Talk:Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present)

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present), along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions
Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

A news item involving Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 August 2024.

Wikipedia

Military history: Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War BL‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

BL

This article has been rated as BL-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Russia: History / Military Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reportedly Spotted?

1st August

An anti-tank missile vehicle was "reportedly spotted" by a Ukrainian drone.

To be clear, might it not be better to mention that there are unconfirmed reports of the vehicle, or that it is claimed that the vehicle was spotted?

For is not the use of the two words in this fashion strange or conflicted? 2.27.2.80 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change timeline boundary?

IMHO the timeline boundary between this section and the one before should be set at the beginning of the InKursksion. True it's still pretty recent, but it certainly has altered the conversation globally and is way more important than arbitrary dividing lines like the change of month... 2001:A62:144B:A02:BC1D:92B9:2D5:8E27 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we align with the start of the Kursk incursion? I don't agree that it's "altered the conversation globally", as the only thing its changed is there's some fighting in western Kursk Oblast; this isn't a major offensive, and it hasn't changed anything about the war as a whole when the meaningful battles are still taking place in eastern Ukraine; there's some much more impactful points in the war where other timelines could be split at, but aren't, so I don't see how Kursk should be an exception. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This war like all modern wars is very much also about perception. I do not claim to be able to make a military assessment – I have no military experience of any kind and the information about troop numbers etc. are too obscured by fog of war anyway.

However – if you look at media coverage, the shift has been dramatic. Before the incursion the "best" that was said about Ukraine was along the lines of "holding Russia back, inflicting heavy losses on Russia" but the consensus was more along the lines of "Russia's advance may be slow and costly – but ultimately, they're still advancing and Ukraine won't hold out indefinitely". Now the most pro-Russian things you hear are about Ukraine's "escalation" or "provocation" along with supposed "over extension". Meanwhile more pro-Ukrainian voices seem to be resurrecting the "dumb Russian" carricature from early in the war.

The military situation may or may not have changed. But perception very much has. 2001:A62:144B:A02:BC1D:92B9:2D5:8E27 (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military Target

Might it not be helpful to highlight the point that the Russian missile strike on Poltava (of 3 September) was not targeting civilians - but was aimed at taking out a military target?91.110.75.94 (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 Sep 2024: Vodyane

"Russian forces captured the village of Vodiane near Vuhledar."

The Vodyane that Russian forces reportedly captured is the one is in Volnovakha Raion, not in Mariupol Raion as the article link suggests.

Correct town (In Ukrainian Wikipedia): Водяне (Волноваський район) Redbeansoup (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just saw that it was the wrong Vodiane as you posted this comment. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks. Redbeansoup (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Edit request: correct typo

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(1_August_2024_%E2%80%93_present)#16_September: Kblast should read Oblast. Discombobulates (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Borgenland (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19 September: correct typo

Please change the second sentence, which currently reads: "The Indian government hasn’t official authorised such exports." to "The Indian government hasn’t officially authorised such exports." SadaharuWhoa (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11 October: correct unclear phrasing

Please change the first sentence, which currently reads: "The Ukrainian deputy head of the OSCE in Ukraine, Nataliia Kostenko, said that Russia captured about 2.5 meters of Ukrainian territory Russia loses one soldier" to "The Ukrainian deputy head of the OSCE in Ukraine, Nataliia Kostenko, said that for roughly every 2.5 meters of Ukrainian territory Russia captures, Russia loses one soldier." SadaharuWhoa (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those who measure territory in square meters, both variants don't make sense. Remove? Dobrichev (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Over 500 million euros of frozen Russian assets were released in the Netherlands with the approval from it's Foreign Ministry. (October 9th) to: Over 500 million euros of frozen Russian assets were released in the Netherlands with the approval of its Foreign Ministry British Fella (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --AntiDionysius (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source for a simple grammar fix? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flemmish Nietzsche Yeah, I think grammar fixes don't need citations. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26 October: More Languages?

The fact the only other language on this page is Estonian makes it harder for a large majority (Spanish, German, Chinese, Etc.) to read and acsess, if the lock comes away we should probably focus on that. Kyllstru 13:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot the extended lock is because its ongoing, just whenever we can. Kyllstru (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under 31 October, change Khurakivka to Kurakhivka. Cherryfresca (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Kurakhivka is the correct spelling. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv Independent

The Kyiv Independent should not be a reliable source of information considering its biased nature of the conflict. If they are considered reliable then by that logic any news company in Russia should also be considered a reliable source. In regards to causality figures and such I should add. 2604:3D09:C27C:EE00:F896:C51E:7166:AD3D (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reasonable consensus to designate it as such nor can WP:FALSEBALANCE be made to Russian media with its current environment with extremely limited exceptions. Borgenland (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Make date style consistent under 5 November; change '57,500 casualties between September 29 and October 24,' to '57,500 casualties between 29 September and 24 October,' 143.117.156.88 (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add source request

Hi, can you please add this free source ([1]) for this statement: "President Biden allowed Ukraine to use ATACMS to strike into Russian territory." under date 17 November. Source suggested is a free-to-access Australian news site, ABC. Scotty2083 (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of 17 Nov. there are 3 countries (US, UK, DE) (that we know of) that have “implemented” this N-days old "promise", 3-in-1 would sound/be better, for A ref? ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 18:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently quite busy, yet, "us de uk ukraine long range" (18:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)) in Google search resulted in: (~2 hrs ago) Why has the US allowed Ukraine to use long-range missiles inside Russia? ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 18:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the aforesaid, Wi is not a newslet or whatsoever, the one who is genuinely interested in developments, can/shall find the inf needed in appropriate sources; whilst Wi retains humbly its commenting(/explaining) role. ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 19:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]