Kiev offensive (1920) was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 20, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
November 13, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
October 5, 2012	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 7, 2005, May 7, 2006, May 7, 2010, May 7, 2012, and May 7, 2016.

Ukraine C‑class High‑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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland C‑class Mid‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union: Russia / History / Military C‑class High‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Russia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as High-importance).
	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.

Military history: European / Polish C‑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

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Polish military history task force

Archives

Archive 1 (2005–2008)

Petliura

What does make Petliura to be nominated as a nationalist? The fact that he tried to reorganize the Ukrainian military by introducing the Ukrainian language cannot classify him as the nationalist or does it? Does promotion of the Ukrainian culture can classify one as a nationalist? Not necessarily. And finally, can the Soviet history's nomination of him as a nationalist be classified by the Encyclopedia Britannica (which already was called racial on several occasions) as one? Yes, why not. In fact there are no supporting evidence that clearly identify him as the nationalist. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources. In this case, it's Peter Abbot's "Ukrainian Armies 1914-55", page 17. More can be added, if you wish. Britannica is preferable in this case as it is a tertiary source, that is, an aggregation of secondary ones. --Illythr (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic military

Why is UkrSSR military involvement included here? First of all it was artificial country, second of all it did not have its military. Its military was headed by the Russian narkom Antonov-Ovseyenko who was assisted by the crazy Dybenko (supposedly Ukrainian, but he was born in the Russian-speaking uyezd of the Chernigov Governorate). The Red Cossack Division that participated in the Russian Civil war on the territory of Ukraine was recruited in the Don region. And the government of Ukraine consisted out of the Russian political party. There was not a single Ukrainian on that so called Soviet Ukrainian forces. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because reliable sources say so. Specifically, the armistice was signed between the Poland, RSFSR and UkrSSR, marking them as participants in the war. --Illythr (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Soviet war

Please read the article, as well as this one and consult sources. --Illythr (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently not GA class

I am seeing numerous unreferenced claims in the article. I do not believe it is up to the current GA class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am afraid this article contains a large number of unreferenced claims, making it no longer up to modern GA standards. I've marked them with citation needed tags. Further, notes should be clearly separated from references. At least one ibid is used (those are not to be used on Wikipedia). Several book cites need page number cites. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No action from anyone, I am afraid I have no recourse but to fail this one. I'll go on and delist this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review: failed

Sadly, after failing the GA review above, I also have to quickfail the B-class review due to outstanding citation needed tags. Article downgraded to C class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kiev Offensive (1920). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kiev Offensive (1920). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Vladimir Lenin Leon Trotsky Lev Kamenev 1920.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Kyiv Offensive" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kyiv Offensive and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Kyiv Offensive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 February 2022

It has been proposed in this section that Kiev offensive (1920) be renamed and moved to Kiev Offensive (1920).

A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use ((subst:requested move)). Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Kiev Offensive → Kiev Offensive (1920) – Between this article and Kyiv offensive (2022) there is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and neither Kiev/Kyiv nor offensive/Offensive are sufficient to differentiate between the two. BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Kiev / Kyiv spelling is irrelevant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is the primary topic for the term "Kiev Offensive". The two offensives can be well-distinguished by the spelling of the city's name. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The policy at WP:SMALLDETAILS specifies that Kiev/Kyiv actually is sufficient to distinguish the two articles. Neither article should have a disambiguator. Mlb96 (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case it isn't, because "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are names for the same place used at the same time; one is a transliteration of the Russian name, the other the transliteration of the Ukrainian name - see Kyiv#Etymology. This can be seen in how sources refer to the offensives; while most use "Kiev" for the 1920 offensive, and most use "Kyiv" for the 2022 offensive, some use "Kyiv" for the former, and some use "Kiev" for the latter. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you asserting that there is so much overlap that neither event is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for either spelling? That sounds implausible. In fact, a simple google search for both terms demonstrates that your assertion is wrong and that sources are fairly consistent in their spellings of each event: Kiev for 1920, Kyiv for 2022. The sources do not need to be 100% unanimous, there just needs to be enough consistency that we can confidently say what the primary topic is. And the evidence is fairly damning in this case. Mlb96 (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm saying there can't be a primary topic between them, because the names are functionally the same; they are both current names for the same the city, though one is preferred for good reason. See these Google trends results; while "Kyiv" is more common, the popularity of "Kiev" demonstrates the issues. BilledMammal (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - We don't base titles off of what people search for on Google, we base them off of what reliable sources use. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Kiev Offensive has ever been widely referred to in reliable sources with the spelling Kyiv? Even if I attempt to find examples by googling "1920 kyiv offensive," all the results use Kiev. And the proportion of reliable sources which use the spelling Kiev in reference to the current conflict is negligible, if any even exist at all (I could only find unreliable sources using that spelling). You're getting hung up on the fact that they're different names for the same city, but that is irrelevant for purposes of WP:SMALLDETAILS. The only things that matter for that policy are that a) they are spelled differently, and b) there is a different primary topic for each spelling. Mlb96 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not everyone is necessarily aware of Wikipedia's naming norms. This is helpful to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kiev offensive is the more commonly used name in sources.XavierGreen (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierGreen: It is not the name that is at issue. It is merely whether the date (1920) should be added for disambiguation. Walrasiad (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Tough call. Obviously, now, everyone is talking about the 1922 events, but in the long run, will historiography recognize this as an new Kiev offensive, and will this term endure and require equal treatment? I am torn what is the best thing do do now, but in the end I think both 1920 and 2022 events need () and the variants of the KO term should be a disambig or redirect to one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Regardless of spelling there are multiple now and disambiguation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardog3000 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]