv

The source cited for the claim that "Russian paratroopers began landing in the city of Vasylkiv" in the early hours of Feb 26 only claims that the Ukraine's air force command "said (it) was under attack from Russian paratroopers." I am not so sure the two are equivalent. Stephanos100 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Kyiv

Should this article say that the Ghost of Kyiv is a commander of the Ukrainian forces, even “allegedly”? Timothy Schrock2001 (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because a commander of leader is usually a soldier who is designated with a rank to lead soldiers in a battle. The Ghost of Kiev is a plane, not a person, so it is impossible for a plane to be a commander. Also, it is unlikely that the pilot is the lead commander or leader of the battle. Adamwikisz (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations to Twitter

Is there any reason we're currently citing a bunch of tweets? I'm not convinced that Twitter is a reliable publisher in the context of an ongoing conflict where the fog of war is evident. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO depends on who is tweeting, are they blue checked, are they considered authorities, do they link or show evidence?Wikidgood (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Kyiv Offensive" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kyiv Offensive and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Kyiv Offensive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This is part of a three-way close of

I will be copy-pasting the same close rationale to all three.

The key question here is whether "Kyiv" vs. "Kiev" is sufficient disambiguation on its own under WP:SMALLDETAILS. At the Kiev Offensive RM, Mhawk10 and Mlb96 make the case that they are, but at the Kyiv offensive RM, no one seems to contest CentreLeftRight and HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith's argument that the distinction is obscure to most users and that the transliteration "Kiev" remains in widespread use; Walrasiad and Eduardog3000 make similar points at the Kiev Offensive RM. Thus I find consensus that Kiev/Kyiv is insufficient disambigation on its own.

The outcomes of these three discussions follow easily enough from this:

  • BilledMammal's DAB page at Kyiv offensive is restored and Kyiv Offensive is retargeted to it.
  • Kyiv offensive (2022) is not moved.
  • Kiev Offensive is moved to Kiev Offensive (1920).
  • There was no discussion of what to do with the resulting redirect at Kiev Offensive, but since the consensus to move was based on the premise that the term is ambiguous, I will retarget it to the DAB at Kyiv offensive, without prejudice against an RfD to review that decision.

There may appear to be an inconsistency in capitalization here, but it represents the consensuses at both RMs, and to me appears justified based on the fact that one is a descriptive title and one a proper name. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv offensive (2022) → Kyiv Offensive – The current article seems to be the primary topic for the phrase "Kyiv Offensive". The article Kiev Offensive refers to an early 1900s-era offensive. It seems like the spelling of the city at the time of the offensive, combined with a hatnote, would be a more efficient way of disambiguating the two than the current way of doing so. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — "2022" helps make the topic of the article explicitly clear. "Kiev" is not an old transliteration; the difference between "Kiev" and "Kyiv" is that the former is the transliteration of the Russian name and the latter the Ukrainian. Kiev is still widely used in English to refer to the city. Also "Offensive" should not be capitalised per WP:TITLEFORMAT; the reason why it is for Kiev Offensive is because the proper noun with the capitalisation is commonly used to refer to it in sources. CentreLeftRight ✉ 01:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per CentreLeftRight. Differentiating the two articles solely based on spelling differences which are largely arbitrary in English seems like it could be confusing to readers. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above. BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would suggest Kyiv Oblast Offensive (with or without 2022, no preference) is better than the current title to disambiguate from the Battle of Kyiv (2022) in Kyiv city only. Buttons0603 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to push back, I think that the offensive is generally described as having the purpose of taking the city of Kyiv, which is not in the Oblast itself. The offensive has several battles in it, one of which is Kyiv, but I don't see a need to make that change. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Half-support I support removing the disambiguator and renaming the page simply to "Kyiv offensive"; the above argument about the spelling difference not mattering is directly contrary to the policy located at WP:SMALLDETAILS, which specifies that spelling differences do matter. The Kiev Offensive is the primary topic for the spelling Kiev, and this article is the primary topic for the spelling Kyiv; the disambiguator is unnecessary and should be removed per the nomination. However, I oppose capitalizing the word "offensive" because reliable sources do not refer to it in such a manner. Mlb96 (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with a restricton: It should be Kyiv offensive, without a capital O CR-1-AB (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppopse - There is already the Kiev Offensive article relating to another war.XavierGreen (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The year is needed to distinguish the older offensive article and the spelling is not enough to distinguish the two. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion

At Talk:Kiev Offensive#Requested move 27 February 2022 BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ukrainian casualties

Any updates of Ukrainian casualities?? Kunal Mystry (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Health Minister Viktor Lyashko said on Saturday that 198 Ukrainians, including three children, have been killed during the Russian invasion. A further 1,115 people have been wounded, including 33 children, he wrote."

    • Would this be regarded as casualties??**

Source : https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/26/russia-ukraine-battle-for-kyiv Kunal Mystry (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally can't find any independent sources that are giving estimates of casualties that have occurred specifically in Kiev or in the surrounding oblast. We'd need numbers specific to the front (rather than general numbers for the entire 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) in order to place estimates of casualties for the Kiev front in the infobox. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For casualties, it's probably best to wait until the fog of war clears to get some accurate reports. The UN put out a report earlier I believe, so this would be a good non-biased report to draw conclusions from if there are numbers specifically for Kyiv. Curbon7 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian casualties according to Russians

Since in the battle of antonov airport which is part of the kyiv offensive the russians have claimed 200 ukranian soldiers killed, I think we should mark down at least 200 ukranian soldiers killed in the casualties section under "per russia". Here's the link for that source. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60517447?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=6218d0950ce87e491a0ecfb1%26Russia%20says%20200%20Ukrainians%20%27eliminated%27%20in%20airbase%20siege%262022-02-25T12%3A55%3A10.449Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:149645fb-2fdb-4f80-9cc5-545be403b403&pinned_post_asset_id=6218d0950ce87e491a0ecfb1&pinned_post_type=share

PROONTExchange (talk) 19:24, 27 February (UTC)

Kadyrovtsy convoy

The article mentions «destroyed a Kadyrovtsy convoy of 56 tanks in Hostomel», but it seems that this is about tankers (trucks), not tanks. Tuvalkin (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

I'd check the spelling and make minor edits to a few references. STAIDCONTEXT (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small spelling error

From 27 February section: "destroyed a Kadyrovtsy convoy of 56 tanks in Hostome.[53][54] Chechen leader" It is missing an 'l'. Ridanbp (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@‎Pietadè, thank you for fixing it. Ridanbp (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

1. For March 3rd add that Ukrainian special forces destroyed 10 BMDs in Hostomel[1] 2. In march 3rd add that fighting occured in Bucha and Vorzel[2] Torpschez (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That is not a reliable source, it just points to a telegram post. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/3-march-special-forces-of-the-main-intelligence-directorate
  2. ^ https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/3-march-fighting-in-bucha-and-on-the-outskirts-of-vorzel

Deaths of individuals

Editors should treat carefully their edits regarding the death of 'notable' individuals. Some days ago there was a discussion regarding the alleged death of Chechen Commander Magodev, the same happened in his own bio article. However since there was no evidence of its death, no photo, report form RS and to make matter worse, there was a counterclaim that he was alive and is currently in this article too. The article was later erased, because it lacked notability. I have seen someone left his alleged death on the infobox, regarding claims of death by individuals editors should be more careful. This types of errors undermine Wikipedia image.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged death was a Fake, read discussion.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request, Spelling Error

Under the 6 March section, the sentence "In Irpin, Russian shelling hitting an evacuation checkpoint" should read "In Irpin, Russian shelling hit an evacuation checkpoint" instead

 Done 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring

We currently structure the article to give a day-by-day breakdown of events. I think it might be a better structure if we can write this more like typical articles on historical offensives (such as Operation Overlord), where the timeline of events is given in prose rather than in a pseudo-list. Does anybody object before I re-structure the article? — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think let's wait until this is complete or at least further developed. This will let us holistically edit later down the line. The article isn't gruelingly long at the moment so it's ok to wait a bit. However, I 100% support the idea, just not now I think. Curbon7 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change description 🦧🦧🦧🦧

The current «short description» repeats the title, which is redundancy. A solution to this is to reword it into «Russian military attack in Ukraine». ToniTurunen (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested merge of Kyiv offensive (2022) and Battle of Kyiv (2022)

These two pages are very similar and should be considered as a possible merged page. I believe the two talk about mostly the same things, and the Battle of Kyiv (2022) could be placed as a section of the Kyiv offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainnq (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's very obvious what the difference between both articles is. Curbon7 (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Northeastern Ukraine offensive into Kyiv offensive (2022)

CONSENSUS NOT TO MERGE
Clear consensus to not merge for now. (Non-admin close) Ganesha811 (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appears to be treated by RS as a part of the Kyiv axis of attack. For example, see Reuters and ISW. Jr8825 • Talk 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misinterpreted the sources. Some of the action here, such as Battle of Konotop in northern Sumy Oblast are def part of the Kyiv offensive and should probably be moved as such, but action regarding in southern Sumy oblast and Kharkiv oblast are considered by both sources you provided to be separate from action in Kyiv; action in Chernihiv oblast also falls under the Kyiv article. In my opinion, it's fine for now; there's a lot we don't yet know, so a proposal like this is probably WP:TOOSOON. Curbon7 (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The troops from Konotop came from the east I thought, not from Belarus or the North. So Konotop is also part of the Northeastern theatre in my view Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The interpretation is that the troops from northern Sumy oblast (i.e. Konotop) that pushed west are seen as making action towards Kyiv by making a westward trek. Right now, I don't have a definitive opinion, as everything is hazy with the fog of war, so I think the status quo is preferred for now. Curbon7 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger -- News media seem to treat Kharkiv and Kyiv as separate objectives, so that they are probably best kept separate. This may change as the war develops. Recent action in Makariv (if we do not get a dedicated article) is perhaps best dealt with in one on Kyiv. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In future these may well be considered the same thing, but for now they seem to be treated differently. If at a point in the future they are put together, then we should merge them. There’s no rush, let’s keep them for now. Xx78900 (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'm seeing earlier maps that identify two separate offensives. If the two eventually merged in their operational effort, the reason is that the Kyiv Oblast offensive has stalled, so the operational axis is not active at this point. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Curbon7. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, although some of the Russian actions were in support of the siege of Kyiv (viz., securing a supply line to attack the city from the northeast), the primary effort was against Sumy & Kharkiv. Only after those 2 cities refused to fall was this repurposed to support an advance on Brovary.
    Further, it currently appears that now the Northwestern campaign is focused on the capture of Izium in support of the Eastern front. In short, the article on the Northwestern front really can't be merged into another article -- at least until after hostilities have ended. -- llywrch (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, WP:TOOSOON and there is much we still don't know about both offensives. Once the conflict is over and details are more clear, we can start condensing articles, if still deemed necessary. Buttons0603 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

Spaceworker2 (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magomed Tushayev is a Chechen officer of Kadyrov's army, so Tushayev's flag should be that of Chechnya

Chechnia’s not a sovereign state, despite acting like it in many ways. —Michael Z. 15:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest casualties to admin...........

In another page created off. Battle of Kyiv the Wikipedia page but this is Kyiv offensive page created on you need to do casualties put on this page like this: Ukraine: Unknown 4 aircraft destroyed[citation needed] Russians: 235 soldiers killed,[8] 748 wounded[9] Okay, SO LET DO IT and edit the page. NguyenLuuDatHuynh2008 (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

I'm a senior editor member, I would like permission to edit this page to proofread the reflist and application as a reference for development of a similar page in another language Wikipedia, please. STAIDCONTEXT (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Curbon7 (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 23-24

What happened from March 23-24? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:8CF8:847D:3C8:A456 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irpin retaken

Ref [1]. Volunteer Marek 21:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

Include mention in the infobox and opening about Russian announcement to scale down military operations in Kyiv. Source.

Potential wording: On March 29th, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin announced that Russian forces would “fundamentally ... cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernihiv” to “increase mutual trust and create conditions for further negotiations.” Perathian (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Perathian (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. According to the New York Times, leadership at The Pentagon is casting doubt on Russia's official position about military activity in the direction of Kyiv: (NYTimes (Helene Cooper 29 March 2022 "Pentagon casts doubt on Russia’s claim to be pulling back troops near Kyiv." The New York Times url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/29/world/ukraine-russia-war/pentagon-casts-doubt-on-russias-claim-to-be-pulling-back-troops-near-kyiv access-date=2022-03-30) -- RobLa (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivankiv liberated?

I'm seeing many posts on social media that Russian forces have left Ivankiv, and that Ukraine has now liberated it. There's nothing yet from the Ukrainian government or any news source so I don't believe it. It's a big development if true, so I'll keep looking until something reliable comes up. If anyone sees a reliable source or government report on it, make sure to update the article and/or map. PixelatedGalaxy (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From [2]: "Later, local officials said the northern Kyiv region towns of Bucha and Ivankiv had been retaken by Ukrainian forces and Ukraine's armed forces said the nearby town of Borodyanka had also been liberated, sharing a photo of Ukrainian troops they said was taken in the town." --Mindaur (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox caption

The caption for the map in the infobox reads "Russian advance in the Kyiv region, near the border with Belarus", but the map now shows the Ukrainian counteradvance to the Belarussian frontier and the borders of Chernihiv Oblast. The caption could be corrected, but I think it would be better to change the map from a representation of the current position to a representation of the history of the campaign, with the caption then adjusted. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Victory

From news reports seems like this battle is over and that the Ukrainians won. Is there any disagreement with this assessment? Nogburt (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the offensive is over depends partly on how you consider the axes of advance via Konotop and (bypassing) Chernihiv, both of which were apparently aimed at Kiev. There's also the question of what cleaning up operations are needed northwest of Kiev. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Russians first began withdrawing from around the city of Kiev, but now have indeed withdrawn from the entire Kiev Oblast, back into Belarus. Chernobyl is under Ukrainian control, so I'm guessing it can be called a Ukrainian victory as this stage of the campaign is over.

I think we are getting near to making that call, Some ukrainian governments officials are claiming victory, and pretty much all of west kyiv has been recaptured it seems. Probably just wait for major media to report it IndianapolisWikipedian (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor error

Please change the first sentence. Since it has been proven to be a decisive Ukrainian victory, it is not ongoing anymore. 182.239.87.226 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Ukraine_campaign&oldid=1080849321"