Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine

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.

---

The heading above is a link to the archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022.

See also earlier RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022.

Both RfCs were closed with "no consensus". Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Peace efforts

Someone is reverting and re-adding the Peace section to this article which is already covered in two other Wikipedia articles. It is a fully Redundant section. It already has its own article at Main article: 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations. Also it is covered in the new 2022 Reactions article created last week. Is there support for keeping three copies of this section on Wikipedia, or should it be deleted from this 2022 Invasion article? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes it should not be here, it needs to be mentioned in the article about the war, and maybe the timeline. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, someone removed without reason the Peace efforts section. It is a significant topic, which is very relevant to the article, so it should be mentioned here, there is no reason to delete it. It already has its own article, therefore, the link should be mentioned here, it is a significant topic. For these, there should be a paragraph with a link (it is not anywhere in the article). Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the reason? Are you saying that this topic is redundant? I definitely cannot agree with that, it is an important topic, which can affect the entire invasion and definitely related to this article - and not for another article about the war, as these negotiations began just from the beginning of this invasion. As I still do not see a reason for deleting the text from the stable version, I request its restoration. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: I believe what Slatersteven meant was that if there is disagreement about it, we need to discuss it first before re-adding it (otherwise it can quickly become an WP:EDITWAR). We can do it right here, and I'll start by saying that I agree that the section should be in the article. It is very reasonable for a casual reader (for whom we are writing this encyclopedia) to ask about a possible peace. And yes, we have a standalone article, but it's not comfortable for a reader to have to type and search for it, when we have dozens and dozens more of wikilinks to far less interesting things in the article. A (short!) section on the peace efforts should be here. It is actually fairly commonplace to have such a short excerpts in a longer article, and link to the main article there. We even have a template just for that, Template:Main. That's not "redundant", that's good practice. So I support the re-addition. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, Slatersteven and ErnestKrause I apologize if I rushed this a bit and if I was unpleasant (I didn't liked that revert, and that after the first revert I got a warning about edit war on my talk page). But Slatersteven is right, if there is disagreement, it should be discussed first. Anyway, I went through the history and found out that this paragraph was here until 11 August, when user ErnestKrause deleted it (who reverted my edit), so if there was a mention of it about half a year (almost from the beginning of this article), it should be him, who should defend the change of this article. I just basically reverted it to the stable version. Anyway, I agree with LordPeterII, that the section on the peace efforts with link to the main article should be here and that it's not 'redundant', it is one of the important things in relation to the invasion and therefore to the subject of this article. I suggest reverting to the previous state. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Which for me is another reason not to mention it, they went nowhere. Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Support for Slatersteven on this. The Peace subsection being discussed here was never "removed" from Wikipedia, but it was split into a new Wikipedia article here on 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions. A page split is different than removing an article on Wikipedia, and the full text of the Peace subsection can be read in its entirety on the new Reactions article which I've just linked above. In addition to that, there is also the Peace article on Wikipedia which discusses the details of the Invasion peace attempts for those interested in this history. These are currently linked in the Invasion article for readers who need to read the details. That means that there are already two versions of the Peace subsection on Wikipedia, and re-adding a third one in this article seems redundant. Three copies of essentially the same material in three Wikipedia articles is redundant and not consistent with Wikipedia editing policy. I'm supporting the comments made by Slatersteven on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It should be brief mentioned/summarised and a link to the main WP should of course be added. I've had a brief look at the edit in question and it looks summarised and brief enough if you ask me. Basedosaurus (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The peace efforts have gone nowhere so far and will likely go nowhere in the future, but the media provides a lot of reports and commentary on these efforts, which is all that matters for inclusion. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The Foreign Affairs' latest article on the topic definitely has something to add. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that users ErnestKrause and Slatersteven have not presented any serious explanations why this important information, which mainly affects the topic of this article, should be removed from this article. This paragraph was here until 11 August, and since consensus was not found, moreover 3:2 were in favor to preserve the text, it should be returned to the stable version that were here for about half a year (almost from the beginning of this article). Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it should be re-added, as I have said above. No convincing argument against its inclusion has been given; we have such short-summarising-sections-with-a-link-to-the-main-page in literally hundreds of Wikipedia articles. @ErnestKrause and Slatersteven: If you can't stand the section at all, I invite you to start an RfC on it; but I'm not going to begin another one about such a trivial thing. Please go ahead and re-add that part, Jirka.h23. –LordPickleII (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added another link to the Peace article from the Reactions section. In addition to the previously made link to the new 2022 Reactions article, the Reaction article section on Peace also links the Peace talks discussion as presented in that article. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok LordPickleII, I returned it. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus for restoring your edit and forcing it into the article. Your edit is reverted until you establish consensus. Both Slatersteven and myself have reverted your edit by Wikipedia policy for BRD. Establish consensus on Talk page prior to further edits in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong, there is no consensus to remove it from the stable version. It is you who should find a consensus. Anyway, now it is 3:2 to keep the paragraph. So do not delete that sourced text, it is very related to the article. Not following Wikipedia policy (not found consensus for your change from the stable version, deleting sourced text) may lead to your blocking, take it as a warning. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: If you do not believe consensus is reached, kindly start a WP:RfC. I strongly suspect it would fail, because neither of you has given any policy-based reasoning for excluding the info. What do you think Template:Main exists for? It's to deal with cases exactly like these. Sorry if I was too quick, but it doesn't make sense to me that you would use "no consensus" as a reason to exclude the content indefinitely, when you have neither argumentative nor numerical support in the discussion. To give some more info on my view: I am arguing based on WP:SS, a guideline that clearly is in favour of "content duplication" like the one in question here. Also, don't forget that we are writing an encyclopedia for a reader: You might be perfectly right if this was an archive, and you'd not want duplicate information, as anyone could take their time and research, or ask you as the archivist. But Wikipedia is used by many different people, everyday, who have no idea how an ideal structure would look like, and who are likely not thinking "Hey, this invasion sounds pretty bad, I wonder why they don't make peace? I'll now scroll down to the Reactions section, open the correct one of the six linked articles there, and then scroll down until I find the corresponding section, then click the article linked there, and voilá, I've already found it!" Don't expect a 10 or 70 year old random internet user to be able to do that. We need the to write for our WP:AUDIENCE, that is, put the readers first. Think about it, and maybe you can understand why we want to restore that section. –LordPickleII (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

LordPickleII, user ErnestKrause is not a very experienced editor, he started editing (very actively) last year, maybe he doesn't know what is WP:RfC. I don't know what to do in such cases, I still believe that we can come to an understanding here.Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: I have respect for ErnestKrause because they have contributed a lot to this article. Maybe they haven't edited that long, but their edits are high-quality mostly; anyway I was a bit quick to suggest a RfC. Btw, I've just checked and see you have achieved a Featured Article even, @ErnestKrause, nice!

I had participated in some discussions lately that grinded to a halt for no reason, so sorry if I was a little snarky there. Your contributions are appreciated, and I hope you can see both I and Jirka.h23 don't want to make the article worse, we really believe that the short "Peace efforts" section would benefit the article greatly. I hope you and Slatersteven can reconsider; I wouldn't even mind an even shorter section, as long as there is an easy way for readers to be informed that "peace talks happened, yielded no result, for more details please click here". –LordPickleII (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean it disrespectful, rather as a reflection (or possibility) on why he is not responding to the RfC call.Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is a redundant section in this article. It can be included as a new section in summary form. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There is already the link I added in response to Based above in the Reactions section of this article which mentions the peace process and links the article which already includes the full copy of the Peace section being discussed here on Talk, which states: "Reactions to the invasion have varied considerably across a broad spectrum of concerns including media responses, peace efforts and the examination of the legal implications of the invasion." I'm agreeing with Slatersteven that re-duplicating that section here in this article is unnecessary. Also, the topic of Peace is normally discussed as an answer to War, such as the Wikipedia article for the Russo-Ukraine War, and not in response to an "invasion" in and of itself. Is there a reason why the editors here, Jirka and LordPeter, have not even tried to place the Peace section in the Russo-Ukraine War article where this discussion appears to have a better placement. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I am agreeing with the editors that the subject merits its own section. I believe that a section on the peace efforts, including the discarded Minsk agreements, should be included in Russo-Ukraine War and the War in Donbas too. Any new peace process will mostly be in response to the recent invasion, which is a part of a longer conflict but constitutes a significant escalation and flagrant violation of the Mink agreements. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: This article here is presently "ongoing" in the news. I am reading it to inform myself about the ongoing crisis, and, although that is only anecdotal, all of my irl friends and acquaintances do only read this article. Yes, from a professional, academic point of view you might be right; but if this was a library, with finished, printed books, then the Invasion wouldn't be your to-go article, and you would start with the war overview. I would not mind having several more "Peace efforts" sections in other articles if you'd like that, but I am specifically voting to have one here, based on my arguments above. Can you at least acknowledge them? I just see no guideline- or policy-based rational for your decision to exclude them, and several more editors have spoken in favour of re-adding them. This must not become an edit war; but this must also not become an instance were two editors can block something for abstract reasons. Repeating that you agree with Slatersteven does not make your point any more convincing: It's the opinion of you two, and I can respect that. But consensus can overrule an opinion, and you must accept that possibility. If you do not wish to bring new arguments, I am going to start an RfC. –LordPickleII (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The re-duplication of identical material on multiple articles at Wikipedia is discouraged by Wikipedia AfD policy about articles which cover essentially the same material. Also, if you are stating that you wish to re-publish the exact same material for Peace on the pages for Russo-Ukraine War, War in Donbas, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions, 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, and now this article for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine then that will be seen as appearing like POV-pushing. My suggestion is still that you try to add this section of the main article for the war which is at Russo-Ukraine War, which you still have not tried to do. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Well, how is this POV-pushing? This isn't about my personal views (if you are interested in these:*start POV* I would love peace, but I can only see that coming once Russia is pushed back. Peace efforts until then are futile, Ukraine needs weapons. *end POV*), it's purely about policy and consensus. That you bring up an AfD policy now is at least a fresh development – could you link to it please? In any case, I think an WP:RfC is really warranted now, as the only way to get this to a conclusion without bad blood. I shall start one. –LordPickleII (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, I do not consider mention of it on other pages to be so important, mainly because they are directly related to this article and this year's invasion, on sites like the Russo-Ukraine War and others it can also be mentioned, but it should be found mainly here. ErnestKrause and Slatersteven do you think there is any point in convincing you and that you could change your mind? Now it is 4:2 to leave the paragraph, but I would like to resolve this with you as well. Regards Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I can add no more to what I have already said, this is not about the war, its, about a campaign. We do not (for example) discuss peace talks in the article about the battle of the bulge or Verdun. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You didn't say this before, what do you mean "not about the war", it is all about the war, more specifically about this invasion, the peace negotiations started after this invasion, so it relates exactly to this article, I see no reason to delete these important events. So in this case, if only two users are pushing the article change, we could be forced to use the RfC. Or one more question, I'm going to repeat myself, but you still haven't answered it here, if this paragraph was here until 11 August, when user ErnestKrause deleted it, and there was a mention of it about half a year (almost from the beginning of this article), it should be him, who should defend the change of this article, meanwhile, according to the rules, the article should change to a stable state, am I right? Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

My OP "Yes it should not be here, it needs to be mentioned in the article about the war", my stance was always this is not an article about the wider war, so any material that is more about the wider war should be in that article. All I just did was to elaborate more on why. I have had my say, I can add no more other than to reiterate the same arguments worded in different ways. There is no point in continuously pining me for my opinion, you have it. But you are correct, if this was long-standing content, (how long was it here?) then yes, the onus should be on those wishing to remove it to get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"my stance was always this is not an article about the wider war, so any material that is more about the wider war should be in that article." If I understand it correctly, you don't mind this mention in the broader article, but here, which discusses this year's invasion, it does. In that case, that makes no sense to me, the peace talks have a direct connection to this invasion, in the wider article also many other connections can be discussed. Anyway, if that's the case, we'll take your opinion into consideration. But thanks for confirming my point, and so I ask again ErnestKrause to stop meanwhile removing this paragraph.Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Support of Slatersteven, who is making perfectly good sense. Also, Wikipedia is not a forum for polling or voting. Establishing consensus is not a tally of votes. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Good that you agree with him, so now you can try to find a consensus, or create an RfC to remove the paragraph. But I ask you again not to delete the paragraph straight away.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the post-2022 phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war which is a part of the wider war. It looks like it will overshadow the previous 8 years of the conflict which means that there is quite a lot of overlap. Ideally we should agree on some kind of a framework but I think we are not there yet. In the meantime the reader (who might have come via a wikilink from the Main Page) is likely to be interested in knowing about the peace negotiations and therefore this article should have a short summary and a link to the main article on the negotiations. Alaexis_¿question? 10:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The general approach in the international press has been that there have been three phases in the Russo-Ukraine War since the annexation of Crimea. The first was the process of the anexation of Crimea itself, which was followed by an Interim Period of conflict between Russia and Ukraine mostly in the Donbas region, which was followed by the two phases of the current 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Discussion here on the Talk page should be consistent with the general approach taken in the international press about the Russo-Ukraine War as a whole. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not disagree with this but I don't see how it refutes (or supports, for that matter) my argument that a short summary here would be helpful. Alaexis_¿question? 18:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that there should be at least a brief paragraph. Two editors have tried to remove it, but have not yet found a consensus. You are already the fifth person who is in favor of its preservation. We have agreed to leave the stable version for now.Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus at present on the Talk page and your edit is reverted according to Wikipedia policy for BRD. Two editors have already notified you on your Talk page that you appear to be edit warring against Wikipedia policy. Could I ask that you stop edit warring. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you understand the written word? There is no consensus for removal the paragraph. As agreed, the page returns to the stable version before your editing (also with the second editor who firstly reverted). Find consensus for removal first, otherwise you can be blocked for not following the Wikipedia policy. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: The general approach in the international press has been that there have been three phases in the Russo-Ukraine War since the annexation of Crimea. [...] – meaning? I'm sorry, I just really can't follow your reasoning. If you point to the press reaction, then the peace efforts were definitely covered, and almost exclusively as a result of the current invasion. I agree that longer term, we may need some restructuring. But at present, all news are talking about the Invasion, nothing else, because it is ongoing and the major development in what had otherwise been a relatively "restrained" war. –LordPickleII (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the renewed addition of this section as it does not appear to me that clear consensus has been reached. If the talk page is deadlocked, someone should call an wp:RfC.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ermenrich yes, consensus was not reached for your edit (removal of the sourced content) and five people are against. Therefore the page returns to stable version, find first consensus for removal of the paragraph. Thanks.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not the stable version. The article hasn't had a section on this for a while. The WP:ONUS for adding a section rests on you.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. I have returned it on 27 August, this paragraph was here until 11 August, when you deleted it, so it was just 16 days, and there was a mention of it about half a year (almost from the beginning of this article). As said Slatersteven, the onus should be on those wishing to remove it to get consensus, and I agree on that.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be edit warring against multiple editors who have asked you to stop edit warring until Talk page discussion for BRD is completed. Your edit is reverted. Can I ask that you stop your serial reverts to this article which multiple editors have asked you to stop doing on your Talk page. Both Slatersteven and Ermenrich have asked that you stop edit warring on your Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not lie. It is only you who is forcing your edit against stable version (with the second we agrred that you shold first find consesus for removal of sourced content). I think that the page should be locked against your disruptive editing.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I was wrong if you both start with "E" :-) So there are two of you, it doesn't change the fact that he should first find a consensus to remove the long-standing paragraph. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Your are presently edit warring and reverting against multiple editors on the article main space. Could I ask that you stop edit warring against multiple editors who have also contacted you on your Talk page. Could you revert your edit and return to the Talk page here for discussion following Wikipedia policy for BRD? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an essay rather than a policy and can be misused. I don't see policy-based arguments against including this section. Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be here. Having a main article does not mean it can't be mentioned here. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we should have an RfC. Something along the lines "Q1: Should this article describe the peace negotiations that took place in 2022?", "Q2: If yes, should there be a dedicated session for it?", "Q3, if yes, should we adopt version X and then improve it incrementally?" Alaexis_¿question? 20:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

We have 6:3 for adding this section, which is a consensus. I don't think we need a RfC. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

consensus has finally reached, 6:3 for keeping this section. The only issue now is how it should look. For whose interested, please share your opinion at the section at the bottom. Thank you all! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk)

@Super ninja2: Consensus is not a vote tally, it is based on majority and arguments. I think we will have a RfC, it's cleaner at this point. I agree it should also include a second question on how such a section should look, as suggested by Alaexis. I'll write one up when I find time (or motivation). But discussion can ofc resume in the meantime, so we have a selection of options for the second question. –LordPickleII (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis, Super ninja2, ErnestKrause, IntrepidContributor, Basedosaurus, Slatersteven, Jirka.h23, and Ermenrich: Pinging you as previous contributors to the discussion (sorry if I've missed someone). I have started a RfC below, please feel free to voice your opinion there: Go to the RfC. –LordPickleII (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@RaiderAspect: Meant to ping you as well about the RfC. –LordPickleII (talk)

"Boris Johnson prevented peace"

Alaexis, I have reverted your addition because the idea that Boris Johnson single-handedly prevented the war from ending is being pushed by Kremlin-aligned sources and does not accurately represent what at least one of the sources you cited says. I cannot access the Foreign Affairs article, but Ukrainska Pravda says the following: "The Russian side…was actually ready for the Zelenskyy-Putin meeting. But two things happened, after which a member of the Ukrainian delegation, Mykhailo Podoliak, had to openly admit that it was "not the time" for the meeting of the presidents. The first thing was the revelation of the atrocities, rapes, murders, massacres, looting, indiscriminate bombings and hundreds and thousands of other war crimes committed by Russian troops in the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories… The second "obstacle" to agreements with the Russians arrived in Kyiv on 9 April." The second reason, after the atrocities, was the visit of Boris Johnson, who assured Zelensky of the west's collective support. Then Zelensky called for two agreements, one with Russia and one with security guarantors, and then the peace deal fell through. The Ukrainska Pravda article is here for anyone to see who disagrees with my presentation.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll add that the second source you added is the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, which is repackaging something Foreign Affairs published to promote its agenda of a "realist" and advocating for "restraint" in U.S. foreign policy.. Fiona Hill (presidential advisor) is one of the authors of the article in Foreign Affairs and is unlikely to have portrayed Johnson as single-handedly forcing Kyiv to fight on.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: While I have been advocating for a "Peace efforts" section above, I agree and thank you for this revert. It might have been completely unintentional on Alaexis's part, but that prose really read extremely distorted from reliable reportings on these events. –LordPickleII (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich excuse me but what you say is unreasonable. You talk like Johnson is by his own but he is not, he was the British prime minister meaning that he used to represent the British government! So he didn't "single-handedly" interfere in the peace talks as you say.

You said that the article said: "The Russian side…was actually ready for the Zelenskyy-Putin meeting [...]" but I'd like to add that it ALSO said "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with." And the second is that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not." You shouldn't pick on part and leave the other.

Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

What you've written misses the point. It does not change the fact that he is listed in the article as the second reason for the collapse of peace talks. The first reason was the Russian atrocities. Alaexis's addition did not mention them and was framed as though the West prevented peace (whether intentionally or not).--Ermenrich (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich, OK so, I guess we should add both reasons? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Not unless the purported second reason has much more significant coverage in reliable sources. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi user:ErnestKrause! I'd like to know why did you revert my edits.THX! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I see that someone has re-written the section on the peace negotiations. I'm fine with the new version too, so let's discuss it. Alaexis_¿question? 09:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll quote the relevant part of the Foreign Affairs article here for everyone's convenience

“ According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries. ”

Alaexis_¿question? 09:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis and Super ninja2: Please note that there has been an unresolved discussion above about whether to include a "Peace efforts" section at all. I think the discussion of a "how should it look?" should be postponed until we have clarity about that.

@Jirka.h23, Slatersteven, ErnestKrause, Basedosaurus, and IntrepidContributor: I believe this is actually an issue in favour of having a Peace section here that is actively maintained through consensus, rather than re-added periodically with potentially pointed and undue statements. Is anyone of you in favour of keeping the current section? Because I believe the old one was far superior. –LordPickleII (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that. I agree with your point. Alaexis_¿question? 09:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The general approach in the international press has been that there have been three phases in the Russo-Ukraine War since the annexation of Crimea. The first was the process of the annexation of Crimea itself, which was followed by an Interim Period of conflict between Russia and Ukraine mostly in the Donbas region, which was followed by the two phases of the current 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Discussion here on the Talk page should be consistent with the general approach taken in the international press about the Russo-Ukraine War as a whole. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It's WP:BLUDGEON to keep reiterating your point. As Alaexis commented in the above discussion [1], there is no disagreement about the general approach, and it does not refute the argument to include a summary of the peace efforts. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: I kinda assumed that ^^ But that probably means you also agree we should have "Peace efforts" section at all, instead of none? Because the other discussion above couldn't decide on that question. –LordPickleII (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely! :) Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Folks, be so kind and do not revert back and forth until a consensus has been found. Try and use all the options listed under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution...but edit warring will only lead to warnings, blocks, protectons etc...for these consequences it really doesn't matter who is right. Consider this a warning to all taking part in the back and forth. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ermenrich and Rosguill, you both took part in the edit war with Jirka.h23, who unlike you, participated in the #Peace efforts discussion above. According to WP:BRD, you should have participated in the above discussion and addressed the question of whether the section should be included in the page, before reverting two good-faith attemps to write it. There are at least five editors here in favour of including the section, and in a separate discussion about calling an RfC, Giraffedata and S Marshall advised instead to close the above discussion. I didn't see any good reasons not to include a summary of the sub-article in this article, but I have requested a close for an administrator to formally determine that. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  My edit was an admin intervention to restore the stable status quo of an article undergoing edit warring. If Jirka.h23 hadn't been blocked by Bbb23 in the same minute when I intervened, I would have followed up by either protecting the page or blocking them (I hadn't made up my mind yet at the time as to which intervention would be more appropriate), but that action was made moot. I have no opinion about the underlying dispute beyond my estimation that the edit I reverted to is the pre-existing stable status quo _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SILENCE is not necessarily consensus. I restored the status quo ante while the dispute was ongoing. I don't necessarily have any opinion on whether a peace section should be added (besides that it should not imply that the West/Boris Johnson forced Ukraine to keep fighting, see below).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

How about a See also link to 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A See also link wouldn't be necessary if we had a summarised section on the peace process, which would also link to the sub-article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that nearly every section of this article has a link to a more detailed article. The same should be done here. Alaexis_¿question? 11:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. We discussed that above and reached a consensus to keep the section. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• I spent a lot of time in writing the section and this is how it looks like. I'm keen to hear others' feedback/thoughts. Do you have any suggestions to improve it? I personally think that it does a very good job of accurately and succinctly summarising the sources cited.

“ Peace talks led by Turkey were held between February and July 2022. As of July 2022, peace talks were frozen indefinitely after the failure of both parties to reach a settlement. On April 9, United Kingdom's then-president, Boris Johnson, visited Kiev during the second phase of the peace talks without informing the Ukrainians in advance. Russians claimed that the British prime minister imposed pressure on Kiev to keep fighting. On 5 MAY 2022, Pravda, a Ukrainian newspaper, published an article that it claims to be cited by sources close to Zelensky saying that the British prime minister brought two simple messages. The first is: "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with." And the second is that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not." Fiona Hill, a veteran US diplomat who served as the US National Security Council’s senior director for Europe and Russia in the Donald Trump administration, published an article on the Foreign Affairs saying that Russia and Ukraine could have reached a peace agreement in April and that the "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith." Experts, such as John Mearsheimer, think that the collective west's goal in the Russo-Ukrainian war is "the conflict will settle into a prolonged stalemate, and eventually a weakened Russia will accept a peace agreement that favors the United States and its NATO allies, as well as Ukraine." ”

--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The three articles you cite are all from the small minority of commentators of believe the invasion was the fault of the West. Using that text would violate the NPOV policy's requirement that viewpoints be represented in proportion to their frequency in Reliable Sources. I'd scrap it entirely and start with a clean slate. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But don't you think that the whole article didn't mention or represent the opinion of those who think this war is the west's fault? This article needs to represent more POVs and I'm working to make it meet this policy's adhered neutrality by adding different POVs. In my opinion, the article without this addition violates NPOV. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest a few minor changes

“ Peace talks led by Turkey were held between 28 February and July 2022. As of July 2022, peace talks were frozen indefinitely after the failure of both parties to reach a settlement. On April 9, United Kingdom's then-president, Boris Johnson, visited Kiev during the second phase of the peace talks without informing the Ukrainians in advance. Russians claimed that the British prime minister imposed pressure on Kiev to keep fighting. On 5 May 2022, Ukrainska Pravda, a Ukrainian newspaper, published an article that it claims to be cited by sources close to Zelensky saying that the British prime minister brought two simple messages. The first is: "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with." And the second is that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not." Fiona Hill, a veteran US diplomat who served as the US National Security Council’s senior director for Europe and Russia in the Donald Trump administration, published an article on the Foreign Affairs saying that Russia and Ukraine could have reached a peace agreement in April, according to which the Russian forces would withdraw to the pre-invasion line and Ukraine would commit not to seek to join NATO, instead receiving security guarantees from a number of countries. Hill wrote that the "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith." Experts, such as John Mearsheimer, think that the collective west's goal in the Russo-Ukrainian war is "the conflict will settle into a prolonged stalemate, and eventually a weakened Russia will accept a peace agreement that favors the United States and its NATO allies, as well as Ukraine." ”

The sentence I struck through ("Russians claimed...") is not needed. We have Ukrainian and Western sources saying the same thing citing sources close to Zelensky. I've also added the terms of the putative agreement - it's clearly important. Alaexis_¿question? 14:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

fair enough. That sounds reasonable. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

References

• Don't want to bloat the RfC discussion, but just a head's up @Ermenrich that as extended confirmed, you should be able to access Foreign Affairs via the Wikimedia Library (one of the things the Foundation has managed to sensibly spend money on): https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/

The article by Hill is completely misrepresented, as "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith." is simply not in the source.

On the other hand, the currently proposed version above correctly cites the article by Mearsheimer, which is rather a poor article. He doesn't acively distort facts, but only gives some select ones: "Contrary to the conventional wisdom in the West, Moscow did not invade Ukraine to conquer it and make it part of a Greater Russia. It was principally concerned with preventing Ukraine from becoming a Western bulwark on the Russian border. Putin and his advisers were especially concerned about Ukraine eventually joining NATO." This is ofc not wrong for the pre-invasion issue, but cherry-picking, since we actually know a bit more.

Hill, much better, writes: "Narratives about NATO have also played a special role in Putin’s version of history. Putin argues that NATO is a tool of U.S. imperialism and a means for the United States to continue its supposed Cold War occupation and domination of Europe. He claims that NATO compelled eastern European member countries to join the organization and accuses it of unilaterally expanding into Russia’s sphere of influence." but then also "But Putin also plays up Russia’s imperial role. At a June 9, 2022, Moscow conference, Putin told young Russian entrepreneurs that Ukraine is a "colony," not a sovereign country. He likened himself to Peter the Great, who waged "the Great Northern War" for 21 years against Sweden—"returning and reinforcing" control over land that was part of Russia. This explanation also echoes what Putin told U.S. President George Bush at the April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest: "Ukraine is not a real country.""

I think Hill does a much better job at distinguishing "true and false" from "statements and opinions", and we should much rather follow her, an expert under the Trump administration, than a distinguished professor. Huh, crazy times. –LordPickleII (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Upon closer inspection, the article by Mearsheimer is not so bad after all, just more difficult to read. He blames both sides for escalating, which is probably not untrue. But that also means the article can not be used to support a "Russia is innocent" narrative, and was thus distorted in the section suggestion above as well. I suggest people read through them themselves, as I can only discuss them so much. And ofc there are many more articles around, these are just a few. –LordPickleII (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right about the sentence "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith." Super ninja2, maybe it comes from somewhere else (I'm asking you as your proposed text includes this sentence)? Re the Mearsheimer's opinion, we might want to include it along with other opinions on the peace negotiations to maintain NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 17:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII " the article by Mearsheimer is not so bad after all"

I think that Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the content of RS with attribution (which what I did), not editors' opinions regarding whether the content is good or bad.

Foreign affairs being a reliable source, I therefore adhered to the rules. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: I didn't accuse you of breaking rules, I only noted that your proposal gives WP:UNDUE weight. It can be difficult to judge that; and I know you probably meant well. Also, the above were simply my personal musings about this specific article (which, again, I don't think is poorly written as I initially thought). The issue is not that your proposal is citing unreliable sources, it's that we need to report primarily what the majority of reliable sources says, which is not that. However, @Alaexis you are right that we could cite the Mearsheimer article – but I would suggest in the main peace negotiations article, not in a very short summary. Because that would give him and his minority opinion WP:UNDUE weight. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

How is it that foreign affairs is an unreliable source? John Mearsheimer is a very well known realist and adheres to the realism school of thought which is definitely not a minority. The whole Eastern World is realist. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: I think you still get me wrong. I didn't mean that Foreign affairs is unreliable. We don't cite unreliable sources at all, except in extraordinary circumstances. But even a reliable source can sometimes have an article that has an unusual view, which does not align with that of most others. This can affect every newspaper, every publication: If they say something that almost noone else says, we must be careful about including it. Please read WP:UNDUE and below, it gives a good explanation! This is also explained in the section WP:BALANCING: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. We must first see what the majority says (basically, something like irl consensus), and we can present other, different opinions, too – but not as the first thing, as the most important point (because they are not). As for The whole Eastern World is realist, I don't get what you mean by that? But I read a lot of Al-Jazeera because it gives a fresh view, and they are very neutral mostly, only reporting facts and statements, and not saying they agree anyone is responsible: https://www.aljazeera.com/tag/ukraine-russia-crisis/ –LordPeterII (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV policy requires that, where differing points of view exist, that material is presented as a point of view rather than fact.

The world being politically divided only between East (realism) and West(liberalism), I don't the other pov is extraordinary nor minority, especially when taking into account the Chinese population. Western people considering the other side of the world's pov as uncommon and extraordinary, imo, is due to their lack of access to any other media. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: Okay... I understand where you may be getting at, but that is a different discussion entirely. Whether or not the world is divided into two halfs is a difficult discussion at best, and I would personally rather believe we now have multipolarity (US, Russia, China, India, Iran, ...). Basing your argument about what is NPOV on the relative size of populations is something I guarantee will not work on Wikipedia. This is not how NPOV is defined. But I don't want to pick a fight with you about this: It's good to have a broad set of editors, and I've lately seen a lot of editors from the Middle East (Near East in my language ^^) join and be productive on Wikipedia. Can't hurt to have people who think differently than yourself, to remind you there are other POVs around. But I don't think you will be able to completely change the interpretation of NPOV or similar guidelines, as they have for too long be the basis of Wikipedia. China has already decided they want their own version of a state-sponsored alternative, and blocked Wikipedia. I don't think that is a good way of handling things, and I don't believe "the East" and "the West" should desire to become "natural enemies", and remain split. And as for access to other media: I have just pointed out that I read (& watch) Al-Jazeera (arguably only the English edition yet, as my Arabic skills are still meager), and I also watch Chinese and Japanese news (in English) sometimes, for fun. We actually have access to them in "the West"; although it's true, most people don't make use of that. But yeah, now I have derailed after all, and I guess you should be allowed to reply :) Just know that I will not continue this discussion for much longer, as I would rather go back to other things. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I just want to confirm that I didn't want nor I am planning to change Wikipedia's rules. You got me wrong. I was trying to prove that John Mearsheimer realism isn't a minority as you previously stated. Thank you for this discussion. It was nice to hear your pov. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with mentioning Mearsheimer only in the peace negotiations article. Here I would stick to the facts and keep interpretations to a minimum. Alaexis_¿question? 19:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

John mearsheimer didn't mention the peace negotiations Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

During the summer of 2022, President Zelenskyy also warned that if Russia puts on trial any member of the Azov Regiment for war crimes, then there will never be any negotiations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"Russian commander in chief Valeriy Zaluzhnyi"

Has he defected from the Ukrainian military? 208.127.136.43 (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Why do you ask, have you seen reports of this? Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Its in 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Potential_Russian_use_of_tactical_nuclear_weapons. It needs to be corrected. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Third phase of the war?

The initiative of the conflict is starting to switch towards Ukraine with counteroffensives for example on the Kherson-Mykolaiv and Izyum-Kupiansk fronts. With that being said the focus of the war is not anymore on the South-eastern offensive (Second phase of this article). Are these events significant enough to speak of a third phase in this war? I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say this war has entered a third phase. Outside observers at the end of August were describing the conflict as having come to a stalemate: neither side seemed able to make much headway against the other. (Unless you consider the Russian brutal & costly grind thru the Donbass region "headway".) But Ukraine has surprised everyone by first her advance in the Kherson region, & now her lightning breakthrough north of Izium. The dynamic of the war has changed from Ukraine being on the defensive, trading territory for Russian losses, to Russia on the defensive, needing to respond & contain these two new threats. -- llywrch (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The international press appears to be moving in the direction that the Ukrainian counteroffensive may have slowed down or stalled following Russian reallocation of troops and reconcentration of forces on the front lines to thwart Ukrainian progress in the counteroffensive. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That may be the case in Kherson, but top-rate sources such as Reuters are today describing the counteroffensive around Kupiansk as "threatening to turn into a rout". [2] That said, as always we need to be cautious of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in characterising this a new phase ourselves, we need to find sources which are saying this explicitly. Jr8825 • Talk 13:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause@I Know I'm Not Alone@Jr8825@Llywrch I think we are at the point where this couneroffensive might warrant its own article. Something like Ukrainian September Couneroffensive Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 17:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62860774 Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 17:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A related move discussion is taking place at Talk:2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive#Requested move 12 September 2022. Jr8825 • Talk 18:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of "Peace efforts" section

Background: This article (2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) included a section titled "Peace efforts" until 11 August 2022, when it's content was moved to the newly created 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions. There has been a main article about the peace talks at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations since 8 March 2022.

Explanatory note: This RfC is composed of two questions, but each is considered independently of the other; so a reply to Question B does not imply that the editor supports Question A. The options suggested for Question B are only initial forms, to be later built upon if neccessary.

Question A: Should this article include a "Peace efforts" section?

Question B: If a "Peace efforts" section was to be added, which form should it take? Option 1 or Option 2 (see below)?

Option 1 (previous version, until August 11)

Option 2 (newly suggested)

Main article: 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations Peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine took place on 28 February, 3 March, and 7 March 2022, in an undisclosed location in the Gomel Region on the Belarus–Ukraine border, with further talks held on 10 March in Turkey prior to a fourth round of negotiations which began on 14 March. The Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba stated on 13 July that peace talks are frozen for the time being. On 19 July, former Russian President and current Deputy head of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, said: “Russia will achieve all its goals. There will be peace – on our terms.”

Main article: 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations Peace talks led by Turkey were held between 28 February and July 2022. As of July 2022, peace talks were frozen indefinitely after the failure of both parties to reach a settlement. On April 9, United Kingdom's then-president, Boris Johnson, visited Kiev during the second phase of the peace talks without informing the Ukrainians in advance. On 5 May 2022, Ukrainska Pravda, a Ukrainian newspaper, published an article that it claims to be cited by sources close to Zelensky saying that the British prime minister brought two simple messages. The first is: "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with." And the second is that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not." Fiona Hill, a veteran US diplomat who served as the US National Security Council’s senior director for Europe and Russia in the Donald Trump administration, published an article on the Foreign Affairs saying that Russia and Ukraine could have reached a peace agreement in April, according to which the Russian forces would withdraw to the pre-invasion line and Ukraine would commit not to seek to join NATO, instead receiving security guarantees from a number of countries. Hill wrote that the "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith." Experts, such as John Mearsheimer, think that the collective west's goal in the Russo-Ukrainian war is "the conflict will settle into a prolonged stalemate, and eventually a weakened Russia will accept a peace agreement that favors the United States and its NATO allies, as well as Ukraine."

Please voice your opinion below. –LordPickleII (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• No to question A not a section. See the reasons in the threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Can you maybe format this to more clearly indicate on which question you are commenting? Just so it is easier for the closer to evaluate later. Also, it would be helpful to give a very brief overview of your arguments again, as this is not a vote, and the closer might not be able to find all previous points made in the other discussion(s). And again, you may (but don't have to) also voice your opinion on the Options for Question B, even if you don't think we should have a section. Think of it as chosing the "lesser evil", only for the case that consensus would develop to include it. –LordPickleII (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have said no to a section, how much clear can I be. I am not going to give my support to something I do not support. If this RFC assumes the answer is "yes we must have a section" it is badly flawed and should thus be withdrawn. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I guess it was clear enough, but anyway thanks for amending. And no, you don't have to vote on the second question. I am just hoping enough people oppose Option 2 so it never happens (tbh I'd rather have no section than it), but I think you have made your point clear on that below. –LordPickleII (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: would you mind briefly summarising the reasons why you're against a section? Alternatively could you point me to which parts of the above discussions are relevant? It'll save me some time trying to understand your argument by scrolling through the rather large discussions further up the page. Jr8825 • Talk 16:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I can add no more to what I have said in two threads above. I see no reason why we need this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not particularly helpful! Skimming through the above threads, am I right in understanding your argument against a section on peace negotiations is 1) that this article is only about a specific "military campaign", not the war itself and 2) that the negotiations are unimportant because they failed? Jr8825 • Talk 17:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to not create another cluttered RFC with umpteen responses for one post. But OK, I oppose this as this article is about the invasion of 2022, not the wider war, and yes also because they failed, so have had no impact on this invasion. Nor do they tell us anything about this invasion, and any context would best be covered in the other articles. Moreover, it is unlikely that these will be the last negotiations and (even if we accept their presence here) only the last one is really relevant. It is better covered elsewhere, with a see also here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I've continued this thread below in the new discussion section as there are things I'd like to discuss in more detail without crowding out other editors' opinions. Jr8825 • Talk 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose option 2 as a violation of NPOV. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: Support. My primary reasoning is that per WP:SS, this is expected and allowed, and we have Template:Main to link to the main article. The counter-argument of "content should not be duplicated" doesn't make sense to me, and I know of no guideline or policy that would confirm it. And per WP:CORRECTSPLIT, point 6.: Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article.

My secondary point is that while the underlying conflict is older, the invasion is definitely the newest development. Peace talks only really happened because of it; and now the article is on the main page "in the news". Per WP:AUDIENCE (and WP:RF), people come to this article first, and expect a good overview. They currently would have to scroll down to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Reactions, then out of the 6 (!) options given click on 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions, and then scroll down again to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions#Peace efforts, from where they are finally pointed to 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, the main article. Far too complicated, as the question of peace is an obvious and acute one, not a side note to be discussed only for the underlying conflict.

Question B: Option 1. I strongly reject Option 2 as a gross violation of WP:NPOV, as it distorts the facts through WP:CHERRYPICKING from only parts of a few (reliable) sources, while completely ignoring most others. It does also not align with the main article, and so would violate the summary that would be expected. Editors may have suggested it in good faith; but it basically repeats Russian propaganda efforts that "the West" had prevented peace.

Option 1 on the other hand is what we have had before, and for a long time; it is concise, neutral, and gives a good overview. –LordPickleII (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: The last sentence of Option 1 should be struck, as per Mx. Granger, since with it it reads slightly biased as well. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the fact that Option 2 is kind of cherry picking but I think that the article isn't satisfying the NPOV in the first place. It already chose its position in this issue, picking a side and picking on the other. All the details aren't attributed to the RS as it should. It doesn't represent multiple POVs. Treating Kremlin announcements as disinformation and fake news snd conspiracy theories while the American government's as solid facts. This violates Wikipedia's five pillars. This isn't right. This is not what Wikipedia is made for. Wikipedia is not a propaganda arm for neither sides. I think we all, as Wikipedia volunteers, should respect the reader to make their opinion on the matter by complying with Wikipedia's policies. It's for the reader to pick the side they feel is right. Not us to play their mind by twisting facts to pass our agenda because we think it's right.

By adding this section I tried to represent the other side's POV. And I'm keen to hear your thoughts to improve it. Thank you for voicing your opinion. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE and also Boris Johson is not (and never was) president. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the Eastern world pov a minority and extraordinary view? There are only two sides in this fight, the west and the east, how is the other side a minority? Formal governmental announcements aren't extraordinary. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We aren't to decide that the Western governmental claims are solid facts while the Russian's and Chinese are not. One either equally treat all governments' announcements as facts or fake news. But to treat the side that one agree with differently and say that all other POVs are extraordinary then claiming that they are trying to avoid making false balance is an utter cherry picking and a fallacy. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There are only two sides in this fight, yes; but we are on neither, we are Wikipedia. As for POVs in the press, there are several: US, European, Russian, Indian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, etc. We do not chose to simply represent the Russian POV because they deserve it. "Not us to play their mind by twisting facts to pass our agenda because we think it's right" – I think that is exactly what Option 2 does, so I somewhat agree with you. Also, this RfC is not about the aricle in general, but about the section, specifically. We cannot achieve a balanced view by presenting one POV in parts, and another POV in others. We need NPOV everywhere; Slatersteven correctly pointed to WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is policy. Feel free to vote for one of the options in Question B, but maybe better give the reasonings in your own vote, not in a reaction to mine (it's more difficult to check later). –LordPickleII (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

To add, option 2 only gives the Russian side, so violates NPOV. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question 1: support having a section for peace negotiations. We do need a section to summarize the long main article. Readers need this section to decide whether they are interested in reading the main article or settle for the summary in this section.

Question 2: option 2 Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. To both options. There are already two articles on Wikipedia which contain this information at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions#Peace efforts and also at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations. It appears redundant to add a third copy of the same material for a third time at Wikipedia in this article. Does Wikipedia need a third version of this section already existing on two other Wikipedia articles. The present article on the invasion is already over 400Kb in size and super-adding a third copy of the same material in such a large article seems a poor choice. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Peace negotiations aren't "reactions" to the invasion. The brief summary at the reactions article (identical to option 1 presented here) should be added here and removed from there. The peace negotiations article is the WP:SPINOFF article that we're looking to summarise in the appropriate "overview meta-article" (to use the wording of the guidance), which in my view is this one. Jr8825 • Talk 10:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: Support. It is standard to summarise a sub-article in a main article about a subject, just like Zaporizhzhia#Russian_invasion_(2022) in Zaporizhzhia, which is a summary of Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast (needs updating). This RfC was called because one editor used abstract arguments against including a section summarising peace efforts. Another editor argued that the peace efforts aren't going anywhere (true, but besides the point). As we enter into the next (and hopefully, final) phase of the war, peace efforts are becoming one of the main issues that sources are reporting on this subject, and that's why we should include them in this article.

Question B: Option 1 is better than Option 2 because the commentary about Boris Johnson is unwieldy and polarising. As Ukrainians, we don't need a Brit to tell us that a peace deal with Putin isn't worth anything, and the earlier claim that we came close to an agreement with Russia in Istanbul [3] was reported as refuted by insiders [4]. I think the commentary from Hill and Mearsheimer belongs more in the main article, and they should be called commentators, not experts. I also think there should be a sentence about Zelenskyy's call on Putin for direct talks, which the Russians have dismissed. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: Strong support. Per WP:SS and WP:SPINOFF, this article is a high-level overview of the invasion and efforts to negotiate an end to the fighting are an important aspect of the topic; a brief section summarising the negotiations (providing an overview of the content at the sub-article) is therefore essential for our readers. This is what hatnotes such as {{main}} are for. There are perennial problems about the overlapping scope of this article and Russo-Ukrainian War, but that's outside the remit of this RfC, and this article remains the main place for content relating to the intensification of the conflict in 2022.

Question B: Weak support option 1, which I think is a suitably succinct summary of the main points, although the text shouldn't be seen as locked-in by consensus, rather as a basic building block. However, I believe the Bucha massacre should be mentioned, as I recall a number of RS stating that its discovery was a significant factor in the breakdown of talks. Strong oppose option 2, which has pretty serious WP:WEIGHT issues to my eyes. In particular, far too much emphasis is put on Johnson's actions, based on one Ukrainian source, which goes against the wider coverage in international press that I've read, which doesn't put anywhere near as much emphasis on Johnson's individual role (and as IntrepidContributor's points out, it could also be seen as devaluing the agency Ukraine has in making its own negotiating decisions, based on an exceptional claim without exceptionally strong sourcing). Additionally, the opinions of two commentators, a U.S. diplomat and Mearsheimer are undue. (I don't recognise the diplomat, but Mearsheimer holds minority views on the conflict, such as arguing NATO was largely responsible for the war, and therefore again due weight applies here – Mearsheimer's analysis is noteworthy but not suitable for a brief, broad summary of negotiations, it is only suitable for the main article on negotiations, and should be given coverage proportional to more mainstream analyses. Jr8825 • Talk 16:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: no opinion. I can see arguments for including this, I can see arguments for leaving it out. It ultimately led to nothing, after all.

Question B: support option 1. Option 2 is too long, it implies that Boris Johnson stopped Kyiv from surrendering (excuse me, "ending the bloodshed"), and I see no reason to give Mearsheimer's opinion so much prominence when he's basically been wrong about everything. He continues to claim that Putin doesn't want to take over all of Ukraine when that is exactly what Putin says he wants and completely ignores the fact that Ukraine is a country with agency and security concerns of its own. He can be included in some sort of "reactions" article where we give the "it's-Nato's-fault!" crowd's opinion, but certainly not here in the main article.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Changed vote on Question A Per Cinderella157, this deserves at most a very brief mention in passing, not a dedicated section. If we're including one though I still prefer option 1 for question B.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Where else in this article would you summarise the negotiations? I don't see any existing section where a brief summary would logically belong. Jr8825 • Talk 10:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: But have you actually read those guidelines? Both WP:SS and WP:SPINOUT explicitly suggest we need a section, not the opposite! See below for quotes from them. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: support, as the peace process is a key part of information about the conflict. Question B: neither option is ideal. Both seem to have cherrypicked quotes that display editorial bias. As a starting point, I would suggest using option 1 but without the last sentence. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I can actually see your point about the last sentence. Yes, it should be removed; better to just have the bare facts, and not any statements and opinions. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• No both as written. It would appear to me that some editors forget that we should be writing in summary style and that when we have a sub-article dealing with a particular aspect of content, detail like when Putin last farted and what Zelenskyy had for breakfast belongs there. The main article need only mention in passing a WP:SPINOUT - which it does without the need for a separate section. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: what's your view on including a brief negotiations section generally (Question A)? Jr8825 • Talk 10:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Was I not sufficiently clear in saying "No both"? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  ok how about you calm down? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: I only asked as I thought you might be responding to both of the options presented for Question B, rather than both questions. I don't see why summary style/using sub-articles means we shouldn't have a section summarising negotiations. If anything, I see it as a reason for having a brief section, as it ties together this article with the spin-off much better than relegating it to a "see also" link: the guidance at SPINOUT says "when you split a section from a long article into an independent article, you should leave a short summary of the material that is removed along with a pointer to the independent article". Regarding excess detail, this article currently includes miscellaneous minutiae such as the sale of 18 "CAESAR self-propelled howitzer systems, mounted on the Renault Sherpa 5 6×6 chassis" (I'll have a go at cutting the foreign military sales section soon, if nobody else does first, as it's a section I've highlighted in the past, too). This reminds me of the earlier discussion we had regarding the background section; it was sliced up and squeezed into a couple of sentences in order to save space even though there's plenty of less important fat to trim elsewhere. There's plenty of room for cuts that will provide space for a brief summary of the efforts to make (and occasions when) negotiators from both sides sat down. Jr8825 • Talk 13:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825: I was just about to write the same, about the SPINOUT quote. Not that you can't be against it, Cinderella157, but your argument seems self-contradictory, with the policy you cited stating that we need such a subsection. This is the same for WP:SS (summary style), which you alluded to, but not linked. Quote from there (specifically WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE): Longer articles are split into sections, each usually several good-sized paragraphs long. [...] Ideally, many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections. And also: In the parent article, the location of the detailed article for each subtopic is indicated at the top of the section by a hatnote link such as "Main article", generated by the template {{Main|name of child article}}. (my emphasis in bold). This is exactly what's being discussed here, whether or not we should adhere to that. Article size is a concern I understand, but every pointer to policy or guidelines I have seen brought up seems to only support the opinion for a section. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Supporting Cinderella and Slatersteven on this. Wikipedia has multiple tools and procedures for dealing with this type of situation. Wikipedia does not need to re-duplicate articles three times in different places merely for the sake of making redundant copies with pointers and redirects to the same information content. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Err... no offense @ErnestKrause, but would you consider acknowledging the points above? Wikipedia has multiple tools and procedures for dealing with this type of situation – yes, those we pointed to above. If you can point to a different guideline that supports your view, it would help your cause! It's a little irritating to constantly hear "clearly, this should not be done", when we clearly have guidelines that disagree. That was a similar issue in another RfC I started, where people would give their opinion, without being able to back it up. You guys have had some valid arguments otherwise, but "article content must not be duplicated" is a really weak one at present. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Err... fully supporting Cinderella and Slatersteven on this. Both of them have articulated on this issue clearly and straightforwardly. Possibly you should re-read their statements which are really strong in comparison to your weak reading of their well-stated and well-directed points. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The various guidance being cited would assume that a spinout article has been created from a section of the main article that has evolved to be of substantial size. This is not the case here. 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations was created here on 8 March 22. This version of this article (the main article) immediately prior to that creation has no such corresponding section and doesn't even mention the talks as far as I can see. The advice is not consistent with the particulars of this circumstance. Perhaps we should refer to 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations as a spinoff rather than a spinout. If one were to summarise 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations into this article it would read: Unsuccessful peace negotiations were held at A [place] from W-X [dates] and B from Y-Z [or similar]. In the greater scheme of things (this, the main article) these efforts to date (by virtue of their lack of success) are litte if anything more than a footnote and should be trated here accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Why must the peace efforts be successful in order include them as a section here? It won't be possible to lift the sanctions (on which we have a section) until Russia signs a peace deal with Ukraine [5], so it is not a minor detail. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Thanks, I can actually follow your argumentation here! I still don't quite agree, but it's a lot more helpful also for other people to have it spelled out thus. –LordPeterII (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question B: Oppose Option 2 as against WP:NPOV, not reflecting WP:RS consensus, and excess usage of "commentators" per MOS:QUOTATIONS -- Rauisuchian (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: No per Cinderella and WP:PROPORTION. The failed peace talks were not significant enough to warrant a section the article. I'd suggest a single sentence along the lines of "Unsuccessful peace talks were held between Russia and Ukraine during February and March." instead. Details like the locations and dates of the talks, the number of rounds, comments from either on whether they were open to more negotiations, etc. don't add anything important; the talks didn't produce any results and until another round of negotiations happen there's nothing new to report.

Question B: Weak Support for Option 1 As mentioned, I think the detail's excessive, but if we are going to have a section it's an alright summary. Oppose Option 2 on NPOV and WEIGHT grounds. I agree with Jr8825's explanation of the problems with that option. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Another argument claiming that the the "failed" peace efforts are a "minor aspect" (per WP:PROPORTION) when we have a huge amount of published material on the subject, including the widely reported statements from Putin, Lavrov, Nebenzya and Gatilov dismissing the possibility of a deal. There was also the alleged Abramovich poisoning during the peace talks in March, which gained very wide coverage. Either editors haven't read the WP:PROPORTION guidance, or the published material on the subject. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously take this with a pinch of salt per WP:GOOG and the impracticality of doing a more scholarly ngrams test, but a Google trends comparison of different aspects of the Ukraine war does show strong demand among internet searchers for information on peace prospects. Jr8825 • Talk 11:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: support, I fully agree with Mx. Granger (and others). The peace process to negotiate an end to the fighting are an important aspect of the topic. And that it is standard to summarise a paragraph in a main article about a subject with the relevant link. Question B: It doesn't matter so much now, it can be agreed later. I was mainly concerned with returning to the state before the paragraph, which was there for almost entire existence of the article, was removed without any agreement by the two users. Anyway, I think that both have cherrypicked quotes, it would be better with just the facts (like that the negotiations were for now suspended).Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'd like to discuss the objections to a "peace negotiations" section that Slatersteven raises above, namely: (1) "this article is about the invasion of 2022, not the wider war", (2) "they failed, so have had no impact on this invasion" and (3) "it is unlikely that these will be the last negotiations". I'd like to offer some responses and hear others' opinions on them.

Regarding (1), this article already covers the broader aspects of the war since 24 February (e.g. foreign support, humanitarian/economic impact, global reactions). Its scope is more comparable to our article on 2003 invasion of Iraq, a distinct stage of intense fighting within the broader Iraq War, than it is articles on military campaigns within consistently intense wars (e.g. Operation Barbarossa). The 2003 invasion article covers the prelude, legality, looting, responses etc.; equally, negotiations to end the current fighting in Ukraine, which briefly made up a significant part of media coverage of the invasion for a period of a few weeks, seem within scope here. I recognise the distinction between this article and Russo-Ukrainian War is currently ambiguous (a point I acknowledged above), but that's a topic of discussion for another time – we should be making a decision based on this article as it stands, and the negotiations we're discussing were uniquely in response to the 2022 invasion: negotiations revolved around the occupation of large parts of Ukrainian territory and were very different in substance to previous negotiations centred around the War in Donbas, for example.

Regarding (2), I think if we apply the 10-year test it's likely future readers will want to know about the failed negotiations that took place early in the invasion but quickly broke down for various reasons (accusations of Russian bad faith, anger after the Bucha revelations). The previous negotiations are a part of the history of the invasion, even if they turn out to be a relatively minor part; for example, their failure may represent a moment when it became clear the invasion was developing into a longer-term conflict. They may also impact future negotiations.

Regarding (3), I think the best option is to write a summary of the peace negotiations that took place that we can then adjust when future negotiations take place. It's impossible to predict when and how this might occur, but we can easily reduce the coverage of the previous negotiations to something like "early in the war, a series of failed negotiations took place etc. etc., after XX/XX/2023, negotiations were reopened". Keen to hear others' responses to these points. Jr8825 • Talk 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have said all I wish to say above, and have no more to add. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Typo in 'Effects on Russian forces'

In the second to last paragraph under the section 'Effects on Russian forces', in the fourth to last sentence, there is a typo: 'They must past a physical test'. Stephanos100 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanos100: Done, thx. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Strength

Are you sure that's the correct number on the Russian side? Dawsongfg (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I have seen numbers indicating Russia has committed as many as 300,000 troops to Ukraine, and that was about a month ago, these current strength estimates are only based off of pre invasion forces stationed on the Ukrainian border, so it should definitely be updated. History Man1812 (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You've seen that many? I've seen the ISW say around 1 million. Dawsongfg (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

Change the link at the bottom of the sidebar (title "Casualties and losses") from "#Casualties_and_humanitarian_impact" to "#Casualties_and_refugees" as the heading was changed in a previous edit. Bemoty (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This heading change was reverted. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Split

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.

---

The early days of the war were a very complicated time that we could write about in much more detail. Currently, it's just compressed down to a list of events with no big picture and this article is still at 356k bytes. This is barely readable. The actual invasion had a distinct start (February 24th) and end (April 4th) date. In this time, the Russians had a distinct invasion plan that failed. I think we should not mix this up with the consolidation of forces and the war of attrition that has been taking place since; therefore, I propose splitting this article into 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russo-Ukrainian War, with the current article at Russo-Ukrainian War being moved to Russo-Ukrainian Conflict. Seriously, random sniping incidents in the Donbas and naval tensions were not a war in the same way as a meat grinder with static front lines is not an invasion. It should not take precident over or even be lumped in with an actual major land war with hundreds of thousands being killed. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This would be like if the article Iraq War was about the Gulf war, US funding of Kurdish seperatists, the no-fly zone, and the actual Iraq War with 90s international politics having a bigger section on the article than the actual war and the article US invasion of Iraq being about the entire 2003-2011 period. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

A slow failed invasion with withdrawals is still an invasion, Russian troops are still in Ukraine. We have to reflect what reliable sources say and none of them are clearly saying "the invasion is over" which is what would be required to make this change. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That's called a Ukrainian victory if Russia withdraws. Regardless, the Battle of Donbass was still a page, and now we have the two counteroffensives. Dawsongfg (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia treats the Iraqi invasion of Iran as having ended when the Iraqi army stalled in December 1980 even though the city of Khorramshahr remained occupied until 1982 ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. The argument against a split is that there aren't any sources which treat April 4th as the end of the invasion, so it would be based on inaccurate synthesis. Russia's invasion remains an invasion, there's no arbitrary cut-off date. The argument against the page move proposal (Russo-Ukrainian War --> Russo-Ukrainian conflict) is that Russian attacked Ukraine in 2014 and a number of sources can be found which call the conflict since 2014 the "Russo-Ukrainian War". That said, I'm also not sure "Russo-Ukrainian War" is really the common name for the conflict since 2014, and I suspect most current media usages of the term are actually referring to the ongoing full-scale invasion. I think there's a case for such a move, and having "Russo-Ukrainian War" redirect to this invasion article, but that's discussion would belong on that article's talk page and would be highly controversial. Jr8825 • Talk 23:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry, but a "Russo-Ukrainian war" would imply a war between Russia and Ukraine in some form. See where I'm going at here? Also, an invasion is still an invasion. That part was the first phase, then came the Battle of Donbass, and now we have the counteroffensives. Dawsongfg (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No I don't see what you're getting at ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Russia invaded Ukraine, failed to make the desired progress and was even repelled, but parts of Ukraine are still under Russian control. Furthermore, there are no sources talking about the initial invasion ending on April 4th, which is original research. So there's no reason to add an artificial split in the middle of the war. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe they're talking about the Kyiv offensive which was abandoned in early April. In other words, not the Russian main goal for the invasion at this time (except that ISW claimed that). Dawsongfg (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree we need to better organise the topic of the Russo-Ukrainian War, but I don't think the split needs to be made from this article, as the invasion is just the latest part of the war. I think Russo-Ukrainian War should be renamed to Russo-Ukrainian War (2014-2022), describing the three main stages starting from Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (renamed to Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea), War in Donbas (2014–2022) (renamed to Russo-Ukrainian War in Donbas (2014–2022)), and this article (under the current title). This is how we structure it on the Ukrainian Wikipedia [6]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  That seems slightly better. Dawsongfg (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. Those renamings could be supported, instead of a split. There was some chronological detail in the Russo-Ukrainian War article that was lost in rapid edits and summarizing, in the need to write about the more massive 2022 invasion. This led to the elimination of some specific points (2014, 2015, 2016 events etc.) that at the time, seemed WP:NOTNEWS but actually were useful in chronology in a way that would pass WP:TENYEARS especially today and in a few years. For example this early 2021 revision of the Russo-Ukrainian War article. (which is actually more precise/direct about Russian proxies than I remember, as the most key reliable sources were saying.) The old state of the article sometimes highlights surprising parallels between the 2014 smaller Russian invasion and the 2022 Russian full scale invasion. Also to refute the original split idea, the severity of the Battle of Ilovaisk provides significance to the "Russo-Ukrainian War (2014-2022)" category. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Also I did not mean to say anything too obvious to people who are already experts on the topic, I just like to link everything. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a interesting suggestion, I quite like it. It should probably be moved to the Russo-Ukrainian War talk page though. Jr8825 • Talk 01:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

How do we move this discussion? IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If people want to further develop this idea they can start a new thread over there and link this one as context. Jr8825 • Talk 11:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I disagree with absolutely everything of the rationale. The war from 24 February to today is the same conflict, and no invasion ended on 4 April 2022. Super Ψ Dro 16:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

September 2022: Large number of major changes to structural elements of article including major revision of TOC without discussion

Bold reverts regarding large number of changes being made by User:Jr without Talk page discussion even though many editors are involved in the editing of this article. Talk page discussion is normally required for large scale changes to the article being edited by a large number of editors. One major issue is that Jr wishes to fully drop the distinction of Phase One and Phase Two of the invasion without prior discussion. Phase one and phase two of the invasion are pervasive to the article and should not be changed without discussion first. Phase one and phase two of the invasion is also the preferred distinction for most of the international press reporting on the Invasion. Jr appears to wish to eliminate this distinction for his own 'vision' for what the article should look like. Should phase one and phase distinction be dropped from the article or retained, since Jr appears to wish to drop them entirely from the TOC of the article which has been in place since April 8th 2022. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825 and ErnestKrause: Let's remember to assume good faith: Bold changes don't imply an editor is trying to impose their "own vision" on the article. But I agree, we should better discuss major changes, so let's do it here.

If the press is reporting these phases like that, I find it convincing to keep in line with that. –LordPeterII (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk page discussion is needed on this. Jr has not yet responded. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this thread. I recognise the changes I made to the structure are major. They were made in the spirit of bold, revert, discuss and inspired by the comments about the need for change made in this above thread by editors I Know I'm Not Alone and llywrch. I've no issue with the changes being reverted if others don't see them as an improvement (in fact I'd be surprised if these changes were simply kept). I'm not particularly attached to the new structure, rather I'm hope it offers a launching pad for more discussion. I do think the new structure offers better chronological flow overall and puts some topics in more logical order, but I'm keen to see others' ideas and highly doubt my bold changes are the best possible structure. Jr8825 • Talk 22:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause regarding the large number of edits, most of these were overdue copy-editing. Most of this article is very rough around the edges as it's being written as events occur. On the whole, I don't think expect much of this copy-editing is controversial. I think wholescale reverts of this major copy-editing isn't presumptive of my good faith, and rather unproductive. It'd be far more preferable if you could simply restore the structure you like. Jr8825 • Talk 22:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Currently I cannot undo the last edit in the large sequence which you have added into the article today without Talk page discussion. As a sign of good faith may I ask you to revert this edit which you made in order for good faith discussion to continue on this Talk page here: "Curprev 21:01, 10 September 2022‎ Jr8825 talk contribs‎ 358,306 bytes −3,600‎ →‎Invasion and resistance: bold restructure & heavy c/e". I am requesting this in good faith, that you revert your edit just identified, in order to continue this Talk page discussion on the basis of my BRD request. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The edits you've reverted so far represent an hour's worth of heavy copy-editing for brevity, grammar and source adhesion, but as you point out, intervening edits means you can't actually click the undo button on the edit that changed the headers. In hindsight, it was rather foolish of me to combine that change with other copy edits as it complicates reversion, and I'm sorry for that – I recognise this was a mistake. You have two options, you can either spend a few minutes of your time manually restoring the section titles to your preferred version, or you can revert all changes since the header renaming by going to the diff before it, clicking edit and then publishing that version. In doing so you will irreparably undo all of the other changes (including several by other editors) that have occurred in the mean time, and it's far more work to manually restore all of the intervening copy-editing (realistically, it won't happen and the changes will be lost). I implore you to choose the first option: restore the most recent version with all of the other improvements, stick {{in use}} on the page and take a few minutes of your time to rename the headers as you wish. Jr8825 • Talk 22:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored my copy edits as I'd be very disappointed to see them lost, but with "First phase" and "Second phase" appended to the headers "Initial invasion" and "Donbas offensive", which is the primary issue you raised in your initial comment here. Does this ameliorate your concerns? What else do you think should be different about the headers? Jr8825 • Talk 22:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Keith D BRD discussion is underway and User:Jr appears to be in agreement to participate until consensus is reached, however, intermediate edits have made it not possible to do an undo of the last edit of the sequence here: "21:01, 10 September 2022‎ Jr8825 talk contribs‎ 358,306 bytes −3,600‎ →‎Invasion and resistance: bold restructure & heavy c/e". May I ask that you rollback the edits to just before this last edit by Jr which I just listed, in order for Talk page discussion to be able to continue in a meaningful way." ErnestKrause (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Jr, you appear to have done the partial revert for your edit which might allow for discussion of this matter to continue at least in part on this Talk page. It appears that you wish to fully remove the distinction of Phase one and phase two from the article and its structural TOC. Your appear to wish to do this even though many parts of the article and its images, and its animation maps, are dependent upon the distinction of these two phases. Further, the distinction of these two phases has been the manner in which the international press has been reporting the Invasion since April 8th. You have done so without any prior discussion and in the absence of any reasons shared with any other editors. Is there a reason for this, and are there any editors that feel such an extensive revision without Talk page discussion should have been done? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinions on including "phases". I've restored this language in the latest revision. Have you checked it? Jr8825 • Talk 22:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Keith D has no tools you don't in this case: as I explained above, you can simply go to the page history, view the version prior to the structural change (I've even linked it for your convenience), click edit and then publish it. I'll be frustrated by the loss of my contributions, and I'd point to WP:ROWN and WP:REVONLY, but ultimately it's my fault for bundling my changes together and you're free to do this; I won't revert you. Jr8825 • Talk 22:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm requesting that you restore the article as a sign of good faith in editing. Otherwise, I'll request that Keith D rollback the article as requested when he returns from the week-end for regular editing of the article to start again, and for any required discussion which you may need at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to self-revert myself as it would involve undoing significant copy-editing, you're welcome to change the headers however you see fit. Perhaps you can explain your other problems with the changes, now that "first phase" and "second phase" have been restored per your request?

I'll run through the changes:

1. I renamed "Second phase: South-eastern offensive" to "Second phase: Donbas offensive" as it's consistent with the main article, Battle of Donbas (2022), and I suspect this is the most common label in media coverage. I'm happy to carry out a source review to confirm whether or not this is correct. Feel free to adjust.
2. I removed "Second phase:" from the headers for the Ukrainian counteroffensives and the Zaporizhzhia NPP crisis and promoted them from level 4 headers so they're no longer sub-sections of the Donbas offensive section. I did this because they're outside the Donbas, occurred several months after the main events of the Russian offensive, and, I think, are themselves particularly notable events within the invasion. The Battle of Donbas is what is commonly referred to as the "second phase" of the war. Maybe the counteroffensives & NPP crisis could be labelled a "third phase", although unless sources are found this may be WP:OR. You're welcome to restore "Second phase" to these headers, although I'm personally doubtful there are sources which explicitly say these events are part of the "second phase" of the invasion; if you know of sources which do, it'd be appreciated if you could link the source in this discussion.
3. I added a date range "(August – present)" to the new level 3 "Ukrainian counteroffensives" header. To explain my thought process, I think this helpfully includes the Crimea attacks and matches the period of time when media sources were widely discussing a possible Ukrainian offensive in Kherson, while events in the Donbas were receiving limited attention and were at a relative standstill. However, I'm not fussed about the date range inclusion, by all means remove it.
4. I re-arranged the "Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk" and "Fall of Mariupol" subsections so that Mariupol is discussed first, as it fell earlier (~16 May vs. 24 June-3 July) and the "Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk" refers to the Mariupol being "almost entirely taken" in the lead up to the Russian assault on these cities, so it makes more sense this way.
5. I shortened coverage of individual strikes and events in the Dnipro–Zaporizhzhia and Mykolaiv–Odesa regions during this period, and subsumed them under a new level 4 "Other regions" header, as they were away from the main fighting in Donbas, relatively few major developments occurred in them, and there was considerable over-detail; however, all the key events such as the recapture of Snake Island and Kremenchuk mall strike are retained. If you believe these sections should again be level 4 headers themselves, go ahead, although I'm personally unconvinced they can be considered core parts of the Russian Donbas offensive. "Other regions" could be named something like "Outside the Donbas", or these regions could be removed from under the "Phase two: Donbas offensive" header entirely. No strong preferences here, happy to consider alternatives.

• The caption of the animated map doesn't perfectly align with the new headers since it continues up to present, but says "Phase 2". It's an easy fix, whichever option is chosen: "Phase 2" can simply be removed from the caption (would be my preference), the animation can be adjusted to end before the Ukrainian counteroffensives, or the header "Second phase: Donbas offensive (8 April – July)" can be changed back to "Second phase: Donbas offensive (8 April – present), which would fit well with the option I suggested above, of removing the date range from the header "Ukrainian offensives (August – present)". I wouldn't object to any of these changes, the point in my restructure is to encourage this kind of problem solving.

That's about it in terms of the structural changes, and again, if you strongly believe all of these changes are bad you can simply edit the current revision and restore the headers as they were in Special:Permalink/1109602196. This link can be put alongside the current revision for ease of comparison. Jr8825 • Talk 00:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted as requested above, but gone 1 version further as that just added the {{inuse}} template, I have also kept user:Jjmclellan82 change as a seperate addition which you can revert out if you do not want it. (Looks like further discussion taking place since I started this action) Keith D (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed with this wholescale revert as it undoes lots of uncontroversial cleanup, when it's much simpler to restore the section titles and order while leaving the current prose. I acknowledge it was foolish to carry out such extensive copy-editing at the same time as bold adjustments to the headers, but I'm not going to spend another hour of my time restoring my copy-editing manually. I'll continue to discuss possible structural changes here if @ErnestKrause or others decide to review my suggestions in detail and offer their thoughts on them. Jr8825 • Talk 01:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

On reflection, I think Ernest's request for a wholescale revert is improper. I made a wide range of substantial good faith edits, Ernest reverted 10 of these in a row and when it wasn't possible to automatically the revert the 11th, requested I manually self-revert it and then asked an admin to revert instead (see Special:History/2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). This is very poor reversion etiquette. I cited BRD, I'm fine with seeing my bold edits reverted – I ask ErnestKrause joins in the discussion and engages with my proposals when he's able to – but BRD doesn't mean reversion is acceptable in the absence of justification. Ernest hasn't asserted my changes are particularly controversial beyond the header adjustments, despite requesting their reversion in entirety. I've promptly implemented the only specific concern so far raised, and have broken down the header changes above to assist further discussion. However, I'm less concerned with the bold edits than I am the loss of several hours of careful copy-editing and cutting. @Keith D:, I ask that you self-revert to allow me to restore the headers as closely as possible to how they were prior to my edits while maintaining the much larger proportion of my edits which were non-controversial copy-edits. I recognise I bungled things by bundling lots of edits together (in a rush to avoid edit conflicts on this busy article) and will manually restore the status-quo headers in order to save the considerable work I've undertaken today. Jr8825 • Talk 02:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

After several hours, there does not appear to be support for your comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: After several hours, there does not appear to be support for your comments – I don't get this. We do not need support for an editor expressing his disappoitment over having his work reverted, nor do we need to expect such replies within hours. Copyediting is tedious work, and there might have been alternatives to a rollback. I'll move on to other places now, but would like to remind you that you do not WP:OWN this article, no matter how extensive your contributions are. Everyone has the right to attempt an improvement of the article, and just because you do not agree with it, doesn't automatically imply that no one does. –LordPeterII (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Your own comment above was to say: "If the press is reporting these phases like that, I find it convincing to keep in line with that." Is this still your position? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is a brief source review. The "second phase" of the invasion is used to describe the Battle of Donbas and/or Russian offensives in the Donbas/south:

• "The second stage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is ... establishing full control over Donbas and southern Ukraine" 25 April
• "For 300 miles across Donbas, a new wave of Russian firepower has been unleashed. Ukraine’s President says the second phase of Russia’s invasion has begun" 20 April
• "Russia says it has begun a new phase of the invasion of Ukraine as fighting raged in the Donbas region" 19 April
• "Russia said it had begun a new phase of its invasion of Ukraine on Tuesday as officials in the eastern border region of Donbas urged civilians to flee" 19 April
• ""Another phase" of Russia's invasion of Ukraine "is starting now," Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said ... "The Russian troops have begun the battle for the Donbas," Zelenskyy said" 19 April

These usages are concentrated around the beginning of the Russian Donbas offensive in April. A search for results in the last month for "Ukraine war second phase" on Google returns little meaningful journalism or analysis. Jr8825 • Talk 14:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Edits from User:Jr appear to be getting highly unreliable. He is stating in his above responses that he sees no appreciable search results ("little meaningful journalism") for a Google search on the four key words "Ukraine second phase war", while my computer screen is identifying dozens upon dozens of articles using the words "second phase" in magazines, newspaper, and video news reports. My search on Google and/or Yahoo gives dozens upon dozens of linked articles: the Yahoo search results, for example, are here: [7]. If statements from User:Jr continue to be unreliable, then it leads to the troublesome question of his reliability/unreliability for his edits to this article about the Invasion. For example, see Reuters for "Second phase of war has started, says Ukraine president's chief of staff" in Reuters here [8], see BusinessInsider here [9], see CBS News here [10], etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You haven't read my comment properly. I wrote that "a search for results in the last month" turns up very few results. Above, I highlighted 5 articles which show the journalists and commentators use the term "second phase" to refer to the Russian Donbas offensive.

Additionally, I've just found an recent Al Jazeera article from 24 August which further supports my arguments that the second phase of the war has ended: "Offensive, redeployment, counterattack: Ukraine has overmatched expectations in all three main phases of this war. During the first month, Russia attempted a blitzkrieg offensive ... On March 25, Russia announced it was redeploying its forces to the east ... on April 18 Russia’s eastern offensive began in earnest [and May and June were] Ukraine’s worst months ... The arrival in Ukraine of high-precision rocket artillery systems ... on June 23 disrupted Russia’s war of attrition in the east."

Please do not comment on my conduct or "reliability" here again. It's not nice. Jr8825 • Talk 00:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be reverting my title for this thread. Wikipedia convention is that the person who initiates the thread provides the name of the thread for use on the Talk page. I restored the original title and stated my reason for keeping it. You then reverted again to your own preference against Wikipedia convention for naming the title of a thread by the person who starts it. I'm requesting that you show good faith and return the title to how it was named when it was started. You previously declined my other request for you to AGF, which you refused to do during your main page edits over the week-end. I'm requesting that you reconsider your previous refusal to edit by AGF, and that you return the original title of this section in good faith to allow discussion by other editors to take place about the title and the associated edit issues. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Returning to the substance of the discussion, after looking at the above articles, what's your view on the sourcing regarding "second phase", and when/if sources indicate that the second phase of the conflict has ended? Following from this, what problems do you see in my proposals to change the TOC (numbered 1-5 above)? Regarding the thread title, the current one is clearer and I refer to my explanation on your talk page. Let's focus on the content. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Answered on your Talk page. You appear to be edit warring to force your version the title into this thread for your own purposes. I'm adding my request again that as a matter of AGF, that you return the title to its original form as written by the initiator of this thread. The original title chosen is accurate and I'm requesting in good faith that you restore the original title. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. 50.111.29.1 (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Can someone make the map more clear when zooming?

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.

---

I can barely see the names on the map and want to see specifically where is being won by either side 2600:6C64:617F:62C4:F512:2867:ED10:87CD (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

Cite errors

In the References section, citations 279 and 435 have a big red "Cite error" on them. Ribidag (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed - thanks for highlighting these, Ribidag. Jr8825 • Talk 12:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing the redirect hatnote

Should we change …

"Russian invasion of Ukraine" redirects here. For other uses, see List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine.

… to …

"Russian invasion of Ukraine" redirects here. For a list of other invasions, see List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine.

…?

A person redirected from that term might be looking for information about another invasion. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 16:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Both seem fine to me. The current hatnote ain't broke, though. Jr8825 • Talk 18:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Invasion section structure

I think we should make some changes to how we structure the invasion section for clarity, chronological flow and a better reflection of the sources, and would like to invite feedback. The original thread about this has unfortunately been derailed by a long-winded discussion about reversion and conduct, rather than the substance of the proposals themselves. I'm starting this thread with a clearer breakdown of the changes to facilitate discussion and make participation easier.

A version of the page including the proposed section titles can be viewed here. The current sections are on the left, in yellow, and the proposed sections are on the right, in blue.

−

Invasion and resistance —First phase: Invasion of Ukraine (24 February – 7 April) ——First phase – Northern front ——First phase – North-eastern front ——First phase – Southern front ——First phase – Eastern front —Second phase: South-eastern front and counteroffensives (8 April – present) ——Second phase – Mykolaiv–Odesa front ——Second phase – Dnipro–Zaporizhzhia front ——Second phase – Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk ——Second phase – Fall of Mariupol ——Second phase – Attacks in Crimea ——Second phase – Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive —Western Ukraine —Air warfare —Naval warfare —Russian nuclear threats —Popular resistance

+

Invasion and resistance —First phase: Initial invasion (24 February – 7 April) ——Northern front ——North-eastern front ——Southern front ——Eastern front —Second phase: Donbas offensive (8 April – July) ——Fall of Mariupol ——Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk ——Other regions ———Dnipro–Zaporizhzhia ———Mykolaiv–Odesa —Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis —Ukrainian counteroffensives (August – present) ——Attacks in Crimea ——Kherson ——Kharkiv —Air warfare —Naval warfare —Russian nuclear threats —Popular resistance

Jr8825 • Talk 10:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Specific issues:

• Should we include recent developments, such as the Ukrainian counterattacks and the Zaporizhzhia NPP crisis, within the sub-section entitled "second phase:" (as currently)?

I believe the sources, e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] indicate that "second phase" gained traction in April to describe the renewed Russian offensive in Donas/the south. The drop in use of the phrase after April, and recent analyses describing "three phases", indicate that it's inaccurate synthesis to continue appending "second phase" to every development. Jr8825 • Talk 10:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Should the subsection "Fall of Mariupol" be placed below "Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk" (as currently)?

I think we're better switching around these sections for chronological flow. Jr8825 • Talk 10:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Where should we cover the Zaporizhzhia NPP crisis?

Currently it is covered in "Second phase – Dnipro–Zaporizhzhia front" and "Russian nuclear threats", although I think it may warrant its own brief subsection with a hatnote link to the main article given the amount of coverage. If it's given a subsection, I'm not certain where the best place is to put it, I've initially suggested placing it chronologically between the Russian Donbas offensive and Ukrainian counteroffensives. Jr8825 • Talk 10:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A content-fork on a Talk Page ... please, STOP. Go back to the original thread, and discuss there. Asking for an Admin to hat this thread, please. Jr ... you are acting like you want to 'hide the evidence' of your initial conduct or something. That's 1) not possible, and 2) is pointless in a content discussion - nobody's "out to get you." 50.111.29.1 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

General comments:

• Support - More and more sources are stating phrases along the lines of 'new phase', 'turning point' and 'phase 3': [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. So i would even support a 'Third phase' header starting around 29 August, the day of the launch of the southern counteroffensive. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Putin refusal of Aprils' peace agreement

Can't edit but this seems notable[21] Santorini36 (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Original at Reuters.  —Michael Z. 14:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Might be more directly relevant at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, see also Talk:2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations#New Reuters piece - Putin had a deal and rejected it.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, added it to the peace negotiations article. I used both because Reuters is paywalled. Santorini36 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

Add a section between Reaction and Polls, namely, "In Film and Media", for the ongoing war already became at least the inspiration of one TV show episodes aired in US. The would-be section goes as follows---

In Film and Media

The ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine started to become an inspiration for some TV show episodes. For example, the last episode of FBI: Most Wanted's 2021-22 season, "A Man Without a Country", featured a Russian oligarch embarking on a killing spree, even to the point of abducting his estranged daughter who stood with Ukraine and even briefly touched upon the infamous Bucha massacre in her press conference before abduction, and the name "President Kimov" is a strong allusion to the current Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and since the episode was first aired on May 24, 2022, whereas Bucha massacre was only exposed on Apr 2, 2022, therefore it was very remarkable that the events made its way into a TV show episode in a short time and some elements already figured prominently in the episode itself. Bf0325 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

What are the sources and citations for this? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Dam hit

The Beeb just reported that Ukraine has claimed a dam has been hit (by missiles?) as 'revenge' for losses by Russian forces recently. Looking for online news report ... 50.111.31.194 (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC) see--> https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-hit-zelenskyys-hometown-barrage-194538830.html

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2022

In the section "Phase Two" please update the animated map subtext to say "from 7 April to 5 September 2022".
In the section "Phase Three" please add the phase 3 gif with the following subtext "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine phase 3 from 5 September to 14 September 2022".

Phase 3

Thanks! Physeters^✉ 04:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)