Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Avigl (talk | contribs)
380 edits
Line 46: Line 46:


:Fixed. [[User:John Sauter|John Sauter]] ([[User talk:John Sauter|talk]]) 05:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:Fixed. [[User:John Sauter|John Sauter]] ([[User talk:John Sauter|talk]]) 05:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

January 19:
Unclear if Germany is refusing unless the US refuses, or unless the US sends tanks. Would change to "Germany refused to export Leopard tanks to Ukraine, unless the United States sends their own tanks."
[[User:Avigl|Avigl]] ([[User talk:Avigl|talk]]) 16:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


== 21 December 2022 speech to US Congress ==
== 21 December 2022 speech to US Congress ==

Revision as of 16:58, 20 January 2023

Record grammatical errors here for later fixing

Section:December 14 Plural uses "are" Shahed drones PioneeringJäger (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected; thank you. John Sauter (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Stage3: 14 December Three explosions are said to be heard in the centre of the capital city Kyiv, as Ukraine Mayor Vitali Klitschko has claimed that they have taken down 10 Iranian Shahed drones. PioneeringJäger (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected as part of a larger rewrite; thank you. John Sauter (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 11: Small typo, the brand of the trucks is "Kamaz" not "Kazam". "This soldier further told the wife that he drove "12 Kazam trucks" filled with bodies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladPomar (talk • contribs) 04:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. John Sauter (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 19: Unclear if Germany is refusing unless the US refuses, or unless the US sends tanks. Would change to "Germany refused to export Leopard tanks to Ukraine, unless the United States sends their own tanks." Avigl (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21 December 2022 speech to US Congress

I have made a page about Zelenskyy’s speech to United States Congress on Wikisource with the digitisation/transcript of the speech at Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the US Congress, 21 December 2022. I think a note or some kind of link or reference to the article would be useful to be added to the section for 21 December. 23.16.14.141 (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While this transcript is interesting, I do not think a reference to it belongs in this article, since Wikisource is not a reliable source. If a reliable source were to publish the transcript, that would be different. Also, if a reliable source publishes the video of the speech the article could link to that. John Sauter (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missile strikes

Do we need individual paragraphs for every single missile strike that happens? it's sort of bloating the page with the same "Russia launched missiles at Ukraine" "Ukraine claimed to have shot down 40 of 60 Russian missiles fired at Kyiv". at some point it's going to become too much, I'd argue about 50% of this page is missile strikes. Great Mercian (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lasers

There is no mention of the United States supplying Ukraine with MTHELs (Mobile Tactical High Energy Lasers) which are more effective than Patriots in order to shoot down Russian missiles, or is this being kept secret? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the deployment and use of such a weapon could not be kept secret, so it is probably not being provided. John Sauter (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Please revert this edit as it removes some important links. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Great Mercian (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to identify precisely what edit is being requested. Please describe the links and say why they are important. John Sauter (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 January

From the article about steel production: "KYIV, Jan 10 (Reuters) - Ukraine's steel production fell by 70.7% in 2022 to 6.26 million tonnes because of Russia's invasion and the destruction of leading steel plants, the steel producers union said on Tuesday.' " I believe that this talking about a year long drop, it isn't specific to 10th January, the article just happened to be released on that day and so should be removed. It would be better suited on the main page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 13:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) [reply]

My mistake, I accidently posted this on the wrong page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 14:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) [reply]

10 January

From the Reuters article regarding the 70% drop in steel production:

'KYIV, Jan 10 (Reuters) - Ukraine's steel production fell by 70.7% in 2022 to 6.26 million tonnes because of Russia's invasion and the destruction of leading steel plants, the steel producers union said on Tuesday.'

This is talking about a year long drop in steel and the article was released on 10 January, therefore it isn't specific to that date. The steel didn't drop 70% in one day, therefore I believe this should be removed. It would be better suited as an impact topic on the main page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 14:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) [reply]

What is the purpose of this page?

The current page has only two sentences of readable prose which state as follows "On 24 February 2022, Russia launched a military invasion of Ukraine in a steep escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War. The campaign had been preceded by a Russian military buildup since early 2021 and numerous Russian demands for security measures and legal prohibitions against Ukraine joining NATO." - This isn't really much of a timeline. What is this article seeking to achieve? Tracland (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is primarily a gateway to the three timeline pages. It originally contained the full timeline, but was broken into three parts when it became very long. John Sauter (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it probably needs more detail in it in order to constitute an encyclopaedic article. Otherwise it’s effectively just a disambiguation page. Even if just a couple of paras on each stage with a hat note link to the main article. At the moment this doesn’t feel like an article itself. Tracland (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to update the article. If you do not have the necessary privileges, put your recommended changes on this Talk page and I will move them to the article page, unless someone beats me to it. John Sauter (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, if I find time I might give it a go. Tracland (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soledar

I think Wagner claims of controlling all of Soledar, and the UK's statement that most of Soledar is under Russia is worth including. Genabab (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify what text you would like to see, and where, with references to reliable sources. John Sauter (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
13-Jan: Russian claims of controlling Soledar: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64263119
10-Jan: UK says most of Soledar under Russian control, Wagner claims all: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/10/head-of-wagner-group-says-his-troops-have-taken-control-of-soledar
I think these are pretty significant and should be added. Genabab (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added these two items to the timeline. John Sauter (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ty! Genabab (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

phase 4?

I noticed a major edit on the phase 3 page, deleting the timeline since Kherson. Is somebody preparing to divide phase 3 into phase 3 and phase 4? If so, please discuss it here on the Talk page. I am reverting the deletion since it should not occur until the new page is ready. John Sauter (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Great Mercian Could you advise the creation of Phase 4 and it states about the Russia Targeting Ukraine infrastructure but this has been on going from October 10th 20222022–2023 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure But the phase 4 has been created fr 12th November 2022 Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the phase 4 page was created without having first reached consensus on this Talk page. I propose to remove it, and references to it. If there is support for dividing phase 3 into two pages, we should decide where the division happens. Please provide your opinion here. John Sauter (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John Sauter: a consensus is the last thing I want. from experience in this topic consensuses have been a nightmare, they are essentially a forum for other editors to metaphorically shout at you and your proposal, it's why I decided to forgo a consensus. Great Mercian (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pranesh Ravikumar: I can. I noticed that since the liberation of Kherson nothing's really been going on other than then missile strikes, a topic I have tried to start a discussion on and everyone subsequently ignored. every sign that I saw since November 12 seemed to point to me that we were in a new phase. I knew if I had made a split proposal it would've immediately descend into chaos, as every other proposal revolving around this war does, so I decided to just split the page on my own accord and bare the brunt of the outrage later. I was also concerned about the size of the page (I.e. most of the dates being filled with missile strikes) making it unnavigable and the fact that anything post liberation was still being lumped into this phase even though the counteroffensives were over. to be honest I'm surprised only one of my edits got reverted and the page (to my knowledge) is still up. I hope this clears any misunderstanding. Great Mercian (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor. Not seeking consensus on a major edit because you are impatient is not in the spirit of collaboration. I have a proposal on the table: to remove phase 4 and all references to it. I invite alternative proposals. John Sauter (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John Sauter: as I had said before, it was not because I was impatient, but because I knew if I started a consensus it would've immediately descended into chaos, what you are saying to me right now was the very thing I was trying to avoid. I'd argue Wikipedia is one of the worst places for collaboration. edit wars, the threats of reverting, a 1000 rules that haven't been simply defined or put into a single document for ease of access and understanding, split consensuses and so on. I am tired of having my edits reverting because of rules that were never pointed out to me when I first joined or users who pretend to not hold a grudge against me but clearly do, invite me for discussion to end an edit war that they instigated and then immediately bail, patting themselves on the back in the most entitled sense possible, I am being incredibly kind with how I describe this mind you. I made that edit because I wanted to and saw a consensus as the worst way possible.
That being said, my proposal is that we let phase 4 exist, as it has since November, we are clearly in a 4th phase now, we have to accept that. I don't do edits in bad faith and I've made that clear for a while now, so lets leave phase 4 as it is. I have never claimed to be an expert in Wikipedia and that is most likely Wikipedia's fault.
God I'm getting so frustrated. Great Mercian (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you are frustrated, but thank you for participating in this discussion. We now have two proposals on the table: (1) remove the phase 4 page and all references to it, and (2) divide phase 3 into two pages, the existing phase 3 page to end at November 13 and the new phase 4 page to start at November 14. Are there any other proposals? Is there any discussion of these proposals? Are there any volunteers willing to do the work needed to carry out a particular chosen proposal? Since I proposed (1) I would do the work if it is chosen. John Sauter (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Great Mercian and User:John Sauter about the discussion. User:Great Mercian have a good idea about Wikipedia basic rules and dont get frustrated on edits warring if you need some inputs from users try to tag them so that they will receive notification and respond to your talk page. You could always learn and groom from your edits and so continue contributions. In my opinion it is fine to have a phase 4 but we need some inputs from the page creators and top contributors for phase 3 insight to take a decision. User:Tol, User:WikiHannibal, User:Jjmclellan82 provide your input about the phase 4 page. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit too busy to fully evaluate and weigh in on whether there should be a "phase 4" page. I will, however, note that:
  • Wikipedia should be based on what reliable secondary sources are saying, and whether we include a "phase 4" should depend on whether they do.
  • The unilateral creation of a "phase 4" page was quite bold, and was perfectly acceptable, but I would consider it preferable to seek consensus before making a change if you think it will almost certainly be contested. I think @Great Mercian's comment that "a consensus is the last thing I want", though, is the wrong attitude to take here — consensus is key, especially for tricky subjects like these.
Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I didn't want a consensus because I knew it would drown into chaos/become a forum for people to "shout" at me for making such a bold edit. Great Mercian (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should put it's rules on the main page or something, at the very least a very simplified version. Great Mercian (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the objection that we should not include a phase 4 page until a reliable source does, that is not what we did when we divided the original page into phases 1, 2 and 3. How things are presented in Wikipedia is the responsibility of us editors, so we had the right to divide the page because it was becomming so large that it could not be read easily. If the phase 3 page is likewise becomming too large we can divide it to make the material easier to use. Using byte count as a proxy for size, the phase 1 page is currently 237,685 bytes, the phase 2 page is currently 235,882 bytes and the phase 3 page is currently 183,770 bytes. Therefore I suggest that creating a phase 4 page is not necessary at this time. When in the future the page 3 page becomes so large that it needs to be split up, we can decide where to divide it, and that might well be November 12, 2022. John Sauter (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the new layout does fix one problem I had with the page (absurdly large navbox), I still think we are in a new phase so to leave it as is would be wrong, e.g. I don't think the battle of Bakhmut belongs in the same phase as the liberation of Kharkiv oblast. Great Mercian (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article for "phase 4" already exists at Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4 and it begins at november 14, it is obvious that literally everything in the phase 3 article from that date onwards should be moved into the phase 4 article and the phase 4 and deleted from there. As is, the phase 3 article confusingly ends at january 18. GMRE (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are suggesting is one of the solutions being proposed. The other is to delete the phase 4 page after first merging it into the phase 3 page. John Sauter (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GMRE since the reliable sources so far have not suggested for any phase 4 scenario I think it would be good if we right now removed the article right now, @Tol and @John Sauter stated the same. Merging seems to be not necessary since most of the content available in phase 4 is already available in Phase 3. Phase 3 has also been updated till date compared to Phase 4. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crash

Will the incident of the helicopter crash on 18/01/2023 where a Ukrainian Government minister was killed be included in the timeline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Great Mercian (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel it should be included you can add the information yourself, or, if you do not have the necessary privileges, place the information on this Talk page, including a reference to a reliable source, and I will move it to the article page, unless someone beats me to it. John Sauter (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1134784975"