Talk:Battle of Kyiv (2022)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lukashenko: Belarusian troops are not participating in the operation in Ukraine

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

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

On Thursday morning, Ukraine's military facilities were subjected to massive strikes. The DPR reported fighting along the entire contact line. The Russian Defense Ministry stressed that the Russian Armed Forces do not strike at the cities of Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry said. Precision weapons only hit military targets. Later, the Russian Defense Ministry announced the suppression of Ukraine's air defense systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.19.176.100 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Twitter sources

Is there any reason why we're citing tweets? I'm going to try to find new references for the facts sourced solely to tweets, since I don't really think that SPS are going to be optimal for writing an article on the ongoing battle, especially when we're dealing with the fog of war. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Chechens

Chechens are sided with Russians, not Ukrainians.--GreatBernard (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

And even still, I haven't found good sources to be 100% sure about it.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday, Kadyrov addressed to the Chechen army. According to Al Jazeera [1] Chechen forces are being deployed to Ukraine.--GreatBernard (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The ethnic Chechen Volunteers are reported by RFE/RL to be aligned with Ukraine. Chechen government forces may be involved on the Russian side, but these are different forces. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be Chechen forces on both sides.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

In effect, there are Chechen forces on both sides, like a civil war between Chechens on par with the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, those loyal to Kadyrov and therefore Moscow vs. those loyal to Akhmed Zakayev, the former prime minister of the former Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, who called for fighting in Kiev against Russia 2. --LLs (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Procedural close, merging discussion with the OP's related Talk:Battle of Kyiv#Requested move 26 February 2022. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Battle of Kyiv (2022) → Battle of Kyiv – There is only one battle that is generally written about as the "Battle of Kyiv". That is this battle. Other historical battles generally are written about under a different name, "Battle of Kiev", making this article the primary topic for the phrase "Battle of Kyiv". — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Support - per OP. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 21:39, 26 February 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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Battle of Kyiv which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Kiev

More people are familiar with the name Kiev than Kyiv, for the sake of simplicity can we make it Kiev 180.241.155.56 (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The name of the article of the city is now Kyiv, it was moved a while ago, so it will have to be Kyiv here. Mellk (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should change the name to The Defense of Kiev

The defense of Kiev is a better name because there was no assault on Russian forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programmerwannabe2 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Seige of kyiv would be more apt, imo. Andrewdonshik (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

Please add a Feb 27 section with On the morning of the 27th, Russian forces bombard Southern Kyiv.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-volodymyr-zelenskyy-kyiv-europe-united-nations-edc6df79755195b29473cfd6d38b1ebb Torpschez (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Who shot down the Ukrainian jet?

Why did somebody put "by whom?" next to the statement that a Ukrainian Su-27 jet was shot down over the city? Isn't it obvious, or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjones12345 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Statement from the Mayor of Kyiv on February 27th

People within Kyiv have said the city is not surrounded and both the Mayor and his press secretary have denied the statement the Associated Press claims. 108.88.8.211 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Mayor's denial

@49thParallelUniverse: I noticed that you added content in this edit that is sourced to a Tweet, a Telegram message, and German Tabloid Bild. Do you have any independent RS for this? It's probably WP:UNDUE to include the denial (and the notion that AP is lying and manipulating the situation) without reliable reporting on it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Rationale for use of sources

Those were my main sources. I gather that since much of the air war is happening on social media, that Klitschko's own personal social media account would be sufficient as a comment. As well, Kyiv Independent is reporting updates on Twitter in real time.

Justin Ling in Canada is a reliable journalist (freelancer) who has also taken Klitschko's own comments online as being a valid source, though he adds (his interpretation) that it is possible that Klitschko may be walking back his own comments to the AP.

https://twitter.com/Justin_Ling/status/1498026568576294914

--49thParallelUniverse (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: I can now confirm that the Guardian is reporting the comments as valid from the same sources. Will add to the page.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/feb/27/russia-ukraine-latest-news-missile-strikes-on-oil-facilities-reported-as-some-russian-banks-cut-off-from-swift-system-live

--49thParallelUniverse (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In general, we should Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article, with the limited exception of when a person is making non-contentious claims about themself. The Guardian does indeed repeat it and that piece is a live newsblog, so it's probably fine but I wouldn't give it as much weight as we currently do in the article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Large Russian motorized column approaching Kyiv late on 27 February 2022

The Telegraph is reporting satellite images (credited to Reuters) of a 3-mile (about 5-kilometer) column of tanks and troop transport vehicles approaching Kyiv late on 27 February 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ I cannot edit this semi-protected article with my current user status.

Could you fetch the article you are referring to, please? Thespearthrower (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be easier to copy the similar statement, already referenced, that has since been posted to the Kyiv offensive (2022) page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjtheisenusa (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

Please change "wapproaching Kyiv" to "approaching Kyiv". That is just a simple typo. Thank you for fixing it. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:6011:4420:1E0C:9B20 (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. — Czello 11:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Nikolay Zhirnov

N. Zhirnov is head of the Kiev military administration [2] [3] --Мечников (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians need to edit this article on a daily basis

It is lacking many key (event) details. And has many gaps. Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I encourage about 20 Wikipedia editors to step forward and become very involved in this article-- on a daily basis.

Many key current event details are being left out of this article to date.

By Wikipedia notability standards, this should be a high importance article.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

• What I think should be changed: "damaging it but leaving it intact" to "damaging it but leaving it standing".
• Why it should be changed: The word "intact" implies no damage. This seems to be a minor mistake by the previous author. The relevant quote from the source: "Much damage was done but the building is standing."
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Same source as included by the statement right now, https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-01-22/h_76604390f2fb2983f6b3141ce0627a92

Akral (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Specify in the infobox that "2 planes destroyed" is per Ukraine. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 晚安 (トークページ) 08:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

British or American English?

The main article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is written in British English but this article seems to be in American English. Should we not be consistent, particularly as in order to keep the length of the main article manageable it is probably that parts of the text from that article will, in time, be copied here? Roundtheworld (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Use British English. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the very beginning, this page has been written in American English. American English should continue to be used, just as American English is used in Kyiv offensive (2022). — Mhawk10 (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

But, both of the important articles (The prelude and the main invasion) are written in British English. Shouldn't we standardise it? PenangLion (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

No. Per MOS:RETAIN, When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another. Seeing as this was established in the very first edit to the article, there is no valid reason to change the variety of English away from American; Russia and Ukraine do not have strong national ties to a particularly variety of English, nor does making the article British improve ambiguity within the article itself. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. Alright, clears up the confusion then. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't agree, strongly, not only in the light of previous articles (Donbas War, Annexation of Crimea, etc.), but, taking into account the huge³ amounts of EU money, this part of world (id est, people) has (have) invested into this country, what's the point of changing € into $ (I do agree that "EU English" is not a British nor the American English, yet this is the language (officially) in use here, in this part of world).☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 21:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Using U.S. English spelling and grammar doesn't prevent us from using Euros as the currency in describing transactions (see: MOS:CURRENCY). Choice of spelling and grammar is different than choice of currency. I would argue that Ukraine and Russia each do not have strong national ties to the English language, much less a particular variety. This article is also not about one country, but a conflict involving (at least) two sovereign states, both of which have a very different relationship with the EU. The MOS is clear that no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another exists outside of national ties or disambiguating—that other articles written on related topics tend to have one variety is not a valid reason for flipping varieties of English. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Try, e.g., search word "Ukraine" ('all notices') in Tenders Electronic Daily (1,869 results as of 22:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)), yet, every result is indication of sth☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 22:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TIES, which is the relevant guidance on what a strong national tie is, specifies that an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is an English-speaking nation, so I really don't see any evidence here that flipping to British is consistent with the community consensus on when to (not) swap English varieties. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022 (2)

Add "36th Combined Arms Army" under "Russian Ground Forces" Source: https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/ukraine-conflict-update-13 Pocketlite20 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done @Pocketlite20: The figure that describes the 36th Combined Arms Regiment attacked the Kyiv Oblast. The city of Kyiv is not a part of the surrounding Oblast. This would make it suitable for inclusion at Kyiv offensive (2022), where it already is. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian troops number

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZwFFyq3O3o&t=221s Oleksiy Arestovych said about 15 000 - 20 000 russian troops at Kyiv 08.03.22. Need to add in box? --Мечников (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2022

Uzair Ansari333 (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

March 12 Russian rocket attacks have destroyed a Ukrainian airbase near the town of Vasylkiv in the Kyiv region.

The rocket attacks also hit an ammunition depot, Vasylkiv Mayor Natalia Balasynovych said.

In the capital's eastern suburb of Brovary, a Ukrainian military intelligence reconnaissance centre was taken out of action, Russian defence ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said.[4]

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Battle of Kyiv (2022). Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Curbon7 (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Kyiv offensive (2022) Curbon7 (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

In the "26 February" section there are two pictures. One description says it is a rocket while the other says it is a missile. Both pictures are of the same building that was hit by a missile. The first description should be "A missile strikes an apartment building in Kyiv, 26 February".

Russian Defense Ministry says it was a Ukrainian Buk Anti-Air missile that malfunctioned and hit the building. There were two videos uploaded to Twitter of a SAM launch happening in Kiev at the same time as the missile hit the building. The second video shows the smoke trail of the launch going into Kyiv. https://tass.com/defense/1411853 (source of Russian claim it was a Ukrainian Buk) https://twitter.com/KSOSINT/status/1497657804424896513 (video recorded in Kyiv of the missile path)

The text "Russian Defense Ministry dispute the claims it was a Russian missile strike and say it was an air defense missile fired by the Ukrainian military that malfunctioned." should be added.

193.90.240.123 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

TASS is not a reliable source. Russian stories about Ukraine should not be repeated in Wikipedia's voice. 2A02:C7E:1028:F700:1C1E:FE71:3EB5:84C5 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P1221 (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

This battle ended in February 26 https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-heavy-fighting-reported-in-kyiv-outskirts-live-updates/a-60924798

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/17/where-is-the-russia-ukraine-war-heading-five-scenarios

someone needs to change the date to february 25 to 26 and not confuse this with kyiv offensive Wikiman92783 (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The first article states that the battle is still ongoing, the second only talks about a specific attempt by a group of paratroopers. Make no mistake that the battle is still ongoing. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

Hello! I have updated the Battle of Kyiv map to make it accurate to today. I would like to change the caption "Below: Situation around Kyiv, as of 5 March" to "Below: Situation around Kyiv, as of 18 March" Thank you! Js26x (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Y Done — I don't see an issue, so I'll allow it.

Counter offensive

Can anybody add the counter offensive? Dawsongfg (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, will look into it. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Under "Units involved", Kyiv is spelled "Kiyv" in the infobox. QueenofBithynia (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Y It's been done. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Update situation of kiv map

The last update was March 5 73.46.175.75 (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022 (2)

"A shopping centre in Podilskyi was destroyed by Russian shelling, killing at least 8 people were killed."

Grammatical error in the sentence "killing at least 8 people were killed". 134.19.243.169 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Y It's been done. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Fix

Can anybody fix the map and make it accurate to March 5 (the edit history shows that the current version is the first version)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.82.204.49 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Rapid Ukrainian advances / Status of Battle

See the Facebook statement of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine: https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/285422623770823

Not sure if/when/how a source will determine Ukrainian victory in the Battle of Kyiv, but objectively that should be imminent. The Kyiv offensive as a whole is ongoing, but considering the rapid development of the last few days, the actual Battle of Kyiv should likely be considered as a Ukrainian victory once a relevant source calls it so. 2003:F7:9F08:C800:5100:9455:B791:6C19 (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, once we get good sources that Russia has withdraw from both the NE and NW directions we should call it as an Ukrainian victory. If Russia ever makes another attempt at taking Kyiv we call call it the Second Battle. Poklane 16:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's time to conclude that the Russian forces have been defeated. References: [5][6][7]. --Mindaur (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the others that it's time to call the battle in favor of Ukraine. There's no evidence Russia has any troops left within Kyiv's city limits, or even the surrounding suburbs. Jogarz1921 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur that this is now a Ukrainian victory. The Russians have either withdrawn beyond artillery range or been encircled if they remain.Sredmash (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree. I was just about to try to propose this. The Battle of Kyiv is over. Russian forces have been repelled. Js26x (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The siege of Kyiv has been lifted.

If they attack sometime in the future, that'd be the second battle of Kyiv. But this one is over. 79.140.150.176 (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Can I ask that the end date be added for the April 2nd? It seems the Russians have completely withdrawn from the region along with the Ukranians now having full control of the city and region immediately surrounding it. PutnamSpotter (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Call this Battle of Kyiv won by Ukraine and if the Russians come back call it the Second Battle of Kyiv 137.22.90.72 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new wording

• (A) "The Battle of Kyiv was a military battle that involved elements of the Russian Armed Forces and Ukrainian Ground Forces as part of the Kyiv offensive in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for control of Kyiv, the capital city of Ukraine, and surrounding districts. The battle lasted from 25 February 2022 to 2 April 2022 and ended with the withdrawal of Russian forces."

I agree, all sources including Russia's official statements point to the fact that Kyiv is no longer in danger. The battle is effectively over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtnoip28 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree as well. Bommbass (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• (B) TBA. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Victory?

Multiple news outlets including Reuters are referring to a statement released by Hanna Malyar that all of the Kyiv region is under Ukrainian control. Since this seems to line up with existing information, I took the liberty of marking the outcome as a Ukrainian victory.

However, I am neither an experience editor nor well versed in the rules of Wikipedia, so I wanted to leave this note here in case anyone more senior looks at this, shakes their head, and clicks "undo"Fusion7 (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The battle is ongoing, and I think marking it a "victory" is way too premature; a week or a month or a year from now, Kyiv might be pulverized into rubble. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. I've removed this. When it's not longer "an ongoing military battle", as currently described in the WP:LEADSENTENCE, we can see about finding how best to describe the outcome. Declaring it a "victory" now, is like calling a chess match or a football match a "victory" after the first fifteen minutes, when one side seems to have made a good move and has taken a momentary advantage; not necessarily indicative of what happens later. Mathglot (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I know that the Ukrainians have outright declared victory, saying that they were in total control of the oblast. Is it really ongoing? What additional criteria would you seek for victory? In any case, I think you accidentally removed the status section... might be good to restore that per the consensus generated here by more senior users. Fusion7 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The battle has been on the closing for the past few days, but only now have the Russians completely withdrew from the region. Seeing as there are no Russian forces in the region and there is no active threat to the city I believe it is best to classify this battle as over. If the Russians were ever to advance again on the city it may be called "The 2nd Battle of Kyiv" much like the Second Battle of Kharkov during the WW2. Devin LNNI (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No, its not, what are you talking about? Literally every source confirms zero presence of Russian troops in Kyiv and surrounding raions like Brovary, Irpin, Hostomel and so on. This is over, lets stop being ridicolious like this. We follow sources. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I just added six WP:RSes; at this point it's pretty clear that the Battle of Kyiv has ended with a decisive Ukrainian victory. Mindaur (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the battle is still ongoing at this point? The attackers have been retreating. If they decide to attack it later, that will be a new battle. Wikiseebs (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: Someone fixed the infobox. Assuming that they were a more senior user, I went ahead and addressed the concern of the lead sentence, and also briefly summarized the battle. In retrospect, this edit may have been a bit impulsive, but I think this more or less follows the inevitable direction this article will soon take. Bite me.Fusion7 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

As a veteran Wikipedia editor, I concur with the timing and decision to indicate a Ukrainian victory in the infobox. But you need to avoid the "Bite me" language or you'll develop a reputation for personal remarks that will attract a close review of what you say and do on Wikipedia that neither you nor the Wikipedia community wants.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The closest I see to "Ukrainian victory" is the ISW/Critical Threats analysis that the attempt to capture Kyiv failed. It might be the case that the Battle of Kyiv, which started on the second day of the war, is no longer underway. The source implies this heavily, though it does not explicitly say "the battle is over and Ukraine won". Other related sources also indicate failed operations to seize cities that included Kyiv. "Russian failure" is a bit of a roundabout way of saying Ukrainian victory, but it seems like sources are treating this battle as if it has come to a close. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We can wait, no need to rush an outcome. --Robertiki (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Victory or decisive victory

Mhawk10, Curbon7: There are WP articles with battles labelled as "decisive victory". I remember seeing arguments amongst the editors whether such labeling should be used. Do we actually have a policy on this? --Mindaur (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A victory being a "decisive victory" means that the result thereof is deterministic. We don't label the Battle of Stalingrad a decisive Soviet Victory, the Battle of Midway as a decisive Allied victory, nor Battle of France as a decisive Axis victory. Each of these were incredibly strategically important, involved one side completely failing to meet their objectives, but they were not deterministic in terms of the war's outcome. We don't even list the Meuse–Argonne offensive, which resulted in the end of World War I, as a decisive victory, nor do we list the Battle of Austerlitz nor Battle of Hastings as one in the infobox. Part of me recalls that this was not always the case and would almost prefer to see it changed (I'm unsure if WP:MILHIST has guidance against it), but there might be a community consensus I'm not aware of.

With respect to this article, I think that "Ukrainian victory" is the best way to handle the infobox until we can get a reading of the battle from military historians. We really don't know the long-run strategic implications of the battle and I think the extent to which the battle is decisive is well outside the topic area of news reporting that WP:NEWSORGs are generally reliable in. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I saw many uses of "decisive victory" over the years of surfing random WP articles on military history.. but it seems that such labelling was dropped (hence me wondering whether WP:MILHIST came up with a policy). Fair enough, let's keep it consistent with the other articles.

We should, however, have the "Significance" section. One of the primary Russian objectives was the regime change, which they hoped would be easy once they take the capital (note: this was even discussed in publications weeks before the war e.g. [8][9][10]). The defeat of the Russian forces in the Battle of Kyiv means a failure of their primary objective and thus a major shift in this war. I'll try to find time to write up a section, but feel free to beat me. Mindaur (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This article needs a good bit of restructuring if the battle is over, so I'd be fine with that. My hesitation would be to just throw up a bunch of news sources describing how important it is and call it a day; it might be better to look through what military-focused academic projects are saying and use those sources (since they tend to have a better understanding of the implications of military events). — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Mindaur, I remember seeing a policy that outlined this nmvery recently. I'm out right now, but I'll be back home in an hour, so I'll check it then. Curbon7 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Mindaur, aha got it. It is not a policy per se, but an explanation of the paramater of {{Infobox military conflict}} (link); Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Curbon7 (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that represents community consensus / policy. There are plenty of cases where it's more debatable (subject to "speculation" if you will) whether either side won a battle than, say, whether the highly decisive Battle of Sekigahara was decisive. I think it's more that the terminology is generally avoided and it's at a minimum too early to make a "decisive" assessment here.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean basing it off of both the infobox parameters and the Sekigahara page, it's because claiming it is a decisive battle on our own is original research; Sekigahara is sourced as being a decisive battle, so the article acknowledges it as such. Curbon7 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I personally have no issue calling a spade a spade (i.e. if there's an academic consensus that a battle was decisive then it should be called decisive). I don't think that there's one here, nor that one possibly could have yet emerged. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As per Curbon7 - the infobox template advises not to introduce adjectives and flowery descriptions - its just supposed to be Victory, draw or defeat.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS:MIL gives specific voice to the template:infobox military conflict that qualifiers such as "decisive" are not to be used. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Bucha massacre

Bucha massacre took part during the Battle of Kyiv on the same territory, and was discovered right after the battle's end. It is worth mentioning it in the preamble and in the section "Russian withdrawal". One could even create a new section "Atrocities against civilians". Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Full agreement here EllsworthSK (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine "regains" control?

The result in the infobox currently says "Ukrainian forces regain complete control of Kyiv on 31 March 2022" - but this seems to suggest Russian forces transiently controlled part of Kyiv. It is my understanding Kyiv itself was always under Ukrainian control, with fighting taking place in nearby areas such as Irpin. Should we change it to "the Kyiv area" instead, or other descriptions (eg. "the Kyiv oblast")? Sakkura (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle of bombing

Hi I think, like to 2022 bombing of Odessa, it is not a battle, it is a bombing. --Panam2014 (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Ukrainian civilians and soldiers take shelter under a bridge in Kyiv.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2022

the truth Dan J. Rocks (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The truth Dan J. Rocks (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion?

Considering there was never a battle for Kiev or any real attempt to take Kiev, should this article just be deleted? It is largely built on media hype of something that was expected to happen but never did. Cervantes 28014 (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Balderdash. PenangLion (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for your claim that there was never 'any real attempt to take Kyiv'. Nicodene (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Use common sense.

Kiev is 15 kilometers away from the nearest site of battle. 188.214.108.12 (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Strange, I didn't know that Kyiv is 15 kilometres away from itself, considering that Russian troops entered it. Nicodene (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Fighting occurred in the suburbs in Vyshhorod (considered Kyiv proper) and there is insurmountable evidence of fighting and shelling occurring in western Kyiv. There most certainly was a battle, read the article and it's citations. Jebiguess (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a useful ambiguity: Kiev can also be taken to refer to the wider Oblast. Laurel Lodged (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

That's why the Kyiv Offensive page exists, though. The offensive documents the campaign through the wider oblast and the owns of Ivankiv, Bucha, Irpin, Moshchun, and Makariv, whereas this page documents the events that occurred in the city limits and the city-oblast limits. There's an earlier discussion (I will need to go back and find it) that did question the necessity of a page for the wider offensive and one for the battle, and the consensus was to separate. Jebiguess (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

I want to tell the world about what happened in that battle 41.47.121.114 (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2022

I want to change the facts Daniel D Rocks (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. @Daniel D Rocks: ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 12:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Completely made up

This "Battle of Kiev" never happened 2601:602:9080:E020:D083:437A:1665:7917 (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)