russian Invasion Of Ukraine

There are only low-quality sources for this, and it is a misinterpretation. See FALSE: Every month, about 30,000 Ukrainian soldiers are killed or seriously wounded — Ukrainian doctors (voxukraine.org) . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

What are you replying to exactly? Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
[1] this addition. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that American mainstream media is necessarily low-quality sourcing for quoting Ukrainian officials, especially when the same media is aggressively pro-Ukraine. The statement is appropriately credited to Lutsenko. voxukraine is a local Kyiv-based Ukrainian website and there's no indication it is reliable. Its basis for the "FALSE" claim is a Telegram post having no relation to Lutsenko's statement and this website https://memorybook.org.ua/.
The sourcing in the article is lopsided as is. The sourcing for both Ukrainian and Russian casualties are Ukraine and its supporters. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a misinterpretation. See argument above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
According to voxukraine. I didn't know this earlier, but I found that voxukraine has been criticized as unreliable and works with the Ukrainian government in the media space, including from Ukrainian political scientists.[2][3][4] We should find a reliable source. Have ABC and other news reporting the same or Lutsenko recanted or corrected their statements? What do others think about the use of unreliable sources to reinterpret politicians' statements? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

While voxukraine may be an uncertain quantity, its criticisms can be tested for validity. Unless shown to be incorrect (either of you?), I am happy to take them at face value. Lutsenko falls to WP:VNOT. There is certainly no consensus to use him at present. It is not like he is a good quality RS. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi I've just come onto this page for info but i noticed the page is still called "Russian invasion of Ukraine" this should be edited on 2 accounts, point a. this is now being classed as a war, and an invasion must be completed, or be within a year of the conflict beginning, so the first re-name should be to either "Russo-Ukrainian War" or "2nd Russo-Ukrainian war (2022-)", the first being sourcable on the bbc, NYC and other sources, the second is sourcable by the first BUT as there is already a Russo-Ukrainian war then i think that should renamed to "Russo-Ukrainian conflict since 2014" the "Donbas War" to "1st Russo-Ukrainian war (2015)" etc. Point B is that the page should be called "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-)" again because of what has happened previously in Donbas, which again should be called "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2015) (the Donbas war)" Infomanfromearth (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is titled "Russian invasion" because it seems to be considered one aspect of the broader Russian-Ukraine conflict, Russo-Ukranian War, that has gone on since 2014. Do you have sources that identity this as a separate and distinct conflict? That seems unlikely given that the conflict has been ongoing since 2014, the invasion simply raised the stakes. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The title is not perfect by this point but I'm not sure what the best alternative is and there is WP:NODEADLINE. If you think this is a good idea and are willing to bring it into a discussion of truly epic proportions…a move wouldn't be procedurally appropriate. You would have to propose a merge following the instructions at WP:MERGING. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
In terms of the sourcing there is actually plenty of basis to change the name or scope but but while the subject of the articles is still ongoing it will be hard to find a good on scopes and titling.
To point out an analogy, we don't call the entire Iran–Iraq War "Iraqi invasion of Iran" despite a very high degree of similarity. And while non-opinion sources are still mixed on nomenclature, there has been a shift. I don't really know the ideal methodology to utilize metrics for these purposes, but some other editors active here do. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Replace the country names and this lead paragraph from Iraqi invasion of Iran would fit fairly well:
The Iraqi invasion of Iran began on 22 September 1980, sparking the Iran–Iraq War, and lasted until 5 December 1980. Iraq attacked under the impression that Iran would not be able to respond effectively due to internal socio-political turmoil caused by the country's Islamic Revolution one year earlier. However, Iraqi troops became increasingly bogged down in the face of fierce Iranian resistance, which greatly stalled their advance into western Iran. In just over two months, the invasion was brought to a halt, but not before Iraq had managed to occupy more than 25,900 square kilometres (10,000 sq mi) of Iranian territory. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Greetings fellow editors, @Slatersteven, how this addition [5] can be improved? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

For a start, it does not may most of that, it said there were talks (which may not have in fact even been genuine peace talks) that may have been scuppered by the West (but others disagree). Its hard to see how this could be reworked, or even its real relevance as even the source says "...that the parties were merely going through the motions and buying time for battlefield realignments or that the draft agreements were unserious.". Thus this seems undue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Its hard to see how this could be reworked
— User:Slatersteven 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The text can always be reworked with the help of reliable sources. The opinion of those "others disagree" can be added, your quote from the source can be added. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have raised my objection, it is undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Which and what opinion you characterize as undue, and why? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I have said why, so once more. The source does not say this is a fact, they say SOME people they talked to said this. Other people they talked to disagreed, and some they talked to did not even think the peace talks were serious. This is why it is undue, even the source hedges its bets. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The added text mostly described the so-called "Istanbul Communique", and it is unclear what's undue in adding it into the article? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
We already mention peace talks in Turkey. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
That's why the addition was following and supplementing the current mention. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Why? there were many peacetalks, this was just one, what makes this one special? I will not be responding again until you come up with a good reason why this needs more of a mention than the others, assume silence is disagreement. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Foreign Affairs is considered one of the United States' most influential foreign policy magazines, and the article in question comes from academic researchers in a field. Given the "Peace efforts" section references mostly news articles, it's surprising you decided to delete this particular academic and most reliable one. What "many peacetalks" are you referring to? There are more academic sources discussing "Istanbul Communique" -
Peace talks between Russia and Ukraine: mission impossible (ssoar.info)
Diplomacy in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine: continuation of war by other means (ssoar.info)
Avoiding a Long War: U.S. Policy and the Trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict | RAND ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems that Pervomaiske has fallen under Russian control. Should we then have the map updated to a period more recent than April 2nd? 2603:6012:5940:17E:291F:6E2A:D0A4:A05A (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see Pervomaiske, Pokrovsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast#History. There are currently three citations there relating to this (that I could see at a glance, mind, there might be more), one for a media report on Russian milbloggers claiming it, another for the Ukrainian media stating it and the third for the Russian MoD claiming it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
GeoConfirmed pics and all of Telegram agree. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The map seems to be a mix violation of both WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS. It's not Wikipedia's job to provide live frontline map updates. A "collage" of notable images from the invasion would be more in line with Wikipedia policy and manual of style. TylerBurden (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, let's update the Peace efforts section with more up-to-date info and better and more up-to-date sources [6] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, the post I made to this TP didn't post. Given there is a main article, the section on peace efforts should be a tight bare bones summary. It certainly does not warrant the two sub-sections that I reverted. The previous text reinstated could be further trimmed. There is no issue with adding appropriate more recent material. It comes down to the execution. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The main article is still far from perfect and is mostly filled with news sources. I observe these day's sources primarily talk about the Istanbul talks (Communique) and Zelensky's peace formula, you? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
We only need detail about the ones that works, not the ones that fail. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
It depends more on if they are covered by sources then on success. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
No it does not, as we have an article for it, thus failures are not really that useful here other than adding just words. In fact we have two articles, because peace talks need to be coved in Russo-Ukrainian War than here. But I have had my say, assume silnce means no. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Objections are OK but only substantiated objections can affect the outcome and "failures should not be covered" aren't. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:VNOT. summary style does not mean everything. If there are deficiencies in the main articles, remedy them. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Other articles deficiencies shall not stop us from improving this one. The section uses mostly news sources currently so the edit adding in-depth analyses was an improvement, you could just remove subsection headers if you oppose that, it's unclear what other objections are? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)