Talk:Russian occupation of Dnipropetrovsk and Poltava oblasts

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.

Military history: Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not 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

militaryland.net[edit]

Militaryland.net does not pass WP:BLPSPS, I will be removing all citations by them in this article, please do not re-add them. Scu ba (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed map[edit]

The map in the infobox depicts this article's completely unverifiable claims of Russian control over parts of southwestern and southeastern Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. The map's use on Wikipedia seems to violate WP:IMAGEOR, as it appears to illustrate/introduce unpublished ideas/arguments about control over these territories. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SaintPaulOfTarsus just seeing this now but wouldn't ISW's timeline map and the corresponding maps on the relevant individual campaign assessments (like this one) be enough to verify claims of Russian control? From my understanding, that's what's used to verify the main invasion map on this page and also on some other notable articles (e.g. Israel–Hamas war). Dan the Animator 23:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintPaulOfTarsus: if it's alright with you, and if there's no objections to using ISW's maps/updates as a source, I'll remove the dispute tag from the page. Let me know what you think tho! Dan the Animator 02:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dantheanimator: thanks for the question. It is worth noting that at the time I applied the disputed map label to this page, a different map was in use, though I do share some concerns about the current one.

The original map made no reference to any sources on its Commons page, and thus at the time I had no idea that its content was derived from ISW or anywhere else; this is a frequent problem, broadly speaking, with the maps hosted on Wikimedia Commons. I see no reason why images appearing on Wikipedia articles should not adhere to WP:V and WP:OR just as much as the text on the page, and changes need to be made so that these policies are held to more rigorously. For example, even though the newer map cites ISW as a territorial control source, I have to click through the days on the interactive map you linked to even begin to try to figure out where this information is coming from.

Still one element of this map, the Russian control over Berezove, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, never appears to have been mapped by ISW; another one of its elements, the long, thin protrusion southeast of Kryvyi Rih, appears to have been a bizarre snafu tacitly acknowledged as such by ISW (see discussion here). This opens an entirely new can of worms, which is to question the reliablity of ISW as a historical authority on territorial control in the first place, especially for the turbulent early period of the war, as their maps were littered with what can only be understood today as errors that they eventually quietly removed, largely without issuing any formal corrections (see here). They retain the maps on that timelapse without making any changes in hindsight, indicating that this may be intended as more of an archive of previous works as they appeared when they were published, rather than a refined comprehensive timelapse purporting to be an accurate retrospective source.

Some of the topics I touched on are definitely matters to be discussed on higher-level forums than this talk page, but for the time being I object to the removal of the disputed map label due to the minor territorial issues; I will be in immediate contact with the new map's creator to address them. Thanks again for bringing this up. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]