Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

16,000 foreign volunteers

Better is Mercenaries, they fight for money. [1] 31.223.129.123 (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to distinguish a volunteer from a mercenary. Many of them may be motivated both ideologically (here, I am using the word "ideologically" not as a dysphemism but as a simple descriptor) and financially. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:8D61:81BA:EEA7:6F54 (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That is mixing up two things. The article mentions Ukraine’s international legion, and if you pay attention you’ll see that is not the same as the mercenaries the article is about. —Michael Z. 20:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

All mercenaries are volunteers, technically. Juxlos (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian losses update

An update to Russian losses is available at:

https://kyivindependent.com/uncategorized/ukraines-military-over-12000-russian-troops-have-been-killed-since-feb-24/

Jan Vlug (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Thanks for sharing, but please read Q3 of the FAQs at the top of this page. P1221 (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Foreign casualties of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine table

I would suggest stating whether the fatalities are civilians or military. The table above shows both and it is unclear in the referred to table. KD0710 (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I would support the suggestion, do you have a source that specifies that? Dario DeCasseres (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Foreign volunteer count?

The article currently says 16,000 volunteers, while the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine article states over 20,000. Both are sourced. Anyway, just wanting to make the infobox accurate. Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 17:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the numbers are a bit weird because there seems to be a blending between those who volunteer, and those who fight. Anyone, including you and I, can volunteer but that doesn't make us combatants, to my mind to be a combatant you have to show up to Ukraine, get an AK and go fight. So I see some sources that say physically present, and others that say 'volunteer'. Beyond that I think it needs better attribution, because all the attributions so far are according to the foreign ministry. But 16,000-20,000 troops is a lot, it's 10%-15% of Russia's invasion force so you'd think that they'd be a little more visible to foreign correspondents. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's 16,000 accepted volunteers? I don't imagine volunteers from the US or UK have had time to arrive at the frontlines. Juxlos (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

16000 was the latest (claimed) addition of volunteers as it was at that date. It never really represented the total number of volunteers present in the Ukraine as there were people there long before this. (All the way back to 2014) Now, the supposed addition might be closer to 20000 yes though the total number of volunteers is still effectively unknown - as is how many of these are actually volunteering as fighters. And obviously, the number can grow or shrink suddenly (from new ones arriving to many going home) There really shouldn't have been an attempt at listing a given number of volunteer fighters in the infobox, it was always going to be wrong in one way or another. 95.197.63.71 (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022 (2)

91.214.228.26 (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Title should also be referred to as “Putins’ War”

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Add image of Kyiv TV Tower bombardment to infobox?

• 
  Destroyed homes in Kyiv
• 
  Bombardment of the Kyiv TV Tower
• 
  Destroyed homes in Kharkiv

I think it might be a good idea to replace the destroyed Kyiv apartment building infobox image with the bombardment of the Kyiv TV Tower on 1 March, because then the images will show the Russian attempts to disrupt communication along with how they have destroyed civilian homes in Ukraine. I initially thought about replacing the destroyed homes Kharkiv image with it, but then I think that would make the infobox only feature Kyiv-specific images. BlueShirtz (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

How about some dead children? That would be more to the point. EEng 07:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

fair point BlueShirtz (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

mmm I do not know. so far it appears that only that transmitter has been attacked. it seems that communications (TV, radio, telephone, internet, etc.) continue to function even in the disputed or occupied territories. correct me if i'm wrong.

Now, about the image of the infobox, comparing the images on the infobox of the articles "Iraq War" and "2003 invasion of Iraq", and the one used in this article, it seems to be an intention in the selected images to concentrate in drama, when these mentioned were superior in this aspect and the images mostly show combat operations or related. 152.207.223.95 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I realize that now, I think the infobox should probably be left as is. BlueShirtz (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox - Casualties and losses

Acc. to Western officials (3 March): Acc. to United States (8 March):

Isn't the United States technically speaking a Western Country? It's like saying the European Union said whatever then France or Spain said whatever else. Shouldn't it just be Western Officials, like merge US with Western Officials? Not questioning the numbers of casualties and losses...just how it is presented.

I have no idea how to merge things on here so hence I am asking.

MiroslavGlavic (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Western officials also includes Western Europe. I think it's fine.KD0710 (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Like KD0710, Western officials includes Western Europe as well (Central as well at this point), so distinctive from an exclusively US claim and should stay as it is for now. But the figure, compared to new ones presented by the US, is starting to seem an overestimation and also slowly becoming out-of-date. At one point, in a week perhaps, it should be removed since we can expect newer figures will be readily available. EkoGraf (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it should stay at least for now. I think the only people who have a solid grasp on Russian dead are Russia's military leadership, past that we see a range of estimates. We also don't know the criteria that goes in to these estimates, it could very well be that the US' recent ones are conservative like the UN has been doing for civilian dead. I did see an independent report came out today that was published in the New York Times which places material losses for the Russians at 980 Armored Vehicles including over 140 tanks, which is pretty much in line with Ukrainian estimates. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The most recent statement from the Ukrainian MoD also states they killed 12000 soldiers, not that there were 12000 casualties as the Infobox says. Important distinction considering casualties include a lot more than just killed soldiers. Should be changed to 12000 killed to more accurately reflect the post by the Ukrainian MoD. Hunterius8 (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

How about Equipment losses acc. to Russia .. ? Is there a more recent figure? I don't think that has been updated since the very first days of the conflict. Do Russia not claim any more equipment losses than this (which seems kind of unlikely seeing as these were early losses) or have they simply not bothered to present any new figures at all? 95.197.63.71 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Represent deaths per UN as a minimum

In the casualties section, the row for civilian deaths as per the UN is represented as a flat number, whereas the UN documents that appear to be the source (such as this one) make it fairly clear that the UN believes there have likely been many more civilian deaths, and the number they give is only the number of deaths that they have been able to corroborate. The page should probably list the number (as I'm writing this, it's 516) as a minimum, e.g. "516+". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TradeJmark (talk • contribs) 05:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (3)

Please add into See also in the subsection "Censorship and propaganda" the link to the article Russia under Vladimir Putin. K8M8S8 (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally not sure this adds more value. We already link to Putinism, and more specific articles like Media freedom in Russia. We already have too many see also links in this article IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Addition to war crimes

https://fox8.com/news/us-embassy-calls-russias-power-plant-attack-a-war-crime/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIt%20is%20a%20war%20crime%20to%20attack%20a,and%20briefly%20raised%20fears%20of%20a%20nuclear%20disaster. Might be a little biased but it conveys the information. (But than again, who isn’t on this matter?) Megabits13 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, we can't call it a war crime unless RS do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022

Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1501824458608230400/photo/1 P4p5 (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022 (3)

Add Ukraine supported by nato to the belligerents graph. Saddam Hussein.101 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian authorities disagree with Russian authorities

Do we have any mainstream media reports on which of Igor Konashenkov or Sergey Lavrov will be sent to Siberia? Having Lavrov confirm the bombing of a hospital (claiming a rather dubious military justification, which local residents will be able to respond to quickly) and Konashenkov deny it on the same day - see Mariupol children's hospital bombing - is not the best way to keep Putin happy. My guess is that this may become notable quickly, though I haven't seen mainstream media sources yet on Putin's reaction on how to solve the dilemma of "yes = no". Any sources? Boud (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

They do not care and they do not consider this as a contradiction. Both perfectly know they are lying. I do not expect any consequences for them.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Quite. I heard this on the news today and my immediate reaction was that this simply adds to the fog of war, which is a military objective to keep the other side guessing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place for speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022 (4)

"… on 24 February 2022, in a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that began in 2014 following Russia's annexation of Ukraine. It is the largest conventional military attack in Europe since World War II excluding The Hungarian Revolution of 1956." 222.167.176.35 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BSMRD (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s very likely wrong. About 31,500 invaded Hungary (the UN estimated 75,000–200,000), while around 175,000–190,000 are estimated to have entered Ukraine, so far (not to mention tens of thousands of Russian military already in Crimea and the eastern Donbas). However, the much larger Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia is a potential candidate. —Michael Z. 19:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The claim for "largest conventional military attack since WW2" seems to originate with the USG. Perhaps they didn't consider the invasion of Czechoslovakia an attack/invasion in the "proper" sense (whatever that might be) as I understand there was little fighting (in fact, that article is interesting reading because the way that was done sounds a lot like the attack on Ukraine except Ukraine defended itself), which of course would be a bit odd. Perhaps we ought to change it to "largest conventional war" for accuracy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phiarc (talk • contribs)

Good point. I see two of the cited references refer to the biggest “ground war” and “military assault,” which do not exactly describe the invasion of Czechoslovakia. (Just compare the losses in the respective infoboxes.) —Michael Z. 19:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

INFOBOX overhaul/improve readabilty

RFC/REVIEW Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox/sandbox

Please consider these numerous format changes to to the info-box as it is currently difficult to follow on a small screen and I currently can't test this on fullsize desktop

GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴^⍨talk 19:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It's too wide on desktop. Do you have a list of changes you've made? This would make it easier to review. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Reduction of the amount of see also/further info links

There seems to be an exorbitant of see also and further information links. It really clogs up the article. Obviously, some are needed, but I would suggest slimming it down.

I suggest removing:

• Colour revolution - Covered in Orange Revolution Link
• Russian nationalism - Clearly covered in the other article listed under see also
• Z (military symbol) - remove from Invasion and resistance, Already listed in the propaganda section below
• International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine - This is covered in the War Crimes article
• Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis Remove from Russian accusations and demands as it is under the Media depiction section

--KD0710 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. As the nom points out, all are redundant. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of Russian nationalism. This is one of the primary reasons why Putin invaded Ukraine. Should be given more prominance. Note that yesterday I included it in the sub-title as the last paragraph explains the issue, but someone reversed it Ilenart626 (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Semi-Oppose. This is an extraordinarily large and complex topic which has a large number of accompanying articles, with this article (as well as the Russo-Ukrainian war article) serving as an overview/hub article. Linking to these related articles is one of the main reasons for having this article. A link should not be removed only because it is repeated on an article that's also linked from here. That being said, I'd say Colour revolution can go and the Z (military symbol) link could reasonably only retained in the propaganda section. The Russian nationalism link should be kept, as well as the Disinformation link. I'm on the fence regarding the ICC link, as the war crimes article is relatively long and it only appears fairly far down in it. It depends on how important the ICC investigation is, I suppose. Phiarc (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Censorship and propaganda

This whole section is one sided and shows the Western narrative. Can you please add the followings and please ad them as first paragraph (I hope you don't mind about this)

Western machine spread pro Ukrainian propaganda. On February 24, a story started to circulate online, telling of an encounter between 13 Ukrainian soldiers on Snake Island in the Black Sea and Russian warships. According to the story, part of which was captured in an audio recording, the Russians demanded that the Ukrainians surrender. Then, one of the Ukrainians told the Russian making the announcement to “go fuck yourself,” after which the Russians allegedly killed all of the Ukrainians. However, the story was wrong: the Ukrainians surrendered, and they were taken as prisoners by the Russians, not killed.

Another example of Western propaganda is the "Ghost of Kiev". According to one widely circulated post, the Ghost of Kyiv supposedly shot down four Russian fighter jets — two Su-35 Flankers, one Su-27 Flanker and one MiG-29 Fulcrum — as well as two ground-attack aircraft, so-called Su-25 Frogfoots. But the "Ghost of Kyiv" is very likely not real, but instead an imaginary hero designed to bolster Ukrainians' morale in the face of the Russian invasion. There is zero evidence the "Ghost of Kyiv" exists with Ukrainian authorities not confirming their existence. In reality the computer-generated footage of the Ghost of Kyiv winning a dogfight was made using the 2013 video game Digital Combat Simulator and uploaded by a YouTube user.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/technology/ukraine-war-misinfo.html https://readpassage.com/canadian-media-is-spreading-pro-ukraine-propaganda/ https://nypost.com/2022/02/25/who-is-the-ghost-of-kyiv-story-of-ukrainian-ace-pilot-goes-viral/ https://www.newsweek.com/who-ghost-kyiv-ukraine-fighter-pilot-mig-29-russian-fighter-jets-combat-1682651

HelenHIL (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Censorship and propaganda are government initiated. If you can provide RS for any western government report that is contrary to what RS reports, then you may have a cases. KD0710 (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What is RS? HelenHIL (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Your definition of what is propaganda is not correct. Propaganda is not only government initiated. This is your definition. Can you please add the 2 paragraphs above. Nowhere have found your definition. If you still want to believe your definition then please add as first paragraph: On February 24, a story started to circulate online, which was widely reported by the Western media telling of an encounter between 13 Ukrainian soldiers on Snake Island in the Black Sea and Russian warships. According to the story, part of which was captured in an audio recording, the Russians demanded that the Ukrainians surrender. Then, one of the Ukrainians told the Russian making the announcement to “go fuck yourself,” after which the Russians allegedly killed all of the Ukrainians. All 13 Ukrainian defenders were killed in a Russian bombardment Thursday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said. "All border guards died heroically but did not give up. They will be awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine posthumously," Zelensky said. However, the story was wrong: the Ukrainians surrendered, and they were taken as prisoners by the Russians, not killed.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/25/europe/ukraine-russia-snake-island-attack-intl-hnk-ml/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/technology/ukraine-war-misinfo.html https://readpassage.com/canadian-media-is-spreading-pro-ukraine-propaganda/ HelenHIL (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Clearly the section is talking about a major undertaking of censorship and propaganda by the Russian government. That is notable. There is no proven undertaking to purposely mislead by any other nation (or publication) at this point. At best, the minor instances you mentioned would be in the misinformation section. KD0710 (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

HelenHIL, both of the instances of incorrect information that you mention were promptly corrected by the reliable sources that made errors early on during the fog of war. Nobody in the Western media is trying to perpetuate or defend this incorrect reporting and these reliable media outlets are issuing corrections and clarifications constantly. The willingness to correct errors is a hallmark of truly reliable sources. This is in stark contrast to the state-controlled Russian media, which is perpetuating a cloud cukooland version of reality, where it is now a criminal offense to call a war a war, and to call an invasion an invasion. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What constitutes cukooland version of reality is a matter of interpretation. The willingness to correct errors doesn't negate the propaganda. Maybe this is your cukooland version of reality. Simply you don't wish to acknowledge that in reality we are the "Russians" who live in a distorted world... HelenHIL (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the willingness to correct errors is a very strong indication of a broader willingness to keep propaganda to a minimum, and report the facts. Do you support the Russian decrees that criminalize the use of words like "war" and "invasion"? Does Russian state media currently show any willingness to correct fundamental errors? If so, please provide examples. Otherwise, your comments amount to false equivalency. Cullen328 (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you please add the paragraphs. They show examples of Western propaganda. Be objective. HelenHIL (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kyiv even has its own article and is also a section in the disinfo article. The Snake Island back-and-forth is explained in detail in Attack on Snake Island and mentioned in some other related places. The former could be a suitable example for inclusion in the main article, the latter is not. Your proposed changes are unsuitable for direct inclusion due to tone. Phiarc (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

OK fair enough. My problem is that only the Western narrative is shown. Somehow only the Russians are doing propaganda and are censoring the media but somehow Western governments are not capable of doing the same when clearly they do. This is not an objective article. HelenHIL (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian minister Lavrov just said today that Russia did not attack Ukraine. Given that the Russian narrative is disconnected from reality (and that gap seems to be just widening), what narrative are you expecting? --Mindaur (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Or, name a western nation hat has passed censorship laws over this, or has cut off internet services, or has jailed anyone for not towing the state-sanctioned line? Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

FTR, the idiom is toe the line. -- The phantom pedant

In this case it is obvious that the Russian official version about the entire war is cukooland version of reality Vegan416 (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not. This section is for Censorship and propaganda from both sides. You are making your own definitions. You have done it twice. Please add the paragraphs. HelenHIL (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please also add:

Elon Musk claims that he has resisted demands from several Western countries to censor Russian news sites from his Starlink internet satellites amid the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. “Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources,” the world’s richest man tweeted over the weekend. “We will not do so unless at gunpoint.” Musk added: “Sorry to be a free speech absolutist.” The European Union forced Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and TikTok to censor Russia's RT — and its channels in English, Spanish, French and German — off their platforms

https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-rt-media-telegram-ukraine/ https://nypost.com/2022/03/07/elon-musk-refuses-to-block-russian-news-sites-from-starlink/ https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-04/card/elon-musk-says-spacex-s-satellite-service-won-t-block-russian-news-sources-3m0EdxXmbUTtBOb4Mrhe — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenHIL (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC) HelenHIL (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to sound dismissive but the documentation of the repression and censorship in Russia is so overwhelming as to make this request outlandish. I see nothing remotely comparable about Ukraine. I move that the request be closed. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think your opinions go against neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia. I will push you to include how the West conducts it's propaganda. Please include the 2 paragraphs HelenHIL (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Christ, will you give it a rest? You've got 13 article edits in total and obviously have no clue about applicable policies and guidelines (witness your asking, above, what an RS is). You're beginning to sound like a crackpot, what with treating errors and propaganda as the same thing and so on. This is the wrong article for you to use as a vehicle for learning the baby steps of editing. EEng 06:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

discrepanc y ies

difference s with russian lang page info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.46.5 (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

for objectivity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.46.5 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please identify particular passages not backed up by reliable sources, otherwise this isn't actionable at all. Phiarc (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, the English language Wikipedia doesn't control what is written on the Russian language one. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

possibly contribute toward common ground — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.46.5 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Please adhere to WP:EDITXY and propose specific changes or additions instead of sweeping generalized statements. Benjamin112 ☎ 02:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Different wiki projects have differing rules and standards. Thus it is not unuseral to see differences (the English Wiki tends to be a lot harsher with enforcement of polices like wPrs and wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

un

Russian Statistics ?

Just a query...(and this may already have been brought up)... but is there a reason why the Russian casualty statistics are seldomly updated? The Death Toll has been stuck at 498 for a while...

I’ve read somewhere that the reason could be that the Russian Defence Ministry only updates on these figures intermittently... on a monthly basis as was the case I believe in the old Soviet days...

Can anyone shed any light? 81.108.244.153 (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s the last update they gave. KD0710 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

priorities

not score keep 164.82.46.5 (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

there are daily youtube summaries from ru and by 164.82.46.5 (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Such as? And are they reliably sourced? Benjamin112 ☎ 02:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

ADD THE “Supported By” FOR UKRAINE

Ukraine for example is receiving state of the art anti air defense systems from the UK, and funds from across Europe / The West, very important info to understand the conflict 2600:1000:B14D:F567:50FB:3D80:3293:555C (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see Q2 in the FAQ section at the top of the talk page, and the relevant discussion pertaining to it. Benjamin112 ☎ 02:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Supported by...

The same as the Russian part includes "supported by: Belarus", shoudn't be added to the Ukrainian part " Supported by the EU (or at least a number of countries that are sending weapons)? 94.21.53.60 (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

See first section on this page.Moxy- 05:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022

Grammar error.

Change the following sentence:

"Although there would still be limited accessibility to ensure the continued ability to pay for gas shipments."

to

"However, there would still be limited accessibility to ensure the continued ability to pay for gas shipments." 64.98.105.34 (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done slightly differently, but with the same effect: "The sanctions included cutting off major Russia banks from SWIFT, the global messaging network for international payments, although there would still be limited accessibility to ensure the continued ability to pay for gas shipments." Benjamin112 ☎ 06:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

'Boats' or 'naval vessels'

Per Ukraine, their armed forces have destroyed the Russian patrol ship Vasily Bykov. I believe that this is included in the infobox, in the '3 boats destroyed' row, however, as 'boat' generally refers to smaller-sized vessels, and the patrol ship has a tonnage of 1,700 tonnes, should that row be changed to separately reflect the size of the ship? Changing it to something such as '3 naval vessels' per the 'Ukranian losses claimed by Russia' infobox section seems reasonable. Asking for additional input/row name options on this. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds right. —Michael Z. 21:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The cited tweet uses "vessels" so I changed it. --N8 22:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Nearly Duplicate Sections: "Popular resistance" and "Protests: Civil resistance in Ukraine"

There are currently what are essentially duplicate sections one is: Popular_resistance and the other is Civil_resistance_in_Ukraine. What they have written is slightly different but both deal with essentially the same subject which is average Ukrainian Resistance to Russian rule/invasion. I propose that the two sections be collapsed in to one. Given that the Russian reaction to popular resistance is becoming brutal, and the popular resistance ranges from non-violent civil disobedience to the making of molotov cocktails, and tank traps I propose that the collapsed section be included under "Invasion and Resistance" where Popular resistance is currently housed. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Given the reasons above. We need to condense where it's appropriate to reduce/control the size of this page.--KD0710 (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal; the difference between the two sections is very slim P1221 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Kober was bold and this appears to have been completed. Thanks Kober! --N8 22:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022 (3)

Please add Tulsi Gabbard's statement from this source.- 27.7.10.251 (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Why? Is there significant coverage of it, showing that it's WP:DUE? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a notable point of view and deserves a mention.-27.7.10.251 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it? She has no authority, and is just another talking head. She is not (as far as I know) a world respected pollical or defence analyst. Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If it all, it should go into Reactions_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine. Notability and due weight are debatable at first glance, even for that article. Phiarc (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022 (4)

cbt 97.64.236.218 (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You do have to tell us what you want done. Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a troll request. Ignore it. Super Ψ Dro 20:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't countries supporting Ukraine with weapons and medical supplies be added in "belligerents"?

Shouldn't countries supporting Ukraine with weapons and medical supplies be added in "belligerents"? like for example: Supported by: Germany France Etc 156.208.10.124 (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

See talk above, talk achieve and the RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2022 (3)

Infobox's numbers on internally displaced people are horribly inaccurate. According to the UN, there are now at least 1.85 million internally displaced people. The infobox lists only 160,000+. I would also add that 12.65 million people are directly affected by the conflict. Source here.

Matthewberns (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done added

KD0710 (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2022

Mention the Day of Unity/Unity Day declared by Zelensky for February 16th, in the Prelude section:

Ukrainian President Zelensky declared that 16 February, a speculated date for the invasion, would be a "Day of Unity". Ukrainians were encouraged to "hang our national flags, put on blue and yellow ribbons, and show our unity to the whole world", as well as to sing the national anthem in public spaces at 10 am. Intralexical (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done I have added this. Pianostar9 (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

References

peace

https://www.rt.com/russia/551816-russia-ukraine-negotiations-progress/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.46.5 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

RT is absolutely not a reliable source. — Czello 20:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Danger of repeating propaganda without checking against reality

I'm a bit concerned that in some places, we have "Ukrainian government claimed X, Russian government claimed Y", and it's entirely possible that the Ukraine claim was accurate and the Russians are just playing the game of throwing the same accusations back at the accusers to obscure the truth for the general public. The opposite is also possible, but in particular it sounds like the Russians may be intentionally agreeing to ceasefires and breaking them by shelling the evacuees over and over, just to mess with and demoralized Ukraine, and then adding a slap in the face by blaming Ukraine for breaking the ceasefire. But the problem with repeating spurious denials or spurious claims could easily show up with other issues as well. Ukraine also has every incentive to exaggerate or try to present only certain facts for propaganda purposes, so I'm not saying we should accept all of its claims at face value, either. But I can't help but notice that some recent Russian propaganda is wildly and blatantly untrue, seriously undermining the credibility of that government as a source. I'm not saying Russian claims should be dismissed out of hand, either; that could easily lead to inappropriate imbalance. I expect that within a few days of these incidents, more objective and independent or at least detailed information will become available, though it may require some deep digging and possibly looking into non-English sources. What I'm hoping is that with a bit of time we can replace the "one side said, other side said" coverage with something more concrete that lets readers better discern which side, if any, is being truthful in any given case. The idea of repeating untrue (especially verifiably untrue) propaganda from either side is a bit disturbing, and given this article is being written and read in real time, it could actually affect the course of the war. -- Beland (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

All very true, which is why we should really wait until this is all over, as "inaccuracies" creep into all live news story articles I have edited. I would suggest we hold off, we are not a wp:news service. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

For the day of the incident and a couple of days later, we have no option but to use "He says / she says" sources. Later we'll use third parties and delete the first set of sources.. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

We do have another option. That is to stop trying to be a news service (as Wikipedia is not a newspaper) and to not cover a subject until secondary sources are published. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Cross-posting myself from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Massive disregard of WP:RS in articles related to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Just to give an example from my watchlist: This is what I had to do in order to make the article compliant with our policies. The information is arguably credible (I did not attempt to look for more sources), but the two sources added to the article are (i) partisan from the same side and (ii) do not even make an attempt to verify the info, instead citing social media belonging to some newsmakers. Note that at least one of the sources is RS, and the second one looks more or less fine. I could have reverted, I have chosen to attribute the opinions instead. This is now massively happening across hundreds of articles. There is probably very little we can do about it, since Russian reporting is clearly just a lie and should not be added in any case, and people take Ukrainian reporting subcritically and still want to add into into articles. But it is something to have in mind, that we are now full of badly sourced partisan info. As I said elsewhere, the Russian invasion should motivate us to add high-quality info to our articles but is not an excuse to lowering our standards.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Yeial (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Unhelpful, unproductive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm very surprised that you consider that the Russians have the incentive of agreeing to ceasefires and breaking them. How is this possible when by evacuating a city will give them the green light to heavily bomb them. Especially in the case of Mariupol where the majority of the population is Russian speaking. Why would they want to harm their people? The destruction of bridges is clearly done by the Ukrainians to stop Russian advancing not the opposite. Clearly the Ukrainians are using civilians as shields. Clearly the Ukrainians are fighting from schools and hospitals to force Russians to hit them and portrait them as bad. HelenHIL (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Oi vey! Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I suggest you stop this fucking propaganda or face an immediate block.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC) And the block will be per WP:NAZI--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC) You are not allowed to make this kind of commends. I will report you. HelenHIL (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Seriously? Take a chill pill. HelenHIL is breaking NOTFORUM at the worst. MarshallKe (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC) At worst? At best perhaps. Super Ψ Dro 20:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Can we please not comment on users here, take it to their talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"Russian Fiasco" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian Fiasco and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Russian Fiasco until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct identification of "Blinken"

Suggest that first (and currently only) mention of "Blinken" be revised to "US Secretary of State Antony Blinken" and hyperlinked to article at <http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Antony_Blinken>. This applies to the section "Foreign military support to Ukraine" here; see also the proper treatment at <http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.71.148 (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, seems reasonable. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus map

Is someone going to mention this https://www.thedailybeast.com/belarusian-president-alexander-lukashenko-blatantly-rolls-out-invasion-map-as-troops-enter-ukraine Persesus (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

HELP : in finding a source with photos of the Kyiv Aircraft Factory Destroyed

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
hi guys... do not go to read those immense texts ... because everyone knows Putinitler made a war to Ukraine ... this is clear to whole planet however read today at G1 Globo, the Russia attacked an aircraft factory at Kyiv... do not know where to find pictures to suggest Aviation Safety Database --92.218.124.118 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC) please read wp:soap, as to what I think your question is, please read wp:or, you need to provide a source for this claim. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Do you mean Putler? Phiarc (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) yeah... it can be those versions A. PUTINITLER B. PUTLER C. PUTANLER (when the Portuguese word for Prostitute makes a play, Puta, fdp or so) but has also the BOLSONATLER, who met him ! 92.218.124.118 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Putino & Putiler in Ukranussia... Você está Emputinado ? É putinização ou patinização ou putanização 😂 Sim, putinado Bolsonarismo e 'ucranização' - 'putinização'. Estamos Putinizados ou Ucranizados 😂 pics https://ibb.co/f0Q9txj https://ibb.co/VHMPgtn https://ibb.co/c3pb61s https://ibb.co/1Gjktqk https://ibb.co/vXfXCsB https://ibb.co/4T8ypk6 https://ibb.co/hMGYyBZ https://ibb.co/vhcpZrM --92.218.124.118 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC) THis article is not about Putin, or his nicknames, so please do not turn this into a wp:forum about him. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC) it is all only about him... the whole world is seeing what he started !!! 92.218.124.118 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC) THis article is not about him, and this is not the place to discuss this that would be at Vladimir Putin. Can this be closed as off topic? Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022 (3)

Please change where it says Amnesty International to link to the Amnesty International wiki page. Rzzor (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. lol1VNIO (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Problem with the 'prelude' section

At the moment, the 'prelude' section of this article is longer than the section actually describing the events in scope of this page. This makes no sense, not least of all because we have 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, most likely soon to be renamed Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It would be appreciated if we could remove most of the prelude content to the other article, if it isn't there already, and create a small 'summary' here. This will go a long way toward making the size of this article more manageable. RGloucester — ☎ 15:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The invasion parts did used to be longer before they were trimmed down, and I think they're currently out of date so may get longer. Plus, the ramifications are events within the scope of this page, too. The prelude section is not that large. I've trimmed a bit of fluff out of it, and someone with a bit more chutzpah than I could go further, but I think it's largely acceptable right now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Some chutzpah applied. More may follow, depending on the blow back. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And a little more. Let's see how it goes. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

My work here is now complete. Au revoir. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Mind taking a look at "Foreign military support to Ukraine" as well? Bit of a WP:PROSELINE issue, plus it seems like an overdetailed dump of numbers. It can probably be skimmed down to a few paragraphs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Yep, it seems to have been a dumping ground for fluff and trivia. Let me know if you think that I have cut back too far. "The US vowed not to send ground troops into Ukraine to defend the country." either didn't have a clear source or it got lost amidst a lot of additions. So I have stuck a "citation needed" on it, but I assume that that can be readily provided? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022 (2)

Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1502228138885099522/photo/1 P4p5 (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

FAQ at the top of the page:

Q3: Please update the losses claimed by Russia / Ukraine A3: This generally happens quickly after they are published, please don't make an edit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, the edit request was made 2 hours after release of data. I'm not sure I agree with FAQ #3 personally; at current rate it's just a few more edit requests daily, which we're getting anyway but not actioning. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

And wp:notnews is a policy, we do not need live updates, and in fact, I think we would be better off waiting until losses are conformed, rather than repeating each side's propaganda. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Due consideration needs to be given to the fact that this is an online encyclopaedia and people are turning to it for information on an ongoing event of signifiance. About data specifically, during the COVID-19 pandemic our statistics were often more recent than news sites, since editors used a broad range of direct sources. Things like infobox data are generally in-demand by readers, and expected to be quite up-to-date. For as long as our practice remains to provide data from both sides without confirmation, we should keep that up to date (as WP:NOTNEWS says: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage). Besides, accurate and independent confirmation may not follow until quite some time after the events end. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

And it will be done, someone will add it. But we do not need it to be (in effect) a live news feed. We can wait hours or even days with no loss of information, after all none of this may turn out to be true. If it's not (and let's face it in war both sides lie) then we are not giving anyone the best information, we are giving them factually incorrect information. Which is not what an Enclopdoda should be doing. Thus I support FAQ Q 3 and ask editors to stop making requests to add information that will inevitably be added. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this makes sense. If an ECP editor who is able to directly edit the page adds it, it's fine and a legitimate update. But if a non-ECP editor requests an update on a source, it supposedly violates WP:NOTNEWS and should not be requested? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Talks that happened in Antalya should be added to the Peace Efforts section

Foreign Ministers Sergey Lavrov and Dmytro Kuleba met for talks in Antalya, Turkey with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu as mediator in the first high-level contact between the two sides since the beginning of the invasion.[16] Ukraine had attempted to negotiate a 24-hour ceasefire to provide aid and evacuation to civilians, especially in Mariupol.[17] After two hours of talks, no agreement was made.[18] Airstrikes on the port city continued.[19]

"'No progress' as top Russia, Ukraine diplomats talk in Turkey". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2022-03-11.
"Ukraine war: No progress on ceasefire after Kyiv-Moscow talks". BBC News. 2022-03-10. Retrieved 2022-03-10.
Ellyatt, Holly (2022-03-10). "Russia-Ukraine talks fail with no progress on cease-fire, safe passage for civilians". CNBC. Retrieved 2022-03-10.
Archive, View Author; feed, Get author RSS (2022-03-10). "Ukraine-Russia peace talks fail to make progress as airstrikes continue on Mariupol". New York Post. Retrieved 2022-03-10.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FINTUR1 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian intelligence officers responsible for Ukraine are under criminal investigation

Journalist and security services investigator Alexei Soldatov reports that Sergey Beseda, the head of 5th service of the Russian Federal Security Service, and his deputy Anatoliy Bolyuh were put under house arrest for the duration of criminal investigation. They are suspected of embezzling money allotted for undercover work and subversive activities in Ukraine what caused the incorrect assessment of political situation in Ukraine and its armed forces condition and resulted in Russian blitzkrieg failure.

You know, I'm not surprised. K8M8S8 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian blitzkrieg failure? Is that not a bit premature to add here?-27.7.10.251 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really as this is the talk page, but it could not be used in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It will be useful in the future. Save it for the section "Analysis". K8M8S8 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Not premature. Probably dozens of articles have put forward evidence that the RF expected to seize Kyiv with an airborne assault in about two days, and there is a document attesting it expected to occupy most of Ukraine in fifteen days. This is the “blitzkrieg” that has certainly failed. —Michael Z. 21:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

kasparov 164.82.46.5 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Meduza says that these officers reported only an information what Putin wanted to hear, just because they were afraid he would be angry. That was the reason of wrong analysis of the situation.

It clearly illustrates the degradation of public administration in autocratic countries. K8M8S8 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

However I feel now I need to remind users of wp:soap and wp:forum. Let us not speculate, let RS do that. Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

References

War machine casualties nearly bogus

Russia claim in Ukraine war machine casualties mostly already exceed Ukraine pre war inventory including tanks and armored, combat aircraft, helicopter, drones (Ukraine only had some 50 but Russia claim already shooted more than 100 drones). 1 week ago Russia claim in Wikipedia for Ukraine loses : 7 combat aircraft, 69 aircraft in the ground (mostly civilian) but now Russia claimed all of them as combat aircraft. Ukraine didnt had combat aircraft as much as Russia claimed. Ukraine in the position of defensive so they cant uses war machine in large number including tanks, helicopter, aircraft etc. Onl invader or aggressor use war machine in large number. Please put Orxyspioenkop analyse for war machine casualties. They using real picture. Russia loses more than 1000 war marchine including 500 tanks and armored also 27 aircraft. Ukraine loses more than 300 war machine including 160 tanks and armored also 10 aircraft. 103.47.135.173 (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We go with what both sides say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

surely they also count the reserves and stored equipment of the Ukrainian army that have been occupied or destroyed, everything they take from the bases (one thing is the active units, and another are the reserves, for example, lets say Russia may have committed 1000 tanks of different types, models and upgrades levels, but has another 20000 in reserve). This means that, for example, of the real losses of the Ukraine, at least in equipment, real number are not really known, because as the Russian army advances, it occupies what is possible and little can be confirmed. I have seen at least one video of the Russian army emptying some of the Ukrainian military bases they have occupied, taking all the vehicles, weapons and ammunition that were there. It must also be taken into account what a "total loss" is, since many of the vehicles that are disabled or abandoned but not destroyed, can be recovered, repaired and reactivated by both parties, as the ukrainian army has been seen doing with some russian vehicles, you can count on the russians doing the same, it is one of the situations that are created when much of the equipment of both sides is the same or similar. Numbers closest to reality, in all points and aspects, may be known when, hopefully, everything ends and settles down, one way or another. Right now everything is estimated numbers, and/or as always, inflated and/or deflated numbers, with bias and skew, for everything and everyone. 152.206.174.214 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

MAybe, but we do not do wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please put Oryxspioenkop analyse for war machine casualties. It include list and picture of that war machine being damaged, destroyed or captured. According to picture Russia loses 600 tanks, 27 aircraft and Ukraine loses 160 tanks, 10 aircraft. I think thats more realistic. How can Russia claimed destroyed more than 100 drone, more than 150 aircraft and more than 1000 tanks if Ukraine pre war inventory not even close that number. Ukraine dont even have 100 combat aircraft in their inventory. Ukraine only defensive so they cant move their war machine in large number. Only invader/attacker can move large number of their war machine.

Censorship

The following discussion 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.

---

It's gemrwat that you added the sectipn on russian censorship, but unless you add the section about western censorship, you're just propaganda 201.156.219.5 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of Western countries laws prohibiting the use of non-official sources of the information about the war, similar to laws promulgated by Russian Government? K8M8S8 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The simplest exmple is the removal of the 'ukraine on fire documentary' but personally the denial of US backed biolabs in ukraine is right now the most damning. Then you have the removal of channels, etc. Only a naive peraon who hasn't been paying attention for the last 60+ years would immediatley assume that the nato countries are telling 100% the truth and not taking advante/provoking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.156.219.5 (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Youtube is not a Western government. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What Ruwiki admin Q bit array damage & wandalism? 84.54.86.131 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Who removed the Stone–Russia propaganda film from what? YouTube only added a click-through warning. Denial of disinformation is not censorship either. Russian state propaganda channels featuring disinformation, like RT, have been banned, and the article already mentions this. —Michael Z. 22:19, 14 March 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.

Russians blamed for genocide

Russia was blamed for genocide by the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a speach when they had bombed a child hospital. Weren't the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagazaki part of wiping out the Japanese people in order to achieve peace a genocide? --92.40.174.68 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What, if anything would you like to see changed in this article? KD0710 (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I should have had written a children's hospital? --92.40.174.68 (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022 (2)

A recent edit removed the definition of the reference CNN invasion routes, but it is still used elsewhere, in the footnote for "Supported by: Belarus", leading to an error. So I suggest changing

Russian forces were permitted to stage part of the invasion from Belarusian territory.<ref name="CNN invasion routes"/>

to

Russian forces were permitted to stage part of the invasion from Belarusian territory.<ref name="CNN invasion routes">{{cite news |last1=Lister |first1=Tim |last2=Kesa |first2=Julia |title=Ukraine says it was attacked through Russian, Belarus and Crimea borders |url=https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-23-22/h_82bf44af2f01ad57f81c0760c6cb697c |access-date=24 February 2022 |agency=[[CNN]] |date=24 February 2022 |location=[[Kyiv]] |archive-date=24 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220224071121/https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-23-22/h_82bf44af2f01ad57f81c0760c6cb697c |url-status=live }}</ref>

QuaintlyLittoral (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Already done This source, along with other material, has been removed from the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022

There are two references for the refugee count by the UN, and the second one has a technical error with archive-url and also the wrong title. So I propose to change

<ref>{{cite news |title=Refugee arrivals from Ukraine (since 24 February 2022)* |url= https://www.unhcr.org/ua/en/43027-unhcr-scales-up-for-those-displaced-by-war-in-ukraine-deploys-cash-assistance.html |access-date=12 March 2022 |publisher=[[United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]] |date=11 March 2022 }}</ref>

to

<ref>{{cite news |title=UNHCR scales up for those displaced by war in Ukraine, deploys cash assistance |url= https://www.unhcr.org/ua/en/43027-unhcr-scales-up-for-those-displaced-by-war-in-ukraine-deploys-cash-assistance.html |access-date=12 March 2022 |publisher=[[United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]] |date=11 March 2022 |archive-date=11 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220312225445/https://www.unhcr.org/ua/en/43027-unhcr-scales-up-for-those-displaced-by-war-in-ukraine-deploys-cash-assistance.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

I also made this change in the sandbox here. QuaintlyLittoral (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Thanks for pointing this out. However, the infobox was updated and that portion was removed from there. P1221 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Change Introduction

Change the introduction to "On the 24th of February 2022" from "On 24 February 2022" Andrwejo (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: @Andrwejo: "On 24 February 2022" is correct per MOS:DATE. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Article for the diplomatic problem of NATO's eastward expansion

I think that the question of whether the 1990 (I think) informal verbal assurance that NATO wouldn't expand eastward after the German unification matters or not is notable enough for an article. There's already one about this in Russian Wikipedia [2]. I'm proposing this idea in case anyone is interested in creating an article for this. Super Ψ Dro 20:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If it is it should go in the Russo-Ukrainian War, not here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: That's still too detailed. It should go in Russia–United States relations, Russia–NATO relations, Enlargement of NATO, or a child of one of those articles. VQuakr (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure it is: there’s an important book on the very subject, Sarotte (2021), Not One Inch, and numerous articles. Obviously it can be mentioned wherever Russian justifications for the aggression against Ukraine are discussed. —Michael Z. 21:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Enlargement of NATO might be a good starting point. --N8 23:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be mentioned here but don't think it deserves whole article. HelenHIL (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Map delay

Is there any reason that the map on the page is very delayed? I often see towns and cities being shown only captured on both sides days after it happened. Examples: Russian capture of Konotop, Russian capture of Volnovakha now, Ukrainian counter-advances in Chernihiv oblast, the constantly changing situation in Kyiv oblast. It should be updated more often judging by the importance of the subject at hand Equip77 (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Nor is the map hosted on en.wiki. Take it up with the commons. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition, please see Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8/FAQ, specifically Q4. Melmann 13:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2022 (2)

Add to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Censorship and propaganda:

On 7 March, in Vietnam, Haiphong's education authority issued an official dispatch titled "orienting, propagating, monitoring and capturing public opinion on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine." Previously, Haiphong Party Committee, the Communist Party of Vietnam's highest organ in the city, issued a written request to the entire political system, media agencies, and contingents of public opinion members to participate in propaganda about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The official dispatch issued by the Municipal Party Committee consists of three points, in which it asks people to not criticise, one-sided criticise; to praise the Communist Party of Vietnam's way, and responds to comments criticising the communist party.

Source: https://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/news/vietnamnews/hai-phong-city-education-service-asked-for-centralized-propaganda-about-ukraine-situation-03102022074144.html (in Vietnamese) Fense Ling (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Why what relevance does it have? Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It is not clear what the requested text is saying or why it is relevant. Pianostar9 (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Could have a place in Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Phiarc (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Re-phrasing (also adding to) the original requested text (the news article isn't seem available on RFA English):

On 7 March, Haiphong (Vietnam)'s Department of Education and Training issued an official letter titled "orienting, propagating, monitoring and capturing public opinions on the Russia-Ukraine crisis". This letter is said to "deal" with the fact that news about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is being spread in a "pro-Western direction", and along with anti-Communist Party of Vietnam comments on social media. Previously, Communist Party Committee of Haiphong[*], the Communist Party of Vietnam's highest organ in the city, issued a written request to the entire political system, media agencies, and polemics of the city to propaganda about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The official letter asks citizens to not criticise or one-sided criticise; to praise the Communist Party of Vietnam's way, and respond to anti-communist comments.

Adding to the above (also partially translated from the source given):

The city's Department of Education and Training also asked any educational institutions in the city to report any "violations". Mr. Tran Tien Chinh, Chief of Office of the Haiphong Department of Education and Training, confirmed. In addition, pro-Vietnamese government pages on social networks have also actively subjected to propaganda of the claims made by Russia since the beginning of the invasion.

[*] I can't find the official translation of this.

Also, not sure if this would be appropriate for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Censorship and propaganda or Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Fense Ling (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it would. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Should the "Countries' responses" have been deleted completely or restored (or maybe modified/condensed)?

The removal started here. A few other major conflicts that have a similar format are the 2021 Taliban offensive, Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen, 2011 military intervention in Libya, and maybe even the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis. In response to Beshogur, just lookup 'India Russia ally'& 'China Russia ally' for the evidence. A Morning Consult poll before the invasion confirms it as well. Maybe the heading could be changed to 'Countries close to Russia'? (Side note: yes, I also know I added a duplicate image by accident, won't happen again). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

There may be certain specific national reactions which have been uniquely notable in some way that would deserve a mention in this article. I expect Beshogur was just cleaning up in an effort to resolve the maint. tag listed on the "Reactions" section. The edit summary seems to invite exactly this question. If individual countries' reactions are restored, I recommend that the prose clearly indicate the nature of their notability, rather than stating a reaction without context. --N8 20:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Look at 2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#International_reactions, there are no single reaction, it just redirects there. Why are those 4 countries randomly chosen? Because the editor thought those 4 were Russia's allies. Thus a WP:OR in this case. Also similar to the religious heads, this is just duplicate from the reaction article. Doesn't help the article except making it larger and unreadable. Beshogur (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Germany is not a Russian ally. The point was presumably to include substantive country reactions that aren't cookie-cutter condemnations which are either a) covered elsewhere in the article; b) redundant to the map of the UN vote; c) don't add anything to the article except repeat the same thing in different words. These reactions are interesting IMO because they show:

1. The response by another UNSC permanent member, China, traditionally allied with Russia.
2. The response by Germany, a Western nation, individually, reversing its long-standing approach to defence policy.
3. India, a major world trader and a country campaigning for a spot on the UN Security Council, allegedly working to undermine Western sanctions.

On the contrary, the bulk of the Western response can (and is) best summarised collectively or in "ramifications". We don't need to write that the UK or France or US individually condemned it, it adds nothing, whereas the above do. The actions of China and India, at least, cannot accurately be described as "ramifications".

(note that I did not add this section, but I support its inclusion in some shape or form, at least of the China/India/Germany portions.). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As the editor who added Germany and China I didn't do it because I viewed them as Russia's allies, I chose them because I viewed them as countries who have a realistic impact upon the invasion, which is why I was trying to stay away from empty platitudes of foreign ministers and stick to concrete actions that they have taken that have impacted the conflict. China for instance arguably is the one who chose the invasion date; Germany's rejection of Russia and realignment of its security interests has completely reshaped European foreign policy, and energy policy. I didn't add Kazakhstan but I didn't delete it either because I thought it was worth mentioning the reaction of another former Soviet Republic to the invasion, and their relationship with Russia, particularly in Central Asia. I did originally have a good deal more about China, detailing how their response to the war has changed, and was adding China's potential economic lifelines but it got cut by another editor. I also originally listed France because of Macron's efforts both to continue creating a EU wide defense based in Europe not Washington, and to keep dialogue open to Putin to allow for diplomatic solutions but it got cut as well. But once again the idea being countries that have had concrete impacts upon the situation in Ukraine. Sorry, I'm very tired, so I'm not sure if this response was rambling. There is an argument that this is analysis, and I suppose that WP:OR could be said. There's alot to be said about France for instance but it quickly becomes WP:Synth which is why France stayed light. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There appears to not be much consensus. I did not add any countries to the section, but I think some countries not aligned with NATO should be included. Or else the only reactions shown will just be from Western-allied countries, which goes against WP:GLOBAL (and WP:GLOBAL has been made an official supplement to policy on the Swedish Wikipedia). For me I wouldn't mind if the heading is changed to 'Countries close to Russia' (geographically CN, IN, & KZ are close) or 'Non-Western Countries'/'Countries not in NATO'. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Still don't get the importance of those five "individual countries" there. Look at the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh article, there was no exception, and all were moved to the separate article. Those five are not special and have no place there. Beshogur (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There are probably a litany of different ways to present the same information. For instance, the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict you say doesn't have a reactions section, but Russia is mentioned 4 times in the lede and about 150 times in the article and Turkey is also mentioned 4 times in the lede and about 100 times in the article so I think it's just different ways to display the same information yes there isn't a "reactions section" but the information is still there. We could decentralize the information like the Nagorno-Karabakh article does and speak about China under all the sections where it's pertinent such as Economic Repercussions and the like. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Alcibiades on the pertinence of information presented. A page split for this section is also another option. If the information is not closely related to the already existing main sections of this article then it may be better to have a separate page for that information. Otherwise, the pertinent information should go into the pertinent sections of the already existing main sections of this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The more that I look at it the more I agree with Beshogur: the section should be deleted. Honestly China and India have done next to nothing so why bother mentioning them? Germany has but it gets talked about under NATO and EU, then beyond that the section seems to be a magnet for filling up with Foreign Minister of X country said Y which is bloat and is covered in its own dedicated reactions page. The "Russian Allies" idea fails because the only allies that are supporting Russia are Belarus and Syria, Belarus is already discussed at length and at some point the article will probably mention Syrian mercenaries. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Beshogur and Alcibiades. Pull out any pertinent sentences with cites and place it into the pertinent section in the article. Then either split the section off into a new article or delete it. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Traditionally, Russia's political allies include China, India, Vietnam, Serbia, Armenia, & numerous Central Asian countries. Just because they don't explicitly support Russia's invasion like Belarus & Syria does not mean their reactions are the same as NATO countries. Even being neutral in the conflict can be noteworthy if you look at the criticism from some Western commentators towards India's stance. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you stating that you would prefer to split that section off as a new article rather than deleting it? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Section already has been split off as a new article here: Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Normally the section split would mean that a short summary would be retained in the main article with a link to the split page. Suggest that whoever did the split to go ahead and summarize that section concisely, and then remove the redundant part which already appears in the split article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hm, the thing is the India & Kazakhstan sections are already quite concise compared to their sections in the new article. The China section here also doesn't exactly match the one on the new article either. I'm fine with Germany's part being moved up & added to the NATO section since it seems to fit there better (if one wants to keep it). The other 3 countries should be kept I think (esp China & India as they are major players & the most populous countries). Maybe someone can trim down the China section if they are concerned about length. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I keep trying to whittle down the China section and it keeps getting reverted which is quite frustrating. Alcibiades979 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild From your trims to this article yesterday to control the size of this article. It looks like there was an article split for the Responses section on this article, however, it has not been edited and kept up to date. It seems like merging the information which has accumulated here in the Responses section to the newly split Responses article (separate article now) would make sense and save alot of space. Maybe keep one or two sentences in the section on China and India as a short summary. Could you see if you can do a further trim of this article by moving much of Responses material here in this article to the split article for "Responses" which has already been created? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Urgent interim measures carried out by European Court of Human Rights (Censorship in Russia)

Novaya Gazeta and its editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov, Dozhd and its CEO Natalya Sindeyeva filed an application against Russia (№11884/22) with the European Court of Human Rights. On 3 March 2022, Dmitry Muratov requested urgent interim measures, namely, to indicate to the Russian Government not to interfere with lawful activity of Russian mass media, including Novaya Gazeta, covering the armed conflict on the territory of Ukraine, in particular, to refrain from blocking information items and materials containing opinions different from the official point of view of the Russian authorities; and to abstain from full blocking and termination of the activity of Russian mass media, including Novaya Gazeta. On 8 March 2022, the European Court of Human Rights indicated to the Government of Russia to abstain until further notice from actions and decisions aimed at full blocking and termination of the activities of Novaya Gazeta, and from other actions that in the current circumstances could deprive Novaya Gazeta of the enjoyment of its rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. K8M8S8 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Urgent interim measures carried out by European Court of Human Rights (humanitarian aspect)

On 28 February 2022 the European Court of Human Rights received a request from the Ukrainian Government to indicate urgent interim measures to the Government of the Russian Federation, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court2, in relation to "massive human rights violations being committed by the Russian troops in the course of the military aggression against the sovereign territory of Ukraine". On 1 March 2022, the European Court of Human Rights has decided to indicate to the Government of Russia to refrain from military attacks against civilians and civilian objects, including residential premises, emergency vehicles and other specially protected civilian objects such as schools and hospitals, and to ensure immediately the safety of the medical establishments, personnel and emergency vehicles within the territory under attack or siege by Russian troops. On 4 March 2022, the European Court of Human Rights additionally moreover decided to indicate to the Government of Russia, they should ensure unimpeded access of the civilian population to safe evacuation routes, healthcare, food and other essential supplies, rapid and unconstrained passage of humanitarian aid and movement of humanitarian workers. K8M8S8 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

References

List of commanders, territorial changes

@Cinderella157: claims those commanders shouldn't be listed according to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, however I can not see anything about that. Similar to other wars, commanders should be listed. So I propose that commanders listed here on Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should be included to the infobox. @EkoGraf: I see you're editing here as well, what do you think? You're experienced from Syrian conflict articles. Beshogur (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella was correct in their expression of which commanders should be included in the infobox. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE guides us on how to populate the infobox. If particular commanders are to populate the infobox, their entries should be supported by the prose in the body of the article (and not just a passing mention). Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Obviously some of them are mentioned in the main article like Shoigu, or breakaway states' leaders. This argument is not valid. Secondly, others are mentioned at order of battle article, which makes them notable as well. For last see infobox template about conflicts, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose doesn't tell that it's explicitly about conflicts, otherwise, none conflict should mention commanders more than one.

commander1/commander2/commander3 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Ranks and position titles should be omitted.Beshogur (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverted as this was discussed here before being implemented. As of time of writing, none of the Russian or Ukrainian commanders (except the Presidents) are mentioned in the prose of this article. Shoygu receives a single mention in an image caption, so your statement that obviously some of them are mentioned in the main article like Shoigu is false. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you link me the previous discussion? is false well, open it and do a quick ctrl+f. Beshogur (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 7#Commanders though I recall this was discussed multiple times - try the archive search at the top of the talk page. Phiarc (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this even a consensus? I see 3 users. Beshogur (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Doing a search for "Shoigu" using ctrl+f returns one hit to a caption for an image. There is no mention of him in the prose of this article. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you even read the infobox template about conflicts? Are you sure that WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE should be implemented here? It doesn't even make mention of conflicts. If that was right, we should place only single leader for every conflict or battle. Beshogur (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Besides obviously the belligerent's presidents, top military commanders should also be listed, like the Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff. EkoGraf (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the documentation for Template:Infobox military conflict. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is the guideline that represents the broad community consensus about infoboxes in general. The template documentation does not over-ride WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. If anything, it is the other way around. The two bits of advice are not incompatible either. The key point to take from WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is that we don't write the article in the infobox. Material in the infobox should be supported by the body of the article and the infobox should not be so bloated as to defeat its purpose of being an at-a-glance summary. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Territorial changes

I'm going to piggyback on this thread to ask about the "territorial changes" item of the infobox. On the template page it says: "any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict". Does this mean it should be filled in only after the conflict has concluded and a result is established? Or is it meant to be a updated on the go? Phiarc (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Not every parameter in the infobox has to be used and the documentation makes this clear. How the infobox is populated (and how much detail) should not be at odds with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An intricate list of territorial changes would be at odds with this. At present, we have a map in the infobox showing territorial changes and under "status", we have a link to an article that provides detail on territorial changes. These more than adequately deal with the matter of territorial changes, while being consistent whith the primary purpose of the infobox: to provide an at-a-glance summary. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove: The following text keeps getting moved in and out of the territory parameter either being deleted or placed under the "status" heading:

*Russia occupies Kherson, one of the 22 regional capitals of Ukraine. [removed ref and note in original]

I have removed it (07:18, 12 March 2022) with the edit summary: Redundent inforation. Map shows territorial changes and there is link to control of cities. It has been reinstated with this edit summary: obviously not "Redundent inforation". there's territory section on the infobox template for a purpose. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict. I was not specifically aware that this had been moved in and out of either the territory or status sections a couple of times already. The infobox documentation would state this:

territory – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.

I would state that this should not be in the infobox for the following reasons:

• Territory is an optional parameter. It doesn't have to be populated.
• This entry is misleading since it would suggest to readers that this is the only territorial change that has occurred and/or the most significant change. There have been significant Russian advances on several fronts.
• Expanding this section to be "more complete" would be overly lengthy. The infobox documentation specifically warns against that. It would also be contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, since a lengthy description could not satisfy being an "at-a-glance" summary. Such detailed information would also need to be detailed elsewhere in the body of the article in order to be considered a summary of the article's content.
• Per my edit summary, the information is redundant. since an image in the infobox shows the territorial changes and the status section has a link to control of cities.
• Territorial changes are in a state of flux and if anything, it should be dealt with under "status", where the present population of the territory parameter is not too problematic (not easily summarised and ongoing).

For the preceding reasons, I believe we should remove the present text under territorial changes and refrain from its use for the present. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Splitting human and equipment losses?

I find the infobox to start being overcrowded with reported men killed by multiple factions and particularly when the extensive detailing of equipment type losses are shown. I suggest using horizontal lines (particularly for the US who isn't even a participating faction) and to have a different section for Human casualties and Equipment losses. P4p5 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is overwhelming. I personally feel equipment losses should be removed given the extent of the war. Also, let’s not bog down the casualty toll with so many sources. I suggest a range or a neutral party as the source. KD0710 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Consolidate casualty details and refs into {{efn}} and just show min-max range? Fine with removing equipment losses given that notable exceptions (if any?) can be added in prose as appropriate. --N8 00:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we should keep the equipment losses somewhere on the page for 3 reasons:

• We don't have specific numbers for the individual battles list.
• The amount of equipment lost give a decent indicator of the scale of the fighting and forces committed. Something human casualties doesn't always translate.
• The volume, pace and technological level of those losses hasn't been matched by any other conflict since the Gulf War. And if we consider both sides losing a lot of equipment quickly, this is unprecedented since the end of the Korean War. P4p5 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that’s what is preferable. Giving a range is much more readable than what is there now, yet still encompasses all the sides presently reporting casualties. Also, at this point naming all non-human loses is superfluous information. --KD0710 (talk)

Ukraine lacks of a 'supported by' list in the 'Belligerents' section

NATO, Australia, Turkey, Japan, and South Corea have supplied military systems to Ukraine according to Wikipedia map: http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Countries_supplying_weapons_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg/1920px-Countries_supplying_weapons_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg.png

See Q2. KD0710 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. NATO, Australia, Japan and South Korea should be added in the Belligerents section under the heading support. These nations have not only supplied weapons to Ukraine but also sanctioned Russia. Sng Pal (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

See #Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ruwiki user arrested for editing the article in Russian

Today Belarusian political police GUBOPiK arrested user of Russian Wikipedia from Minsk who was working on the article about the invasion accusing him of the "spread of anti-Russian materials" [3] [4]. Should we mention this unprecedented case or is it necessary to wait for additional details? — Homoatrox (talk). 12:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Depends on whether "Mark Bernstein" is actually a Wiki editor, has been arrested, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.16.144 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No, why is this relevant to the war? Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is this relevant to the war??? Um, hmmmm, let me think... No, complete coincidence. Nothing to see here. EEng 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the war, as it has no impact on it, our understanding of it, or it's progress. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to give your imagination freer rein. If his arrest has anything to do with ruwiki's covereage of the war, then it's certainly relevant. EEng 06:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not say his arrest was not, I said I do not see why it is relevaslt to an article about the war (and not say its social impacts). Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it should. Super Ψ Dro 14:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we make separate article? For example, "List of persecuted Wikipedians" or something else? K8M8S8 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No. We do not need a new article for every minor news story. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems more closely related to topics like Russian–Ukrainian information war, Censorship in Belarus, etc. even perhaps Belarus–Russia relations. Interesting story but tangential to the topic of invasion. --N8 22:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@KUrban (WMF): This issue is already public - see above. Any public comments from WMF that could count as WP:RS? Boud (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe there is a comment on Wiki-l from the the WMF. KUrban (WMF) (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The Verge links to this account which says an indefinite global block was applied "До выяснения обстоятельств" ("until we know what's going on"). I assume it's to reduce the probability of him being tortured and made to edit under duress. Boud (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The sources link Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian)'s arrest with his editing of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine related Wikipedia pages, so it seems relevant. Boud (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Who made an article? WP:BLP1E exists for a reason. BSMRD (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Boud created it with total disregard for notability and BLP. And now we have to have a week long protracted discussion via AfD on what to do with it. FFS. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Known for over a decade as a major Wikipedia editor; international coverage from the US and Belarus; multiple independent sources. Boud (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. Furthermore WP:BLP1E: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. The three conditions being 1) single event (check), 2) otherwise a low profile individual (check), 3) the event is not significant (check,this routine in Belarussia and Russia). Being in the news for five minutes does not constitute notability. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

At least add it as a trivia knowledge. 2001:4BB8:2CC:5842:3DF5:D716:55F:5383 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Syria as Belligerent on Russian side

Russia is recruiting Syrian troops and sending them to Russia to fight the war. Also, the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has backed the Russian invasion. Then Syria should be added to the Belligerent list along with Belarus under the heading support. Can this edit be made? Citations: Putin approves foreign volunteers Russia recruiting Syrians Syria backs Putin's invasion Bashar al-Assad supports Russian invasion

Sng Pal (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't write the article in the infobox (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This is not mentioned in the body of the article. Please write the article first. Then the infobox can reflect and summarise the body of the article. This must also be a specific action by the state of Syria. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As the article says, "volunteers", these are not official Syrian troops. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Braindrain

Can someone include - in the economic impact section - the potential brain-drain the war & sanctions are causing for Russia? Some reliable sources about this topic: BBC [5], WSJ [6], FT [7] Bommbass (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please be more specific and change above to "no" Chidgk1 (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox belligerents

Shouldn't we add the countries that support Ukraine to the Infobox? Martianmister (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

See FAQ Q2. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

So, on this note, the RfC specifically suggests reopening it with a more narrowly focused question. Could we mock up a full example of what the infobox would look like with the "Supported By" field included (but not in the belligerents section, as consensus is against that), and then open a new RfC with that specific proposal? I feel like it's time to try again. Fieari (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The closer would assume that the infobox has the feature to support such a distinction. I don't believe it does. Furthermore, there is the consideration of the infobox size wrt WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox should be an at-a-glance summary and therefore not excessively long. One should note that mobile devices do not support drop-downs. The infobox is reported herein to already be about 8 screens long on a mobile device. That is already way too long without adding more intricate detail that would make it even longer. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Bigger....longer the info box is the more readers will not read the article statsMoxy- 02:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

time magazine article talking about hate towards Russians

https://time.com/6156582/ukraine-anti-russian-hate/ Persesus (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a scattering of these articles, and maybe the issue should be discussed somewhere, but I don't see the sources showing this is prevalent enough for it to be included in this article. It seems to be mostly localised phenomena. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We have the opposite view as well that could be mentioned.... that is... Sympathy for the Russian citizens... like our fellow Wikipedia editor that got arrested [8].Moxy- 05:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment, perhaps? What is the link about? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

About balance Wikipedia:Controversial articles.Moxy- 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

6 peace efforts (section

should be 1 (first — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.30.38 (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's one, but there are some peace talks that are continuations of others. But... I do believe that each talk should be listed separately. KD0710 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Western front"

Is it really accurate to describe the recent air and long-range missile attacks on Western Ukraine as a "Western front"? There's no one on the ground there and similar attacks began on the first day of the invasion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not a front yet. There were several cruise missiles attack from Russian ships in Black and Azov seas. But this is a notable escalation. I would suggest just to change the title to something like "Cruise missile attacks close to Lviv". My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Somebody has already changed the section heading to "Missile attacks in Western Ukraine". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. According to Ben Hodges, that attack was not so significant, and "the Russians are about ten days away from what is called the culminating point, when they just no longer have the ammunition nor the manpower to keep up their assault" [9].My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox asymmetry (reserves)

In the infobox Ukraine has reserves, Russia has not (it sould be 2,000,000) --Sinucep (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia’s reserves aren’t actively participating in the invasion, thus not included. Only active participants are included, including Russia’s military. KD0710 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, difference with Ukraine's reserves is that there was general mobilisation, whereas IIRC Putin said there would be no conscription or calling up of Russian reservists to fight in Ukraine. So the former are technically participants, or potential participants, in the military conflict, whereas the latter are not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

To tell the truth, Putin lies, as always. Conscripts were used in combat actions in Ukraine, some of them were killed, wounded or captured. And this information was confirmed by Russian Ministry of Defense on 10 March 2022.

In addition, some of Russian military units involved in combat actions manned by voluntary reservists (Russian military human reserve - part-time military service).

Moreover, on 18 February 2022, Putin signed the decree on call-up for military training among persons who are demobbed from active duty service but are not in voluntary reserve service; quantity of persons who are subject of this decree is classified; this mandatory "military training" can last for 2 months. On the use of this persons for combat actions, I have no information. K8M8S8 (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Denied

Is it forbidden to stand on the Russian side and take part of the wiki talk? --92.40.174.68 (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If verifiable information supports the Russian position, it should be included in the discussion. EngineeringEditor (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

NO, but we do expect reliable sources. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The article should mention NATO support for Ukraine in the infobox.

Due to NATO or NATO countries giving Ukraine many weapon donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.23.35 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Link_to_closed_and_archived_RfC:_Should_the_individual_arms_supplying_countries_be_added_to_the_infobox? Phiarc (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The invasion began on 2-22-2022

The date on your wiki page is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:7236:0:0:0:3 (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Putin authorized the invasion on the 22nd, but it did not begin until 2-24-22 ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to cite a newspaper article or other source that supports what you're saying. See the "References" at the bottom of the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.rt.com/russia/552015-italian-flights-ukraine-weapons-aid/ 164.82.46.5 (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please present a reliable source. RT is not reliable as a state-run outlet. See WP:RSP for more detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, that source doesn't say that the war began on 22 February... P1221 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I was going off of the dates given in the prelude section of the article ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox wrong on civilian deaths in Mariupol

The reference isn't specific, and 20,000 people haven't been killed; 20,000 have been evacuated. 73.188.85.234 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox reports "2,300–2,857 civilians killed", not 20,000... P1221 (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 (4)

Please replace the "Wenclass Square" ref in the section 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Outside Russia (after "In Prague, about 80,000 people protested in Wenceslas Square") with <ref>{{cite news |last=Muller |first=Robert |title=Czech PM recalls 1968 Soviet invasion at Prague anti-war protests |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-czech-protests-idAFL8N2V20Z3 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220301/https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-czech-protests-idAFL8N2V20Z3 |archive-date=1 March 2022 |website=[[Reuters]] |date=27 February 2022 |access-date=28 February 2022}}</ref>

The ref is not defined, but was defined as it can be seen at Special:Diff/1075828656#cite ref-Wenclass Square 578-1. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done P1221 (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor of Russian Wikipedia pages detained

"Prominent editor of Russian Wikipedia pages detained in Belarus," Yahoo.

"Authorities in Belarus have arrested and detained ... one of the top editors of Russian Wikipedia.... Bernstein was reportedly accused of violating the "fake news" law Russia passed in early March by editing the Wikipedia article about the invasion of Ukraine. Under the new law, anybody found guilty of what the country deems as false information about the Ukraine invasion — remember, the Kremlin calls it a "special military operation" — could be imprisoned for up to 15 years." --2603:7000:2143:8500:19EE:D8B5:8A85:4329 (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been tagged. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Foreign casualties

"Excluding the Russian soldiers, at least 23 people from eight countries besides Ukraine died because of the war" - This phrase needed to be updated. There are at least 25 people who died because of war (not 23) from ten countries (not eight)

Also, there are some sources about a belarusian volunteer fighting for Ukraine, Aliaksej Skoblia, who was killed in battle near Kyiv yesterday: https://twitter.com/franakviacorka/status/1503134196763668481 or https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1503151077897785350 Cristi767 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Equipment Losses should be listed as clearly as possible

Potentially a different section detailing what types of losses differentiating between ground, naval, and air equipment. Russia has been losing a significant amount of equipment to "farmers" since near the start of the invasion and should be mentioned since civilians capturing large amounts of tracked armor is highly unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:51C1:8325:A86C:B3F6 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 (4)

Change Zalensky to Zelenskyy 77.228.42.0 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Renat 21:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Causalities

The following collapsed discussion has been moved to #Dealing with casualties in infobox to centralise discussion. Please continue discussion there. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended content
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
What happened to the Ukraine report of 12,000 Russian causalities in the infobox? It was showing up a few days ago and now it’s not showing up. Looked through the edit history form the last four days and no where does it show when it has been changed, but I know for sure two days ago I saw the Ukrainian report of number of Russian causalities. BigRed606 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC) It was removed from the info box to reduce the size. It was agreed upon earlier today. Each side has the self reported casualties and a third party which is the US at this time. KD0710 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) The infobox has been moved to its own separate template Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox which given the frenetic editing of the article is probably for the best. You can re-add the estimates there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC) As KD0710 said, after a discussion today it was agreed so to cut back on the size of the infobox, we only leave self-reported fatalities or numbers claimed by a third-party source. All Ukrainian claims of Russian losses and vice-versa are talked about in the main body of the article in the casualties section (where you can update the figures), and we left a link in the infobox to that section so readers can see the other claimed casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Why not report WP:reliable sources’ estimates instead of self-reported? Russian casualties are estimated to be 5,000–6,000 by independent experts. The Russian state report is inaccurate and outdated. —Michael Z. 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC) At the moment its been agreed we include both (self-reported and 3rd party RS) in the infobox. If we remove Russian self-reported figures we would need to remove the Ukrainian as well. Agree Russian figure is highly outdated but its the only thing we have at the moment. Hoping they give an updated figure soon. It took the Ukrainians more than two weeks to give an update. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC) @KD0710, @EkoGraf, Was there also an earlier discussion about this? If the only agreement so far is from today's discussion (#Infobox too big) I think it's fair to say that discussion is still open for additional comments (partly because I added one). --N8 02:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) @KD0710, @N8wilson There was a discussion and consensus to that effect back in 2014 when the War in Donbass started, when it was agreed upon to include in that conflict's infobox and the casualties article's table only self-reported and 3rd party figures, while moving belligerent claims of enemies dead to the casualties section text due to potential propaganda inflation and unreliability. So I think that represents a nice model on which we can build upon in this article as well. I also saw your comments in the above discussion and you can take my reply here to be the same there as well. In essence I agree Russian and Ukrainian self-admitted casualty figures also run the possibility of being de-flated and their inclusion in the infobox should be up for debate, although I am not entirely sure... undecided. EkoGraf (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 (2)

The number of fatalities listed for "UAF, NGU, and volunteer forces" is listed as between "5,000 - 6,000" however the source cited (291) specifically says that the fatalities for this group are between "2,000 - 4,000." The number currently quoted is for the Russian Armed Forces, not Ukrainian. It was misquoted from this article. 104.243.50.43 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Somebody already updated the value as requested. Thank you for pointing this out. P1221 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Equipment

Please change it back to the estimated losses for each piece kf equipment, i.e. 80 helicopters 350 tanks etc. It's much less informative to just say 2700 pieces of equipment 67.60.116.128 (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary of an article which is also a summary. The source gives details. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, you can also refer to the body of the article. If the breakdowns aren't in the body then someone could add them there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Compare Russian TOC to English TOC on Inter-Wiki

Is there anything useful is comparing the differences between the approaches taken by the Russian version of this same article? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

TOC (paraphrase of the Russian main section titles only)

1. Terminology: "Special military operation"

2. Pre-history

3. The speech of the Russian president

4. Relative size of strength for invasion (3 subsections)

5. Military actions (2 subsections)

6. Nonviolent Ukrainian opposition

7. Negotiations

8. Casualties and other losses (3 subsections)

9. Accusations of war crimes

10. Situation in Ukraine (3 subsections)

11. Actions of Ukrainian leadership (4 subsections)

12. Actions of Russian leadership (5 subsections)

13. Foreign military aid

14. Effects on Russian infra-structure (4 subsections)

15. Reaction within Russia (4 subsections)

16. Reactions in general and globally (6 subsections)

17. Effect on Global Markets

The 2 article versions are roughly the same size at about 350Kb, though the TOC outlines look different. Can the current English version be enhanced in any way? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

NO as they have different rules (and I suspect now are subject to different laws). Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

NPOV in the lead section? Putin "falsely" accused Ukraine of being dominated by Nazis

In the highly visible lead section one used to read: "The president of Russia, Vladimir Putin ... accused Ukraine of being dominated by Neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority". @Hemiauchenia added "falsely" and explained: "The allegation is false, which should be expressed in Wikivoice". I reverted and gave my reason: "I agree, the allegation is false, but here we don't take a stance, do we? WP:NPOV". But Hemiauchenia thinks differently and reverted, and here we are. Any views on this? Should we take a stance in the lead section, "Putin is lying", or should we rather stick to WP:IMPARTIAL and prefer nonjudgmental language? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If believe the Nazi claim is adequately refuted in the “Russian accusations and demands” subsection. Plus the same sentence in the lead also includes Putin’s claims about Ukraine's statehood, which again is dealt with in the subsection. So I think WP:IMPARTIAL means we need to leave as is. Otherwise we would also need to say something about Ukraine’s statehood. Ilenart626 (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian government’s association with far right parties and neo-Nazi groups as the Azov Battalion must be concidered here hence they are serving as National Guard of Ukraine. They took recruits from many other countries, Sweden included with a famous member Mikael Skillt portraited in BBC NEWS 16'th of July 2014 and in other media from Sweden. Ukraine has monuments of Ukrainian nationalists that was collaborating with the Nazis from the WWII, one was Stepan Bandera, leader of (OUN) and mentioned by the Forward newspaper. “Ukraine has several dozen monuments and scores of street names glorifying this Nazi collaborator, enough to require two separate Wikipedia pages,” wrote this Jewish newspaper. Memebers of (OUN) served as local Ukrainian militia for the SS and German army. So, Ukraine has a history from being nationalist, far right and Nazi until this day with the Svoboda party, recently with members in Ukraine's Parliament. --92.40.174.68 (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As in this context the characterization used by Russia is that Ukraine's government is dominated or controlled by Nazis, citing the Svoboda party, with its 1 single seat out of 450 in the parliament, and which AFAIK no RS says has ever described as even close to being representative of the whole the country or the government, seems like it would have issues with WP:DUE.

Shall we also mention all the statues in Russia of people who had a hand in the Holodomor? That, at least, would give direct historical context to the relationship between the two states and the present invasion. Intralexical (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that the “Russian accusations and demands” subsection already contains the details below. Also in most recent Ukrainian parliamentary elections in 2019, a coalition of ultranationalist right-wing parties failed to win even a single seat in the Rada, so overall the Ukraine government cannot be called pro Nazi Ilenart626 (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

While Ukraine has a far-right fringe, including the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and Right Sector, analysts have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence of far-right groups within Ukraine; there is no widespread support for the ideology in the government, military, or electorate. Ilenart626 (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

See no reason why this article should be a battleground for a Russian propaganda slur. Azov has its own article, they are even neo-nazi in a meaningful sense (especially relating to the war) and the overall far-right inclusion among the total armed forces / volunteers involved is trivial. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 04:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried to give as neutral info I could with somewhat reliable sources as background. Even the neutral BBC seams to support the Ukrainians in their broadcastings, I can't see anything else. Almost all neutral media that are said to be so take the Ukrainian stand and show full spite for Putin. They are trying to keep to the facts, but inbetween there's allways colors of support for Ukraine, EU, NATO etc. Western values and interests are the main dominating influence in media and within NATO. --92.40.174.68 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If I were a pro-Russian reader, I would stop reading the article after a few lines – that "falsely accused" would make it clear to me that this is a piece of Western propaganda. If we want the reader to be informed about Russia's case for war (which doesn't mean embrace it) we should convey their reasons in a meaningful way instead of mocking and trivialising them. Obviously the current Ukrainian government is not a fascist dictatorship. According to Time magazine, when Putin said "demilitarize and denazify", what he meant is that there are extreme right-wing elements in Ukraine that can conceivably be described as neo-Nazi.The sources we are currently relying upon in the article (NBC and ABC) don't support the statement that Putin accused "Ukraine of being dominated by Neo-Nazis" and "Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism". Either we find a verbatim source, or that statement is a trivial misrepresentation. Apparently Putin said "Ukrainian society was faced with the rise of far-right nationalism, which rapidly developed into aggressive Russophobia and neo-Nazism" and mentioned "Neanderthal and aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism which have been elevated in Ukraine to the rank of national policy"; he said "we are fighting neo-Nazis" and said "the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine". This is clearly war rhetoric and it is not simply "false": what he is selling to the Russian people is that one of the goals of the invasion is to fight neo-Nazism, the de-nazification of Ukraine, and in my opinion that's what our article should say, instead of labelling as "false" some supposedly factual statement by Putin on the nature of the Ukrainian government. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of far-right movements in Russia: Russian Imperial Movement, Russian National Unity, Duginism, Eurasianism, Pamyat, proponents of Great Russia, etc. There are plenty in democratic countries too. The question is: is the country as a whole is dominated or ruled by "neo-Nazi"? In Ukraine, the answer is unequivocal no. As a side note, today's Russia pretty much matching most of the definitions of fascism and, at this point, could be legitimately called a fascist country. However, that is a whole separate topic. Mindaur (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If a country is being invaded by a supposedly "far more" powerful enemy, being picky abouy who is allowed to help you isn't gonna help much. Sure, the Azov's are nazis and disgusting but Ukraine needs all the help they can get. Ocemccool (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

In context "falsely" is clearly a loaded, emotive term, that should be removed. The reader can make up their own mind on the truth or falsity of the accusation based on evidence already presented in the article HieronymousCrowley (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

How is a statement of sheer FACT a "loaded, emotive term"? It is practically insane to suggest so. Impartially doesn't mean sacrificing fact and accuracy just to make someone's criminal junk sound less criminal so they don't throw a tantrum. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

One battalion and 4% of the vote a nazi dominated nation does not make, the claims has been shown to be false. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that Putin's accusation should be seen as a fringe theory considering the number of strong arguments against his point of view (for those who are not convinced by the provided links: 300 scholars wrote an open letter flatly denying this accusation), so the use of the word "false" seems relevant. — Homoatrox (talk). 12:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous WP:RSes stating and explaining that it's a completely baseless statement. Wikipedia is supposed to provide a summary in the lead based on them. Otherwise, it's not only WP:FRINGE; it would be echoing a blatant propaganda. Mindaur (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Some more sources [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]]. These either say the claim they are rin by NAzis, or that this is about "de-naszification" are false. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

These are mostly editorials which report legitimate convincing but subjective views of various people and associations. I think that the use of "false" undermines the whole article, which should rather strive to deliver a neutral and objective point of view. By speaking of neo-nazism and denazification, clearly Putin is not making a descriptive statement which could be either true or false; he is stirring up emotions and indicating a policy objective - he is delivering "propaganda", if you want - which is what any head of state would do in order to justify a war. Either we take a stance on the war and claim that he is lying, as some propose, or we keep our NPOV and provide reliable information on the debates surrounding the war (Slatersteven's sources could be used to that end). --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Moslty does not mean Soley, so yes RS has said this, so unless this is disputed by RS there is no dispute. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Shall we have another, yes let's [[14]], want any more? Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Gitz6666: Responding to the points you make in the above discussion, there's a difference between telling readers what to think (bad) and reporting facts (good). If there was genuine disagreement among reliable sources over the validity of Putin's claim, then "false" would be inappropriate. For comparison, see COVID-19 lab leak theory, where's there's disagreement among scholars. In this case, there isn't disagreement. There are no sources that I'm aware of which describe Putin's neo-Nazi claim as accurate or truthful; it's universally described as false, grossly misleading and factually incorrect. If you know of sources which directly say otherwise, please link them. As such sources don't appear to exist, and there's an avalanche of sourcing saying Putin's claim is lie, we have a duty to convey this to readers per our policy on neutrality, which says "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." Our article body provides additional sourcing and a full explanation of why the claim is universally considered false – our lead only summarises what is said in the article, and our guidelines give us greater latitude to make assertions about prevailing knowledge/thought in the lead compared to the article body, without needing qualification. If this puts off a pro-Russian reader, that's unfortunate, but Wikipedia is not censored: the consideration for the reader is accessibility, we should not seek to persuade readers by gently tiptoeing around their worldview/ignorance, especially if this compromises a factual summary. Jr8825 • Talk 13:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Always a good time to plug Larry Sanger's essay[15] on this debate. — Czello 13:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have little sympathy for Larry's views on Wikipedia's anti-conservative conspiracy, but I doubt even he would argue that we should qualify – or avoid "debunking" – Putin's baseless, fascistic talking point regarding Ukraine being a neo-Nazi state. This is an area where the entire spectrum of factual, academic thought (including both US liberals & conservatives) appears to be in agreement. (Unlike, for example, the validity of Putin's concerns about NATO, where there appears to be genuine disagreement.) Jr8825 • Talk 18:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"falsely" is a fact established by reliable sources. It is not a point of view. So it does not violate NPOV. To omit it from the lead just to have a pro Russian read our article would be clickbait. Tradedia^talk 01:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What is clickbait is the use of the term "falsely". To native English speakers the word "claimed" already implies "falsely", so the use of both words together is a tautology. Of COURSE the claim itself is false, everybody knows that. There is no need to spell it out HieronymousCrowley (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, scrub my last remarks, I still think that there is no need to over-egg the pudding with the term "falsely", but I also see that the actual text says "falsely accused" not "falsely claimed", so... mea culpa HieronymousCrowley (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I find this idea of being "pro-Russian" problematic. I am pro-Russia, one of my favourite authors is Lermontov; I've gone through all the works of Leskov, Bulgakov, Bely, Dostoyevsky, Gogol etc. I listen to Russian music, so by any reasonable metric I like Russia. That said I of course support Ukraine, and have donated money to Ukraine, because I'm not brain dead. There's this temptation to treat the entire thing as if it were a 2D US Political spectrum but it is not. There is the truth and there is kremlin propaganda. Kremlin propaganda and lies need to be documented as such, and when Reliable Sources state that Putin has lied it needs to be stated. It seems to me WP:NPOV in the extreme to put kiddy gloves on when treating lies that are being used to bomb Ukraine because of a desire not to offend the viewers of Russian Times and Sputnik. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Did those reliable sources establish anything else? Maybe that Putin is a bad guy? If it's backed by reliable sources like CNN and White house, we are not in position to oppose such statements on wikipedia 195.136.76.5 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me briefly restate my point, which is twofold. 1) We are not reporting Putin's statement in an entirely accurate way. In his 24 February address on Ukraine he didn't say that "Ukraine [is] dominated by neo-Nazis", as one reads in the article, but rather said that "the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine", "we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine", and "Your fathers, grandfathers ... did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine". These statements have a (quite flimsy IMHO) empirical basis as there are indeed fascists on the ground in Ukraine. 2) These are not statement of fact, which could be either true or false, but rather declarations of intent, policy objectives and expressive statements, aimed at stirring up aggressive sentiments. To label them as "false" is to misunderstand them. Which is what in a time of war everybody does: "you are fascists and we are going to wipe you out!", "You liar!", this is the kind of "conversation" we are trying to assess in terms of true/false. Now, @Jr8825and @Slatersteven asked me for a reliable source, and I have found one - it's Vox, a perennial source. "Russia’s president says he wants the “de-Nazification” of Ukraine. That actually means regime change"; "with this seemingly absurd rhetoric, Putin is laying the propaganda groundwork for the overthrow of Ukraine’s government." My point exactly. True/false don't apply here, unless we just want to take a stance ("You liar!"), which I think is what many would like us to do. Putin is stating that Russia's objective are not only strategic and preventive (national defence) but also political (regime change). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 (3)

The lede of the article states that Putin has "falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by Neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority," citing an NBC fact-checking article.[16] However, another NBC article published 9 days later appears to directly contradict that.[17] The phrasing in the lede is weasel-y (the word "domination" is vague and implies many things) and unhelpful, so could we either qualify Putin's false claims ("falsely accused the Ukrainian government of being dominated...") or remove the word falsely altogether? The word "accused" already makes it clear that this is Putin's own claim and not a fact. 2601:196:4900:15CD:54AE:72E9:E528:F116 (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

See talk above about this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

mercenaries

The following discussion 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.

---

kadyrovite and wagner troops should be listed and linked on the russian side 216.193.170.144 (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

They are Russian citizens and therefore covered by Russia being listed. E.g. the Afghanistan or Iraq wars don't list every subcontracted PMC, either. Phiarc (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 11:49, 16 March 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.

pics

where to find fotos after the antonov factory in kyiv destroyed ? --92.218.124.118 (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's unclear what changes you want made to this article. This talk page isn't for discussion about the event or subject, and such comments may be deleted per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. And, as seeing as you don't have extended confirmation, which requires at least 500 edits and a 30 day-old account, it seems like for the time being you can't edit this article. You are, of course, welcome to create an account. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 14:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Do not like the edit summary, because is totally unnecessary. and here is a subject many people is reading about to direction the help for a link --92.218.124.118 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to CAREFULLY think about what you are told, as you are courting a topic-ban if you continue.50.111.16.144 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All they've asked for is a link to some photos of a factory. Who issues TBANs for that? IP (.118), you can check Wikimedia Commons if they have the images you are interested in. Otherwise, Wikipedia doesn't have any and you'll have to search elsewhere. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It might be seen as a violation of wp:forum, but I am unsure other English is quite good enough to not think they might have just badly worded something. As to IP 50, yo do not seem to have a lot of edits under your belt, so it might be best if you refrain from issuing warnings. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

First lines - checking the wording

With over three million Ukrainians fleeing the country, the invasion has also caused the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II. Better replacing it with ... in Europe since then. so as not to repeat the same words from the previous sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.41.129.19 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I read this last night and felt the same way. I’ve edited it as suggested. Thanks for your contribution. KD0710 (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022

The infobox says "2,741 vehicles and other military equipment".

The source does not say that. So… IMO that's WP:SYNTH/WP:OR.

I think it should be changed back to reporting each category of equipment separately, as the source does.

That would also make it consistent with how the figures according to Russia are presented.

There is no need to condense so much. The section has a "Show"/"Hide" toggle anyway.

The source does not claim to exhaustively list every category of "military equipment". Using the categories that it does report as a total is therefore unsubstantiated.

And "vehicles and other military equipment" is such a broad category that it's virtually meaningless… That could refer to anything from a parking lot full of bicycles to thousands of aircraft carriers with hundreds of thousands of stealth aircraft. Intralexical (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is intended to be a summary, not a detailed list. More detail could be provided elsewhere. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Melmann 07:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

NATO, EU, Australia, Turkey, Japan, and South Corea not included in the top-right section of Belligerents - Ukraine - Supported by

All of them have supplied military systems to Ukraine according to Wikipedia map: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Countries_supplying_military_equipment_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg [Unsigned 00:20, 16 March 2022 ExoQuest (talk | contribs)]

See:#Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

wikipedia please stopped spread Russia propaganda

Wikipeda you dont try to be neutral but you go with humanity. You must side with Ukraine. Because if you neutral by accidently you spread Russia propaganda. You spread Russia lies by writed Russia destroyed more than 3700 Ukraine wachine and Ukraine only destroyed 2700 Russia war machine. Ukraine didnt have the number of aircraft, drones, tanks etc in pre war inventory that Russia claimed destroyed. Ukraine didnt have 160 combat aircrafts, 100 drones, more than 1000 tanks/armoured vehicle. Ukraine only in defensive position and they dont have ability to using war machine in large number. Instead the number Ukraine claimed destroyed from Russia war machine mostly were true. Russia did have a large quantity of war machine in pre war inventory. Russia in attacking position so they always used a large number of war machine. Wikipedia you accidently created article that described Russia as the winner. You support Russia aggresion and the act of killing innocent peoples. So please include Orxyspioenkop analyse for war machine casuaties in this article. It include list and complete with picture. Russia loses more than 1300 war machine (600 tanks/armored, 400 jeep/trucks, 30 aircraft) and Ukraine loses only 300 war machine (200 tanks/armored, 70 jeep/trucks, 10 aircraft). Please stop support killing civilian in Ukraine. 103.47.135.149 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is not supporting either side, and attempts to give as neutral view of the situation. It does not support killing civilians in Ukraine, or anywhere for that matter.--- EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We do not, we take a neutral stance and give both sides version. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf what do you think about this? How about only citing independent loss estimates in the infobox and relegating the numbers reported by either conflict party to the casualties article and its transclusion? The data from Oryx is probably not WP:RS (being essentially a personal blog or self-published), though it is the largest publicly available list of claimed losses with some sourcing I know of. Phiarc (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that articles citing Oryx would be ideal, at least for counting losses of Russian vehicles. I'm pretty sure that this was already discussed somewhere else on this talk page--- EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify- I think that news articles that use Oryx's data would work well as Wikipedia citations ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, isn't that just "RS-laundering"? (Assuming Oryx is not citable, why would the same information repeated by e.g. the NYT become citable? - Russian or Ukrainian numbers don't become reliable by being repeated by a media outlet, either.) Phiarc (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of this article. It cites different sources for casualty figures, as well as some vehicle loss claims. It cites Oryx's numbers without taking them as gospel, using them alongside other estimates. ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phiarc In regards to casualty figures, I was always for including self-admitted or 3rd party cited figures, while delegating the belligerents' claims of their enemies losses from the infobox to the main body of the article due to the high possibility of propaganda inflation. This is due to considering that self-admitted casualty figures present a kind of confirmed minimum of casualties. However, if Russia does not give an update of its losses anytime soon, we might as well include in the infobox only figures cited to a 3rd party, since it seems the US gives an estimate for both sides every week or so, while leaving a link to the other estimates in the casualties section. Lets see in a few days how things develop. As for figures on vehicle losses, this in my opinion should definitely be cited only to a 3rd party source in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand the issue with using Oryx, if it's good enough for the Economist for instance, why not us? We can also cite it in the article with a superscript ie: according to Oryx. I agree with OP as well about the current lay out. Most sources I see show far greater equipment losses for the Russians than for the Ukrainians but the lede at the moment gives the impression that the Ukrainians have taken more equipment losses, which is misleading. I understand that people can scroll down, but the lede is supposed to show a condensed version of data and as it currently stands that condensed data is inaccurate according to most sources. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying Oryx is a bad source (I'm of the opposite opinion). What I'm saying is that if I (or someone else) were to add Oryx I'd assume it would be reverted due to WP:RSSELF. So I'd want to establish some form of consensus that Oryx is RS before adding it, or finding a "non-RS-laundered" source like EngineeringEditor did. I think that article could just be cited as is, but I'm refraining from content edits in this area for now because I am way out of my depth here (I usually fix missing spaces after commas and stuff like that). Phiarc (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm way out of my depth too, but the short discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_322#Oryx_blog makes some interesting points which might be of use to other editors. Storchy (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As stated below, even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the russian army or ukrainian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is russian or ukrainian. there is too much similar equipment on both sides. If it is equipment used the same in both armies, it is not possible to be sure unless some serial number or conclusive identification is shown (no, an external drawing of a letter Z, V, whatever, is not a conclusive identification, anyone can paint it on a disabled/destroyed ukrainian vehicle, or similarly yellow stripes on a russian tank to pass for Ukrainian). There is equipment that the Russian army has "lost" and destroyed/disabled ukrainian equipment that it recovers in its advance, and also what it is taking out (vehicles/weapons/munition) of the Ukrainian military bases that it has occupied, and this is equipment that cannot be confirmed in quantity or type. even that is what the site says (the commenters even find duplicate images). and this is similar with all other numbers and estimates 152.207.223.188 (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the part that this article completely paints Russia as winning the conflict because it completely fails to draw attention to first hand evidence of extreme Russian losses and gives undue prominence to figures that have no such evidence or are outright Russian state lies. This article simply fails to give an accurate sense of the war thus far to the casual reader if not most readers and thus is failing as an article. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually no. Every equipment had series number, unit number and even nation flag. It could also be traced by its location. If its in location that previously being held by Ukraine so the equipments belong to Ukraine and so the otherwise. Also Ukraine didnt have Aircraft Sukhoi 30, Sukhoi 34, Helicopter Ka 57 or Mil 24, T-90 tanks, SAM units Buk, Pantsir etc. It easily to recognized. It think Orxyspioenkop its a research for war machine casualties that closer the truth than just state propaganda. Because it include the picture of the war machine itself. For example Russia claimed destroyed more than 100 Ukraine MLRS. The fact is Ukraine dont even have 100 MLRS in the first place. Even US only had 50 MLRS. Ukraine wouldnt use large quantity of MLRS because it can kill their own civilian. They not that stupid. Russia in other had hunderds of MLRS. And had experienced to used it in large quantity (Katyusha in WW II). Because they didnt care about civilian. Ukraine claimed destroyed 60 Russian MLRS. According to Oryxspioenkop there was 30 picture of Russian MLRS being destroyed or captured by Ukraine but only 2 Ukraine MLRS picture being destroyed or captured by Russian. Mostly Ukraine claimed destroyed Russian war equipment 30-50 percent had picture in Oryxspioenkop. But from Russian claimed destroyed Ukraine war equipment only had 10-20 percent of picture in Oryxspioenkop. Russian claimed had destroyed more than 1200 Ukraine tanks and armored vehicle but only had picture less than 200 in Orxyspioenkop. Ukraine claimed had destroyed more than 1800 Russian tanks and armored vehicles it did had more than 600 picture of Russian tanks/armored in Orxyspioenkop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.47.135.149 (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine does have (or should we say, had?) Mi-24 helicopters and Buk systems (original models, maybe a few upgraded to M1). hell, even a ukrainian Buk missile from the kyiv air defense hit a city building (it can be recognized in the video of the event), perhaps because of its old or defective systems or being without maintenance. MLSR, according to wikipedia, as of 2016 Ukraine had about 185 BM-21 and 70 BM-27. Of course, the question is how many were in existence (active and reserve) at the beginning of hostilities. and of course there are fewer images of the Ukrainian losses, either destroyed or captured, much remains later in areas controlled by the Russian army, and of what they capture they do not put photos on social networks (although I have seen at least one video of as in an occupied Ukrainian military base, they load and take all the equipment, weapons and ammunition that was there, and you will not see photos or inventory accounting of this, but rest assured that they add up). in addition, what they recover later and that is not destroyed (a lot of equipment is seen abandoned or just disabled). For this reason, only irrecoverable losses, say destroyed equipment, can be safely counted as real losses, for either side. That is why the numbers are variable in time, sometimes they subtract and sometimes they add up, but the real is not known, perhaps only at the end, after all, it is said by both parties, or some research in this regard. meanwhile, all numbers are estimated, manipulated or pure disinformation. therefore, even with the biases they have, the numbers estimated by the US are the most "balanced" 152.207.223.82 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes but most of them non operational from Soviet era. By the time war begins not more than 100 Ukraine MLRS still operational. But if you take a look at Oryxspioenkop you will know that most of Russian claimed were bogus and totally lied. Only 300 pictures of Ukraine war machine loses vs Russian claimed Ukraine loses close to 4 thousands war machines thats not even 10 percent. Instead there were more than 1200 pictures of Russian war machine loses vs Ukraine claimed 2700 Russian war machine loses. Thats nearly 50 percent. I think the real reason wiki dont want to using Oryxspioenkop because its clearly showing Russian losing the war. I curious how many Russian supporters in here. You are supporting killing peoples. If you hate Ukraine because you hate US, Western, NATO or even Jewish just remember it was Ukraine peoples they killed not US or other western countries. If you Russian really have a guts they should pick countries with theyre own sized. Why also Wiki didnt showed 3 Russia generals killed in Ukraine? I bet if its Ukraine general were killed they will show it in infobox. Please stop ideology of facism and stay with humanity. It was Russian killed Ukraine childrens not the otherwise. Dont support a country just because you like theyre ideology but look at humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.47.135.149 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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:

• Destruction of Russian tanks by Ukrainian troops in Mariupol (4).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The removed Russians Casualties per UA MoD were the most accurate ones based on actual Evidence

The following collapsed discussion has been moved to #Dealing with casualties in infobox to centralise discussion. Please continue discussion there. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended content
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
All the casualty figures are wrong and the one that we have the best evidence for being most accurate for Russian losses are the Ukrainian MoD ones that were removed. Per https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html and the safe assumption we don't have a photo of every destroyed Russian piece of equipment in Ukraine, maybe 1 of every 2 at best, that means Ukrainian MoD's claims for Russian vehicles destroyed is reasonably accurate as corroborated by photo evidence. Thus their projected Russian deaths or casualties, well over 13,000 by now, is very credible and one to believe is most accurate on first hand evidence. All the other figures have no evidence to support them by comparison. Furthermore, almost all Ukrainian MoD claims in other regards have been proven correct at least 80% of the time if not a healthy bit more. Russian claims are obviously bogus and citing anything from Russian state sources these days has to be a farce. That isn't even bias; it is just blatant fact. And the US claims are based on who knows what; but certainly not a first hand perspective and thus an inferior source to cite. This article stands as a farce while it literally ignores the reported casualty figures that clearly have the most weight of evidence behind them. That the most accurate Ukrainian MoD figures aren't anywhere even on the page that I can see is doubly dubious. Ignoring figures backed by vast photo evidence to paste blatant state Russian lies. A Farce of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.72.97 (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC) The figures haven't been removed, they are in the article's casualties section, as per talk page discussions, so to cut down on the infobox size. At the moment, self-admitted fatality figures and figures provided by 3rd party sources (like the US) are presented in the infobox. As for citing Russian claims, if we are already citing one belligerent's claims (Ukraine) we are obligated to do the same for the other side as well as per Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and presenting all sides POV. EkoGraf (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the Russian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is Russian. If it is equipment used in both armies equally, it is not possible to be sure unless some serial number or conclusive identification is shown (no, an external drawing of a letter Z, V, whatever, is not a conclusive identification, anyone can paint it on a disabled/destroyed ukrainian vehicle, or similarly yellow stripes on a russian tank to pass for Ukrainian). There is equipment that the Russian army has "lost" that it recovers in its advance, the destroyed/disabled ukrainian equipment, and also what it is taking out of the Ukrainian military bases that it has occupied, and this is equipment that cannot be confirmed in quantity or type. 152.207.223.188 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC) There is a discussion regarding the equipment losses up above that you can join. EkoGraf (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC) "Even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the Russian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is Russian." So much wrong with this comment. For one, the equipment they use is not that similar as they have been making modifications and changes independently for 32 years now. Ukraine has its own variants and paint scheme that makes its tanks and other vehicles, even when destroyed, readily identifiable and differentiable from the Russian ones. Russia also has a much larger variety of vehicles than Ukraine and generally much newer ones Ukraine does not have acces to. Tanks for example Ukraine's most numerous tank is the T-64, while Russia does not even operate the T-64 anymore really, and the only model they really share in numbers is the T-72 but after 32 years of independent modernization and modification are different variants that can be differentiated. Also, even when destroyed the paint is often left somewhere, which usually can identify who it belongs to. If not that, the Russian dead bodies, scattered Russians MREs, or big Z, O, and V letters are a good hint. Also who is posting the picture or video; a lot of it is visibly from Ukranian fighters when you trace them to their twitter origin. Finally, the simple fact is Russia has a lot more combat and other vehicles and is on the offensive, while Ukraine has comparatively few and is mostly defending. The ones moving around in large convoys of armored combat vehicles is vastly and disproportionally the Russians. Again, the Ukrainian MoD track record of mostly verifiable accurate claims to date through the war bolsters their credibility as a point of fact. There is simply no grounds to doubt Oryx's count/index of destroyed Russian vehicles in Ukraine. Again, it would be crazy to think we had a photo on the internet of every destroyed Russian vehicle in the war. At the very best 1 photo for every 1.5 vehicles, and even that would be rather unlikely as somewhere closer to 2 is more likely with a potential of even 3 vehicles for every 1 photo we have. And a ratio of about 2 vehicles to 1 photo would mean that Ukrainians MoD claims for Russian vehicles destroyed is more or less right on the money per Oryx's visual index. And again by extension this, and the Ukranian MoD generally good track record for accuracy thus far, means their claims of 13,000+ Russian dead/casualties, whichever it was, is extremely credible. And that fact should be reflect better in this article. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC) I see no valid reason for the Ukrainian-sourced casualties to be censored from the article. Its mentioned above that they are in the casualty section, but I just checked and if it is, it's hidden. I can understand not cluttering the infobox with every vehicle claimed, but the total KIA should be included, especially if Russia's #s are. As it stands at the time of writing this, they are claiming around 12k and upper bound from US officials is 8k. It's relevant. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 04:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Its in the very first paragraph of the section, bellow the table, and the latest claim of 13,500 losses is stated. EkoGraf (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC) The info box should have both the Russian and Ukrainian estimates, not the US ones. After all it's just Russia and Ukraine doing the fighting. Burying the Ukrainian estimate in the body of the text whilst showing an outdated US estimate just hides it from a casual reader of this article. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 09:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC) "Its in the very first paragraph of the section, bellow the table, and the latest claim of 13,500 losses is stated" So it is stated somewhere almost no one would ever look; I literally had to alt-F '13,500' to find it. Not not in the info box where it should be even though it is the best figure given by any source actually supported by an index of photo evidence. As the most credible number it belongs in the info box. If not that in the table in the casualties section. Not buried in a paragraph 3 pages down the article squished between two tables neither of which it is on. This article simply paints a false view of the actual numbers by refusing to readily provide the accurate numbers while unduly giving prominence to the most bogus ridiculous numbers being given by Russia. By all means, report the Russian given figures somewhere, while making them clear to be Russian state figures, but the info box and article overall should not compromise accuracy for unreasonable neutrality. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Mmm... yes. If I were looking for information on casualties, I'd never think to check the section entitled 'Casualties'. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC) I don't have to go digging into paragraphs in the casualties section to get the actual most accurate and real casualty figures for any war wiki article EXCEPT this one. Every other such article you can use the info box for the best figures. Not here apparently. Indeed, in other war wiki articles you would read the casualties section if you wanted more info on the best figures that are given in the info box in addition to other figures that are generally less accepted. Here it is backwards, you get the worse figures in the info box while you have to go on reading 3 pages down between 2 tables to realize the actual most accurate figures are placed in some obscure spot the majority of people will not see it when they casually scroll the article. Even looking for it I didn't see it since it wasn't in the Info Box or Tables. And I was not the only one as other people have said themselves. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Comment There is a more central discussion regarding the size of the infobox at #Infobox too big and on the particulars of reporting casualties at #Dealing with casualties in infobox. It is unlikely that consensus will be achieved while there are multiple parallel discussions. I would suggest that it would be more productive to comment at the above discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Listing killed commanders?

The following discussion 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.

---

Other wiki pages present the list of commanders that have been killed during conflicts. Although some are missing confirmation by the losing side yet, I think it's worth it to start documenting those casualties.

• Maj. Gen. Andrei Sukhovetsky, Deputy commander of the 41st Combined Arms Army: Associated Press claims having Russian official on record
• Maj. Gen. Vitaly Gerasimov, Chief of staff, 41st Combined Arms Army: Ukraine News, The Guardian, citing Ukraine's intelligence agency
• Maj. Gen. Andrei Kolesnikov, 29th Combined Arms Army: Official Ukrainian report

P4p5 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree, they are sourceable as senior commanders. Wikilinked them: Andrey Sukhovetsky, Vitaly Gerasimov, Andrei Kolesnikov (general). We should also add current commanders for both Russia and Ukraine; who are they? Bommbass (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. They are important commanders in charge of large forces having significant outcomes on the battlefield. They can be just mentioned in the infobox. Sng Pal (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t believe they should be included on this page. Include them in the campaign in which they were killed. Those commanders’ deaths have relatively little impact in the overall invasion and this page is already too long. KD0710 (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

They should just be mentioned in the infobox. That doesn't really make the article much longer. Bommbass (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It does on mobile. Last I checked the infobox was eight screenfulls to scroll by on my phone. Phiarc (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

They were killed in this campaign, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. `°° P4p5 (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Death of gen. Vitaly Gerasimov is reported to have stalled the Kharkiv offensive, described as the deadliest battle of the invasion. When army chiefs are deployed so near within the hot spots, I would argue that’s because they’re a crucial factor of the army’s effectiveness and therefore also deserve attention in this article. Eplerud (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I totally disagree about adding them to the infobox. That is an overall summary and some mid-senior generals wouldn’t really be appropriate. KD0710 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Are they really only as unimportant as you say though? Seen the major coverage on their deaths, and the wording used in trustworthy news media ("top general", "major blow", etc.), they seem senior commanders? Bommbass (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The United States has lost 1 general in combat since the end of WW2. A general dying in combat, even a 1-star general, is a big deal. That's one of the reasons why it is listed in many other similar articles: Iraq War , Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Iran–PJAK conflict, Houthi insurgency in Yemen, Operation Astute, Mexican drug war, Somali Civil War (2009–present) (that's not an exhaustive list). Some of them include commanders that aren't top level at all. And to put things in perspective, is a "mid-senior" general commanding 10,000 troops less relevant than some warlord commanding a few thousand men at best. I'm not saying we should list them all, but those killed in combat is quite a bit more important than most of the information on the page.

P4p5 (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

the main page of World War II does not detail any Generals killed. Likewise this page should not list any either, it is already too long. They should be detailed in the relevant battle articles Ilenart626 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Not the main page no, but pages about months-long campaigns do: Eastern Front (World War II), Western Front (World War II), Philippines campaign (1944–1945), North African campaign, World War II in Yugoslavia, Anglo-Iraqi War. The question is if we consider this article a campaign in a bigger war and I would argue it is due to how the article is framing it by being part of the Russo-Ukrainian War. P4p5 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The separate WW2 articles for the invasion of Poland, the Eastern front, North African campaign do show a detailed list of the commanders involved and KIAs. The «main page» for this conflict following this logic would be the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian war article, but the above mentioned theatres of WW2 are more similar in scale than WW2 as a whole. Eplerud (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course, because WWII is too big to cover in an infobox. I could show 99 other articles having 5x larger infobox than this. That's a bad example. Beshogur (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• It is not that these casualties shouldn't be mentioned somewhere - but where. They need to be written into the body of this article or another article. They certainly cannot just be dumped into the infobox under the casualties section. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is meant to be an at-a-glance summary and not a repository for miscellaneous information. The casualty section is already too bloated to be an at-a-glance summary as it is. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Not under the casualties section, but under the commanders section. They were senior commanders, so they belong to the commanders section? Bommbass (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Not there either for much the same reasons. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Per Phiarc, the infobox is already too long. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

The following discussion 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.

---

Change the spelling of Odessa to Odesa throughout to match the use of other Ukrainian spellings for cities that are in Ukraine. 146.198.64.213 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on Odessa is that is should be spelled as such. There would be a need for an RfC to change that on that page which has already failed multiple times. If you disagree, that should be handled on the city’s talk page and not here. KD0710 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Closing on basis of "requires consensus" per KD0710 above. Refer to Talk:Odessa. --N8 13:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This is all generally fair, but the IP raises a decent point about consistency in the article. We are using Ukrainian spelling (or thereabouts, e.g. Irpin instead of the correct Irpin') everywhere else. We write Kharkiv, Lviv, Kyiv, Chernihiv, Donbas rather than Kharkov, Lvov, Kiev, Chernigov, Donbass and so on. In that respect, Odessa sticks out as odd. It isn't necessary to rename our article for that matter, as Odesa is a valid redirect. You only need a consensus here to use that spelling here. The consensus at Talk:Odessa is irrelevant for our purposes. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There's should indeed be consistency, but on the article name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Picky point: those aren't Ukrainian spellings, but romanisations using one of the rules available. It looks like "Odessa" with "ss" is a German-based rule, presumably to maintain /s/ rather than the /ts/ which would result from a single "s". Bazza (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes, Ukrainian uses the Cyrillic alphabet just like Russian and Serbian. The point was that, for example, we write Kharkiv from Хаpkiв (Ukrainian), instead of Kharkov from Хapьkoв (Russian). I, uh, don't know why we'd be using German transliteration instead of British to be honest, and the article on Odessa suggests that the Russian spelling is Одecca (missing diacritics), so am not entirely sure that the German system is the reason for this spelling. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes the Russian spelling is Одecca and the Ukrainian Одeca but in English has it ever been spelled other than Odessa? I don't think so. And whereas the other examples like Kharkiv are reasonable transliterations of the original, in English the double S seems to more accurately represent the pronunciation. I believe Odesa wouldn't work so well. FrankP (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's better to know than to think. Type in 'Odesa' on Google News and you will receive millions of English language hits spanning sources like The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Rolling Stone (quite literally, the first three sources that pop up). As to pronunciation, English does not distinguish between single and double s. Passed and past have the same phonetic quality. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: That's not true. Vase and vast. We should use what reliable sources say. You've given three, here's five more well-known organisations, also found in Google (which can't seem to make its own mind up, using both in the same snippet), all with "ss": [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. It is, as you say, better to know than to think, and I've always known it spelled "Odessa" in English. Bazza (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Bazza 7 - You are not demonstrating a difference between singular and double s as neither vase nor vast have two s's. English does not distinguish between a lone and a double s. Btw, you might have chosen 'dogs' as your example as 'vase' is pronounced both as 'vais' and 'vaz'. Addendum: Dogs was the first word that came to mind with voicing across dialects. Enterprise or something like it might have been better. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I realised that afterwards but, as it's not my main point, let it go. But it shows (as does your comment about "vase") show that trying to use English pronunciation as a logical reasoning behind a spelling is not reliable. Bazza (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

And I knew if I waited long enough, I would remember "fuse" and "fuss". And "his" and "hiss". Bazza (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

(Edit-conflict) Fair. But, pronunciation was not my argument behind using a specific spelling. My argument was and is that we use a transliterated Ukrainian spelling everywhere else (that I've noticed). As others disagree with changing the spelling, so be it. (Re second comment) - Ok, fair examples. I must amend my previous statements to read: English pronunciation may or may not distinguish between singular and double s (passed/past (no distinction) ; his/hiss (voiced distinction). Mr rnddude (talk) 12:45, 16 March 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.

just take it

is this already here ? https://onemileatatime.com/news/putin-russian-airlines-steal-foreign-aircraft/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=One%20Mile%20at%20a%20Time&utm_content=Putin%20Allows%20Russian%20Airlines%20To%20Steal%20Foreign%20Aircraft&fbclid=IwAR3t95xpZ9K3EPwOn_fHIJPEkveC-VhD1HMTE8RF7P6DYtPMqVobrdifhKs --92.218.124.118 (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It would likely be more appropriate for Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. KD0710 (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

for me is the same, you write somewhere in this wiki... --92.218.124.118 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Separatist republic demonyms

What are the demonyms for the separatist republics? Are there even demonyms? Donetsk/Luhansk, Donetskian/Luhanskian, DPR/LPR? I've seen Donetsian used for the DPR, but there isn't an equivalent for the LPR. Curbon7 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Donetsian would be someone from the Donets River region. Demonyms aren’t used for these because they are relatively obscure, lack legitimacy, and don’t have defined boundaries. The people who run them identify as Russians and Ukrainians. There may be a regional identity for the Donbas but that would include DLNR people and their adversaries (until the big invasion, the DLNR occupied about a third of the Donbas). —Michael Z. 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, it’s important to differentiate residents of the city of Donetsk and its de jure province, the Donetsk oblast, from people under the Russian proxy rule imposed by the illegal Donetsk People’s Republic (Likewise Luhansk, Luhansk oblast, and the Luhansk People’s Republic).  —Michael Z. 16:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The government of Russia doesn't say Donetsk People's Republic is illegal. --92.40.174.68 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Number of DNR and LNR soldiers

Are the Numbers for DNR and LNR soldiers not a way to small? They have conscription now (https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/02/27/stay-hidden-or-get-drafted) and have a population of approximately 3.7 Mio. So, if only ten percent of the males would be forced in the Army that would be about 180000 men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4BB8:268:EEAE:D7C5:12AA:5020:CCA8 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please find a RS that you believe has updated info. KD0710 (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Russias mercenaries from Syria and Libya

According to the "Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine" Russia has approved the recruitment of 16,000 Middle East mercenaries to fight in the Ukraine. Source date is from the 13. march.
Today the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported, that "Russian officers" had approved the recuitment of 22,000 Syrians and another 18,000 Syrians are being checked by Wagner Group. So in total 40,000 from syria alone might be drafted. Anyway, at the moment, is is rather unclear how many mercs there are fighting for russia, thats why I wouldnt mention those syrians in the infobox. ----LennBr (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think someone should add all three of these countries as belligerents since those volunteers hail from those three countries. --66.234.79.226 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as there are also volunteers from various other countries fighting on the Ukrainian side. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Minor edit suggestion for article lead

Hello, I see in the lead that the last sentence of paragraph 3 reads "In response, Zelenskyy...". As this is the first instance of Volodymyr Zelenskyy being mentioned in the article, surely it should introduce him reading something along the lines of "In response, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy..."? (the same as Putin's first mention in paragraph 2, including a wikilink to President of Ukraine. I'd do it myself but obviously can't. GeorgmentO (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@GeorgmentO:  Done – I didn't link President of Ukraine to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE as it's not a crucial link, but I recognise there's an inconsistency with the Russian presidency (which is linked), so don't object if another editor wants to add it. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 00:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguous statement of a battle outcome.

In the "Eastern Front" section the statement "On the morning of 25 February, Russian Armed Forces advanced from DPR territory in the east towards Mariupol and encountered Ukrainian forces near the village of Pavlopil, where they were defeated." didn't clarify which side prevailed in that specific battle. The Eastern Ukraine offensive main article indicates a Ukrainian victory against the Russian land forces from the DPR, so if you have editing privileges please revise the sentence to indicate a Ukrainian victory in that specific battle to remove the ambiguity. Many thanks. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Done P1221 (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (2)

In "Russian Accusations and Demands" section, where it says "influence of far-right groups within Ukraine", link to Far-right politics in Ukraine for additional context.

While that article needs cleaning up it's relevant to what is discussed in this article, i.e. the question of the influence of the far right in Ukraine. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Melmann 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's good to link to an article even if it needs cleaning up; once it's linked to, people will go to it, and some of them might clean it up! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

biological weapons

The article currently states:

"Chinese diplomats, government agencies, and state-controlled media in China have used the war as an opportunity to deploy anti-American propaganda, and amplified conspiracy theories created by Russia such as the false claims of US biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine."

The absence of US biological weapons in Ukraine is stated as fact. However, it isn't really since there is no independent confirmation of the truth of this absence. So, instead, it is rather simply an assertion by the US and Ukraine governments, which has the contrary assertion by the Russia government. Therefore, the article is biased towards the US-Ukraine perspective and opposed to the Russia perspective. I suggest you write an unbiased article instead of what is currently here.

There are some reasons to be suspicious of the US–Ukraine assertions:

(1) Reuters reported that World Health Organization recommended that Ukraine destroy "destroy high-threat pathogens housed in the country's public health laboratories to prevent "any potential spills" that would spread disease among the population..." and that "Ukraine has public health laboratories researching how to mitigate the threats of dangerous diseases affecting both animals and humans including, most recently, COVID-19. Its labs have received support from the United States, the European Union and the WHO." (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-who-says-it-advised-ukraine-destroy-pathogens-health-labs-prevent-2022-03-11/) Obviously, this does not mean that what referred to here by the WHO are actually biological weapons. But, it could plausibly be weapons. The public has no way to know at this time.

(2) Victoria Nuland in answering questions from Congress said that there was an effort to "prevent materials from Ukraine’s biological research facilities from falling into Russian hands." Now, whether these materials are biological weapons or something else is unknown to the public, but they could plausibly be weapons. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-10/u-s-hits-china-for-pushing-russia-s-preposterous-lab-theory)

(3) The US government has a history of secretly testing biological warfare techniques on its own US population in earlier decades. So, it may be reasonable for some folks to suspect US assertions about this a priori.

At the very least, you need to use words like allegedly false, etc. in this article when we have no way knowing which country is making false statements. – ishwar  (speak) 22:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about claimes by China, please see COVID-19_misinformation#Accusations_by_China, etc. It is intentional disinformation per multiple RS, and it should be described as such on WP pages. Speaking about the publications in Reuters and others, they only say that Ukraine conducted biological research with pathogens, nothing more. That is done in every country, nothing special. To the contrary, UN said there was no any info about WMD in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We base everything on what reliable sources say. There have been no reliable sources that have found any evidence that any biochemical weapons exist in Ukraine and a vast majority affirm that they don’t. If you have anything to the contrary, please post. KD0710 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The RS cited says it is disinformation and a conspiracy theory. I'm not too keen on giving apparent credence–by casting doubt–to (what RS describe as) Russian disinformation. Your analysis above is OR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not an analysis nor original research (it's not research at all). If one aims for Wikipedia to be impartial, the article merely needs to state (a) Russia–China allegations of biological weapons, (b) US–Ukraine denial of said allegations, (c) US-Ukraine counter-allegation of Russia–China disinformation concerning previously stated weapon allegation, (d) no evidence of anything. Everything else including the truth of any of these allegations is simply unknown at present.

As it reads now, the article is claiming that Russia–China are making false statements. But, we do not know if they are false. All we know is that the concerned parties are making denials. (I guess we also know that the sources are aligned with US/Ukraine.)

It's good to use reliable sources. I'm in complete agreement with that. However, the source(s) yall are relying upon itself has a source, which in fact are the parties accused of having weapons. If that's ok with yall, fine. Then, leave it as is. However, I do point out inherent bias in doing so. – ishwar  (speak) 02:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Your claim that pathogens housed in Ukraine's laboratories could plausibly be weapons is a majestic leap in OR. Pious Brother (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Therefore, the article is biased towards the US-Ukraine perspective and opposed to the Russia perspective. I suggest you write an unbiased article instead of what is currently here." this is a misunderstanding that crops up from time to time in articles around this. WP:NPOV does not mean that you take opposing viewpoints and present the midpoint (which would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR depending on how you do it), or that opposing viewpoints must be given equal weight and credence simply because they are opposing (WP:BALANCE). Phiarc (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I will invoke wp:blp, we cannot imply someone has done something until it is proven they have. So until independent investigation shows Ukiriane has been deploying WMD (of any kind) we have to make it clear such a claim lacks any credible evidence. So we can either say "woth out any credible evidence" or just they they do not have them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not controversial to state that the claim that there are US biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine is false. The claim has been thoroughly debunked, and therefore there is no need for any vagueness here. BeŻet (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's take a second to contemplate Russia's accusation. Russia accused the United States of creating weapon labs in Ukraine, directly on the border with Russia to make a coronavirus type disease that will target a specific race. Why would the US ever open bio weapons labs in such a preposterous location you might ask? Well, the Russians answered this as well, it's because the US was planning to send the virus in to Russia on infected bats. Jajaja, after we've all had a nice chuckle on what has to be one of the most bizarre accusations to have ever been articulated not only in the UN but in the entire city of New York, I think we can agree that this accusation is in many ways the definition of WP:FRINGE. We have the New York Times which straight up calls it non-sense, that's more than good enough for me. To comply with the edit you've requested of saying that it's possible we'd need at least The New Yorker and the New England Journal of Medicine corroborating it, because otherwise the accusation is comically absurd. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not take a false balance position halfway between the truth and a lie. Reliable sources say these are propaganda allegations based on no evidence, dredged up from propaganda repeated multiple times over the last eight years. —Michael Z. 22:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Here’s an example of a reliable source on this:

• Donie O'Sullivan, “Analysis: Russia and QAnon have the same false conspiracy theory about Ukraine,” CNN, March 10, 2022.

 —Michael Z. 17:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw this discussion yesterday and then I saw pundits promoting this conspiracy theory on my Twitter feed this morning [23] [24], so I created Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory. CutePeach (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest saying something like "baseless", "unfounded" or "without any credible evidence", or using words directly from a source. If sources say they're propaganda allegations based on no evidence, as someone says above, then Wikipedia should convey that, not exaggerate it as if we could know it's false. We need to be precise with our wording. If sources actually say it's false (maybe they've visited every lab in the country, etc.?) then it may be OK to say it's false, but if there are more reliable sources saying things like lacking credible evidence, we should go with that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Racism and xenophobia against refugees at the train and borders needs to be included in the refugee session

In late February, it was reported that in the previous days, the Ukrainian State Border Guard Service at the border posts near Medyka and Shehyni had not allowed non-Ukrainians (many of them foreign students in the country) to cross the border into neighboring nations. [1,2] claiming that priority was being given to citizens to cross the first citizens. Ukraine's foreign minister said that there were no restrictions on the departure of foreign nationals and that the border force was instructed to foreigners who allowed all citizens to leave foreigners. According to Ukraine's Sandhu, Aid's general secretary, students fighting to fight the Khas border were protected from violence and "their crosses with verbal supporters to try to fight the violence". [3] Similar discrimination was reported by Africans who tried to leave.[4,5]

1 «Per le persone che non sono bianche è più difficile fuggire dall'Ucraina» [For people who are not white it is more difficult to escape from Ukraine]. Il Post (em italiano). 3 de março de 2022. Consultado em 3 de março de 2022
2 «Nigeria urges respect towards Africans at Ukrainian border – News». Al Jazeera. 28 de fevereiro de 2022. Consultado em 28 de fevereiro de 2022. Arquivado do original em 1 de março de 2022
3 Waldie, Paul; York, Geoffrey (27 de fevereiro de 2022). «Africans and Asians fleeing Ukraine subjected to racial discrimination by border guards». The Globe and Mail. Consultado em 28 de fevereiro de 2022. Arquivado do original em 1 de março de 2022
4 Russia Attacks Ukraine Capital. NDTV 24x7. 12 de março de 2021. Consultado em 2 de março de 2022. Arquivado do original em 1 de março de 2022 – via YouTube
5 «Concerns mount as black people report racism while fleeing Ukraine». The Independent. 1 de março de 2022. Consultado em 2 de março de 2022  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:5BA8:80A8:DDBF:813:BD37:1BEB (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 

Hi, this portion is covered here: Ukrainian_refugee_crisis#Alleged_racism. P1221 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is for the invasion. The treatment of refugees should be included on that page and not this. KD0710 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think racism deserves a brief mention in this article. This article has a four-paragraph subsection on refugees, and racism is a significant fraction of the refugee article. I think there's room in this article for at least a short sentence such as "There are allegations, disputed by some, of racism in the treatment of refugees." which summarizes three paragraphs in the refugee article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

“Significant fraction”? Determined by an online word counter, the entire “Alleged racism” section is slightly less than 1% of the article. —Michael Z. 20:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that small, though less than I thought. I was looking at the table of contents where it's quite prominent -- 2 of 9 subsections. Online word counters can be deceiving, counting symbols like square brackets and stuff as significant numbers of words and ending up with way more words than the actual number of words in the article. I looked through the refugee article and counted the equivalent of 45 paragraphs, counting very small paragraphs as half a paragraph each. The racism part is 3 substantial paragraphs, making it about one-fifteenth of the article, or maybe more. By another method: the whole refugee article has about 12 screenfuls of text on my screen, and the racism part is nearly 1 screenful, making it nearly one-twelfth. I count 9 sentences in the refugee part of this article, several of them about double the short sentence I proposed, so I think it's proportional. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The "Alleged racial discrimination" section of the refugee article is a lot more than 1%. It's more like 15%, between one-sixth and one-seventh. I counted lines of text in the whole article, counting partial lines as 0 if less than a half or 1 if more than half. I got 182 lines for the whole article. (Others may get different counts depending on display font size etc.) For the discrimination section I got 28 lines (in 6 paragraphs, 2 subsections). That's actually an underestimate for the discrimination section because the lines weren't shortened by images. Based on that I estimated about 3300 words in the whole article, 500 words in the discrimination section. So I think there's definitely room in this article for a sentence about discrimination such as the one I proposed above. What do others think? (By the way, this talk page section got accidentally archived, then was restored.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:22, 16 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 "Military control around Kyiv on 5 March 2022" to "Military control around Kyiv on 18 March 2022" Js26x (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of template {{current}}

Hello. I would like to propose removal of the template {{current}}, as its usage within this article appears to be against the guidelines set by the template itself.
Here are the main guidelines, transcluded from Template:Current/doc, for, your convenience:

• Every article on Wikipedia has a general disclaimer that the article contents may not be accurate.
• As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used on those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day (for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news).
• It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.
• This and closely related templates are generally expected to appear on an article for less than a day, sometimes longer.
• If you would like an article on a significant current event to be noticed, please see Wikipedia:How the Current events page works and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates.

Check main (article) namespace links

In my estimation, the usage on this page does not meet the point 3 and 4. While point 2 provides for some leeway, we are three weeks away from the moment this news broke. If there is some major change in the news, such as, hopefully, a peace accord, the template may be reinstated, but right now, it is no longer relevant for usage on this page. I have already removed it previously, but the template was reinstated, so I'm bringing it here to complete the WP:BRD cycle. Thanks. Melmann 07:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Support - Based on your points, I tend to agree with you. My only concern is that major changes can happen in a relatively short amount of time, but perhaps we reinstate the tag should we have that issue in the future. KD0710 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the page meets point 3, because the recent news articles represent new developments in the conflict, such as NBC and The New York Times. Is there prior precedent for keeping the current template during ongoing conflicts? ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

A non-exhaustive tour of many major conflicts listed at List of ongoing armed conflicts yields none that have the template, including ones that have recently seen major developments or escalations such as Tigray War, Panjshir conflict, or Islamic State–Taliban conflict. In my experience, it is rare for Template:Current to survive much longer than 24 to 48 hours, so this article is already very much an outlier. My understanding is that Template:Current is generally used when we expect a huge surge of page visits, such as breaking news, but we haven't quite gotten our ducks in the row yet with the coverage lacking pretty fundamental parts. The article as it is now, while it can obviously be better, is fair coverage of the topic as we understand it right now.
In any case, if there was a major turn in the conflict, such as Kyiv falling or peace accords being signed, I would most certainly support reinstating the template. Melmann 16:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the template has fulfilled its purpose, based on my past experience of how long {{current}} tends to be present on articles. Also noting the last 50 edits atm go back over 12 hours. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Melmann: thanks for raising this here per BRD. It was me who initially reverted the removal two days ago, as I felt a discussion would be better first. I think the template still has some limited utility (per point 2, as you point out), but on the whole I think your analysis is fair and I don't object to removing the tag. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 19:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Since we have consensus, I'm removing the template. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 16:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Invasion and resistance

The map in the section is only showing the situation until 4/03/22! It should be updated until today, the 17-th of March! Russian troops are already in the suburbs of Kiev! Vladimir Skokan1 (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

1) See the FAQ; 2) The map is not hosted on en.wiki, take up your concerns with commons.wiki. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The news total casualties from UK DAILY MAIL PLEASE ADDED TO SOMEONE WHO READ ON WIKIPEDIA WITH THIS BATTLE..........

Russia has seen up to 28,000 troops killed, wounded or captured in Ukraine - around a fifth of its force - US says, as invasion 'stalls on all fronts' but shelling of cities continues. LINK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10622681/Ukraine-war-Russia-lost-fifth-pre-invasion-force.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by NguyenLuuDatHuynh2008 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:DAILYMAIL. The community deprecated that source because of misinformation and disinformation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

190.4.185.161 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

On 24 February 2022, Russia began a military invasion of Ukraine,[33] in a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict that began in 2014. It is the largest military conflict in Europe since World War II.[34][35][36] With over 3.1 million Ukrainians fleeing the country, the invasion has also caused the largest refugee crisis in Europe since then.[37][38][39]

Following the Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity in February 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, and Russian-backed separatists seized part of south-east Ukraine, starting the war in Donbas.[40][41] In 2021, Russia began a large military build-up along its border with Ukraine. The president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, espoused Russian irredentist views,[42] questioned Ukraine's right to statehood,[43][44] and falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority, in spite of President Zelenskyy being Jewish and a native Russian speaker.[45] Putin also said NATO had threatened Russia's security by expanding eastward – a claim disputed by NATO[46] – and demanded Ukraine be barred from ever joining the alliance.[47] The United States and others accused Russia of planning to attack or invade Ukraine, which Russian officials repeatedly denied as late as 23 February 2022.[51]

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Vehicle Markings

Regarding the V, O, Z, and Z inside ☐ markings painted onto Russian Federation equipment. Vehicles marked with the letters below have been seen in:

V = North-west Kyiv Region. Deployed from Mazyr region, Belarus.

O = Chernihiv Region. Crossed border at Senkivka, Northern Ukraine.

Z inside ☐ = Kharkiv / Sumy Region. Deployed from Belgorod region, Russia.

Z = South-East Region such as Kherson, Mykolaiv, Mariupol. Deployed from Crimea / Rostovr regions, Russia.

Border footage of 24 Feb confirms vehicles crossing from Crimea had a plain Z painted on them, vehicles leaving from Belgorod had a Z inside ☐, and vehicles crossing from Belarus had white and black O markings on them.

Russian Federations with Z inside Box painted on them departing Belgorod heading for Kharkiv, Feb 2022. CNN footage.

Russian Federation vehicles with white and black O seen at Senkivka Crossing, Ukraine, Feb 2022. CNN footage.

Russian Federation vehicles seen crossing into Ukraine from Crimea, Feb 2022. NBC News footage.

-- Post by someone or other.

• The above is useless WP:OR. EEng 06:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Whoever asked for infobox deletion

Go touch some grass please,you can't delete an infobox for no freaking reason 105.100.66.225 (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Less and less biased articles and sources of informations.

Wiki is losing neutrality and objective approach by subjective editing and selecting information sources. 89.164.14.247 (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraina claimed already 3.300 war machine but not uet edited

Ukriane claimed of Russia war machines loses already 3.300s but not yet edit. Including 2 thousands Russian tanks/armored, more than 800 other vehicles, nearly 200 aircraft. You can go to Ukraine Defence Social Media or Kyiv Independent twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.47.135.149 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Another general Killed

The following discussion 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.

---

There are reports that a fourth Russian general was killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a separate article for dead generals - List of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Independent Source for Equipment Losses

I know that there's been a back and forth about the reliability of using Russian/Ukrainian Ministries of Defense for numbers of losses, and because of this a preference for independent 3rd party sources. On account of this I'd like to recommend Oryx. It has detailed and confirmed listings of equipment losses on both sides see here. The website is trusted and used by Reliable Sources such as The Economist see here and as such gives us an excellent 3rd party source for equipment losses for both sides. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that there is already extensive discussion about Oryx in the talk page section above, "Infobox too big", (or in one or more subsections of that section). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian military numbers

The source for the Ukrainian military numbers (paramilitary, reserve etc.) is from the book "The Military Balance 2021" (pp.208-209). Looking for Russian statistics on the same book (pp 190-191) we see that Russia has approximately 554,000 Paramilitary and 2,000,000 in Reserves.

Since the current statistics for Russia seem to be based on U.S. intelligence, I think two approachable options could be followed:

- Exclude Ukrainian paramilitary/reserve numbers, OR

- Include Russian paramilitary/reserve numbers according to The Military Balance 2021

I prefer the second option because Ukrainian paramilitary/reserves shouldn't be excluded. Meanwhile, the Russian paramilitary and reserve forces should be mentioned. Darer101 (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is as far as we can tell all of Ukraine'ss military are directly involved, but not all of Russia's (yet). Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Ukrainian military is fully committed to this conflict, with all reservists have been called into active duty. To my knowledge, the Russian military probably hasn't mobilized all of their paramilitary/reserve forces to this conflict. ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. We include reservists for Ukraine because those reserves are committed. We likewise DON'T include Russia's reserves, because their reserves are NOT committed. Fieari (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox too big

Phiarc reports that the infobox, when viewed on a mobile device is about eight screens long! It is partly due to excessive detail. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE this should be an at-a-glance summary of a summary article. We don't write the article in the infobox - WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Dropdowns might look good on a PC but they don't work on mobiles. As Moxy observes, our readers just aren't going to read the article if they can't get past the infobox. We need to be more ruthless in trimming content in the infobox to the most important. Just because the infobox has a parameter doesn't mean we have to use them. The infobox documentation says many parameters are optional. What might have be done in other articles does not necessarily represent best practice unless these are our best quality articles. Even then, we must consider the specifics and circumstances and the comparability of events before comparing how our best articles might set a benchmark of best practice in this case. Our duty is to our readers.

Some thoughts:

• Images We don't need a montage of six images. For a long time, we only had the map.
• Dynamic map It tells us alot but the legend symbols could be shrunk or omitted since it is pretty self-evident and has its own integrated legend.
• Status Of course it is ongoing. The open date tells us that. Russian Ground Forces enter Ukraine from Russia, Crimea, and Belarus. Duh, it's an invasion. It's all superfluous. Some significant links could be integrated into the caption of the map.
• Territorial changes Redundant - the map shows us that.
• Strengths We don't have to give a breakdown of the Ukrainian forces in detail. This breakdown could be given in a note, which I believe is mobile compatible. Notes could also be used in other instances.
• Casualties and losses

• This probably takes the most space.
• We have a section in the article for this. Report summarised info from that section into the infobox and link to that section for details. Report a range or an average.
• We are reporting three different sources in the infobox. Ukraine and Russian sources aren't independent. We could report just the independent source while linking to the section for more detail.
• Donetsk PR: We don't need to report this in the infobox. Do away with the flag icons. Report total losses on either side. Use a note if necessary to give detail.
• Material losses

• These significantly add to length in mobile devices since the lists don't collapse.
• These aren't all that significant such that they need to be listed in a summary of a summary. If anything, use a link.

• Civilian casualties/refugees

• Don't individually report multiple sources. See above and dealing with military casualties.
• Reduce superfluous text (eg OHCHR estimates that the real figures are considerably higher - the source is given as a ref it doesn't need to be repeated; use a note if necessary).
• Foreign civilian casualties: Tragic but not so significant in the totality of civilian casualties. We don't have to report everything in an infobox.

These may be hard decisions but decisions that need to be made for the benefit of our readers. These are my observations on how the issue might be addressed but there needs to be a consensus on how to progress this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I concur with your observations. Especially for "Casualties and losses", I think it is better to write the detailed information in sections of this article (or different article if becoming too long) and just put a link in the infobox, like "See Section..." P1221 (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

STRONGLY AGREE - The length of this info box is gigantic and contains entirely too much information. My biggest problem is that there are entirely too many lines for casualties (make it a range, with detailed info in the article) and the material losses. This is a war and material losses are not generally what is most notable about the event, therefore don't belong in this info box. If you want to add those losses to individual battles info boxes (as long as they are relevant) fine. KD0710 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Strongly agree - we need to stop with this ridiculous idea of writing articles in infoboxes. It's a readability issue due to how they function on mobiles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed some of the most obvious issues. With regards to materiel losses, we should do what many RS do and just report the total figure (X aircraft, tanks and ...), and leave full detail for the actual article. We don't need entire rows dedicated to each of "1 An-26, 3 Su-27, 1 MiG-29, 1 patrol vessel, 1 frigate (scuttled to prevent capture)". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. The easiest thing to do would be to kick all the detailed casualty figures either into a footnote, or into the "Casualties" section. There could be a simple overview in the infobox, and an internal link for details. This would trim things down considerably. The more controversial option is to go back to just a map in the infobox - all of those images take up a lot of room. I'd argue that 6 is too many anyway even if we want to keep some - give the images room to breath, they'll be too small to read with so many, so set a hard cap of 3 or 4 if kept at all. SnowFire (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think images we can live with, but maybe we should drop the captions (or make text size smaller) on mobiles only, and let people click the image if they want more info. Mobile and desktop design is not meant to be parallel. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The images are OK, though on mobile they expand into a long series of still-small images, one per row, for some reason. On Iraq war it stays as a collage, which would be preferable here as well. Though I would advise against emulating the other aspects of the Iraq war infobox, on my phone that's seventeen screens - going to be tired from scrolling before even getting to the article! In the infobox here the caption gets expanded in a weird way on mobile; each item is suddenly its own paragraph with top and bottom margins. Phiarc (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Technical note: the reason the Iraq war montage stays together is because it's all one image (File:Iraq War montage.png), whereas this article uses the template {{multiple images}} and is made up of multiple individual images. Levivich 15:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there an alternative template that retains the layout on mobile? Baking things into files hampers editing, and there will surely be a lot of editing on this for some time to come... Phiarc (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. The mobile layout was discussed/changed a few years ago at Template talk:Multiple image/Archive 2##mobile (stop using inline styles), I lack the technical skills to know if there's a better or different way to do it. WP:COLLAGETIPS mentions {{Image array}}; not sure if that template renders any differently on mobile. Levivich 16:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Image array renders as an HTML table and can't support the "masonry" style layout we're using here. I went ahead and made the collage into a single image, which is arguably a bad solution because you can click on an image and get to the large version and commons page directly, but fixes the bad layout on mobile which is where most of the readers are. For some reason it appeared OK at first but lost transparency after reloading. Very strange. Hence reverted. Phiarc (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

With the current set of changes (as far as I can tell: replaced breakdown of civilian casualties with a link, totalized equipment losses, removed obvious list of in "Status", removed "Territorial changes", removed wagner group) the infobox length has decreased by about 20-25 % Phiarc (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What do people think about turning infobox casualties into a range (i.e. 498-12,000+ killed) and then collapsing who is giving each end of the range into a footnote? BSMRD (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This should happen. It takes into consideration all reports and gives an overview. KD0710 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Done at http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_infobox&diff=1077116453&oldid=1077114202 I'm not sure about efn though - might as well move this into the casualties section and use a proper link. This has the added advantage that there is just one place for a detailed breakdown of losses. Phiarc (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to merge all data from the detailed casualty breakdowns in the infobox in the main casualty article which is transcluded into this article as well. Now we've got the claimed ranges in the infobox with the relatively prominent link directly below to "casualties and humanitarian impact". The equipment loses were condensed in the meantime as well. We're now down to five screens on my phone from over eight initially. If we get the image collage sorted out I think it's a manageable size and it is also readable now, so it actually serves WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE now. Phiarc (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this would be helpful - we'd end up with massive ranges which are effectively WP:SYNTH, as no individual source would support the entire range. Jr8825 • Talk 18:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Jr8825. EkoGraf (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Funny how some "strongly agree" claiming this infobox is too big. Perhaps you haven't seen Syrian civil war infobox. With this, infobox barely tells anything. Also as claimed by ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) I do not see any consensus here. Maybe just delete the pictures on the infobox, instead we could add more useful information that are unneeded according certain users. This isn't about aestethics, it's about providing information. Removing half of the infobox doesn't help anything. Beshogur (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Beshogur, moving the claims/figures and sources/references to efn has made them invisible to the readers, leaving unsourced claimed figures which are un-attributed in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

One solution to partially cut down, at least in regards to casualty figures, is to follow a consensus that was established years ago at the start of the war in 2014 to include only figures on self-admitted losses or figures on losses reported by a third party in the infobox and casualty tables, so to avoid potentially presenting propaganda claims as fact. Consensus was also not to exclude propaganda claims entirely, but to present them in the main body of the article. Thus, the Ukrainian and Russian claims of the their enemies casualties can be presented in the main text. This would cut down the info in the infobox a bit, we could also still leave a link towards a casualty section so readers could read the potential propaganda claims by the belligerents. EkoGraf (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that so we can put it in the FAQ (Q3) - "Please update the losses claimed by Russia / Ukraine"? Phiarc (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phiarc: I just finished updating both Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox and the casualties section, leaving a link in the infobox towards the casualties section so people can see the other claims made by the belligerents regarding their enemies losses. I also added a note (visible only to editors) to update the claims made by Russia and Ukraine [25]. You can change it if you think it needs additional adjustment and can use the link for the Q3. EkoGraf (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What about just moving all casualty data entirely out of IB into prose with a link indicating "disputed", "differing reports", "estimates vary", etc.? ...at least until RSs agree after some fog of war has cleared. I don't see why we should trust either side for accuracy - even in their own numbers - during an active conflict so closely linked with misinformation and propaganda. Even some allegedly neutral third party sources (particularly state sources) would have reason to allow for inaccuracies until the conflict resolves. WP:V is clear that when reliable sources disagree the article stays neutral using attribution. If we can't be accurate, attribute claims succinctly, or maintain npov in such a small space, we shouldn't gamble on which one source to use as a summary; we should point readers to where they can get proper context. After all, the best true summary of the prose is arguably "disputed". --N8 01:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Valid point. I think obviously, something there is preferable, but can we trust the sources to be accurate? I’m not sure. I think we can count out Ukraine’s data as well as Russia’s. Perhaps the U.S. or U.K. might be the best option at this point if any numbers are included KD0710 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Beshogur on a couple points; viewed on my mobile, the Syrian civil war infobox is ridiculously wide, taking up about ¾ width of the page, leaving the lead to be sandwiched to the far left, with only one or two words per line! As for length, it's about a 1.5 screens long. Also agree that on this page, the infobox, while at normal width and less than a screen in length, could still stand to lose a few of images. (imo) - wolf 17:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that your example is not a best practice. It's longer than any campaign in World War II. It is pretty obvious that it goes past summarizing key features of the page's subject. KD0710 (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because another article also has issues doesn't mean we should let them pertrude into even more articles. We can't fix all the issues with every article on this talk page. But I agree that a lot of 'modern' conflicts have infobox (and general article) issues, particularly with regards to excessive details, and I raised this at the MILHIST project. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phiarc: I'm using a smartphone to view this article and the infobox fits on one screen with room to spare, no scrolling required. Perhaps there has been extensive cuts made, can you link to a diff where the infobox was "eight screens long"? And I'm also curious; what mobile device you're viewing this on? Thanks - wolf 17:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm using an iPhone SE (1st generation) (which is one of the smaller smartphones one might be using in 2022). Here's how the current revision looks, which is still trimmed down in various places: File:Russian invasion infobox size iPhone SE.png. Checking on my other phone, a much bigger iPhone SE (2nd generation), it's still 5.5 screens, though now the images stay in their layout, which saves a lot of space. (Using the desktop version on mobile, yes, it only takes on screen - but that's because the page is zoomed so far out that you can't read anything) Phiarc (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

wolf, I think you’re still using the desktop version of Wikipedia, even though you’re on a smartphone. I also usually use desktop view when I’m reading WP on mobile, and the infobox size is the same for me as it is for you. If you scroll down to the bottom of the article page, there should be a button called “mobile view” that will switch you over to the actual mobile site, and you should be able to see. Hope that helps HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: you are partly right, but in this case mostly wrong. I read WP in mobile view, (which is the preset for me), and only switch to desktop when I'm editing. As I was editing this talk page, I was in desktop mode when I looked at the infobox, so it was the size I stated. But even now, after checking it in mobile view, the infobox is only about 3 screen lengths, which is about the same size as the Normandy landings infobox (as an example). (And fyi, I'm using a Galaxy S10+, which I thought was getting old until Phiarc mentioned that they were rocking a 1st gen iPhone SE). - wolf 22:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I would think it is fair to say that there is a rough consensus that the infobox is too long and it should be reduced. Predictably, there is some disagreement on how this might best be achieved in particular instances. Most notably, there is the matter of casualties. We need to thrash out some of the specifics. I see that a discussion has started at #Causalities. It would be good if we could keep related discussions centralised rather than having multiple parallel discussions. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with casualties in infobox

Note: the initial part of this section has been moved from #Causalities for continuity. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the Ukraine report of 12,000 Russian causalities in the infobox? It was showing up a few days ago and now it’s not showing up. Looked through the edit history form the last four days and no where does it show when it has been changed, but I know for sure two days ago I saw the Ukrainian report of number of Russian causalities. BigRed606 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It was removed from the info box to reduce the size. It was agreed upon earlier today. Each side has the self reported casualties and a third party which is the US at this time. KD0710 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox has been moved to its own separate template Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox which given the frenetic editing of the article is probably for the best. You can re-add the estimates there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As KD0710 said, after a discussion today it was agreed so to cut back on the size of the infobox, we only leave self-reported fatalities or numbers claimed by a third-party source. All Ukrainian claims of Russian losses and vice-versa are talked about in the main body of the article in the casualties section (where you can update the figures), and we left a link in the infobox to that section so readers can see the other claimed casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Why not report WP:reliable sources’ estimates instead of self-reported? Russian casualties are estimated to be 5,000–6,000 by independent experts. The Russian state report is inaccurate and outdated. —Michael Z. 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

At the moment its been agreed we include both (self-reported and 3rd party RS) in the infobox. If we remove Russian self-reported figures we would need to remove the Ukrainian as well. Agree Russian figure is highly outdated but its the only thing we have at the moment. Hoping they give an updated figure soon. It took the Ukrainians more than two weeks to give an update. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@KD0710, @EkoGraf, Was there also an earlier discussion about this? If the only agreement so far is from today's discussion (#Infobox too big) I think it's fair to say that discussion is still open for additional comments (partly because I added one). --N8 02:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@KD0710, @N8wilson There was a discussion and consensus to that effect back in 2014 when the War in Donbass started, when it was agreed upon to include in that conflict's infobox and the casualties article's table only self-reported and 3rd party figures, while moving belligerent claims of enemies dead to the casualties section text due to potential propaganda inflation and unreliability. So I think that represents a nice model on which we can build upon in this article as well. I also saw your comments in the above discussion and you can take my reply here to be the same there as well. In essence I agree Russian and Ukrainian self-admitted casualty figures also run the possibility of being de-flated and their inclusion in the infobox should be up for debate, although I am not entirely sure... undecided. EkoGraf (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure how most people use the wikipedia pages but I personally first dart to the casualties section of the infobox, and then the map, and then read other relevant data. I think the casualties section should be kept as: 1 - self reported 2 - enemy reported and 3 - third party RS (like UK or US) and they should all be visible. That's just my two cents. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary of discusion

• The body of the article has been edited to include info from the infobox.
• There appears to be a rough consensus to reduce the size of this section but some uncertainty on how best to do this.
• There is an acknowledgement that belligerent sources are likely to both overreport opponents casualties and underreport their own.
• There is some complaint that info placed in a note is not readily seen.
• There is an assertion that reporting a range not supported by a single reference is WP:SYNTH. {note: this is incorrect. This is quite permissible as would be simple addition or subtraction per WP:CALC).
• It was noted that massive ranges are unhelpful.
• Some reference is made to how the issue has been dealt with at Russo-Ukrainian War.

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Although I think it might be best to leave casualty data exclusively in prose until we have source agreement, I would add that along with WP:CALC, "SYNTH is not numerical summarization" also seems to allow enough flexibility to use an inclusive range (lowest min - highest max) with citations if it reaches consensus. --N8 08:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments We have an article section for casualties. The infobox should summarise that section - not duplicate it. Some options I can see are:

1. We could note that reports vary and link to the article section. If it is too hard to come up with a simple summary, this is a reasonable option IMHO. (per N8wilson above?)
2. We could state the extreme ranges, and link to the article section. It is intrinsically clear that the reports vary because of the extremely wide range.
3. We have two partisan sources which are questionable and a third source. We could report the US source on the basis that it is "more" independent than the two partisan sources; note that the results vary; and, link to the article section.
4. We could report own losses and the independent source as separate entries per the Russo-Ukrainian War. This still leaves a fairly large section and IMHO not the best solution.
5. We could report "greater than X" where X is the lowest figure; note that the results vary; and, link to the article section. It is a conservative approach but not substantially better than relying upon the independent source.

I would tend to options 1 or 3, largely because they are most consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion copied from #The removed Russians Casualties per UA MoD were the most accurate ones based on actual Evidence

All the casualty figures are wrong and the one that we have the best evidence for being most accurate for Russian losses are the Ukrainian MoD ones that were removed.

Per https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html and the safe assumption we don't have a photo of every destroyed Russian piece of equipment in Ukraine, maybe 1 of every 2 at best, that means Ukrainian MoD's claims for Russian vehicles destroyed is reasonably accurate as corroborated by photo evidence. Thus their projected Russian deaths or casualties, well over 13,000 by now, is very credible and one to believe is most accurate on first hand evidence. All the other figures have no evidence to support them by comparison. Furthermore, almost all Ukrainian MoD claims in other regards have been proven correct at least 80% of the time if not a healthy bit more.

Russian claims are obviously bogus and citing anything from Russian state sources these days has to be a farce. That isn't even bias; it is just blatant fact. And the US claims are based on who knows what; but certainly not a first hand perspective and thus an inferior source to cite. This article stands as a farce while it literally ignores the reported casualty figures that clearly have the most weight of evidence behind them.

That the most accurate Ukrainian MoD figures aren't anywhere even on the page that I can see is doubly dubious. Ignoring figures backed by vast photo evidence to paste blatant state Russian lies. A Farce of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.72.97 (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The figures haven't been removed, they are in the article's casualties section, as per talk page discussions, so to cut down on the infobox size. At the moment, self-admitted fatality figures and figures provided by 3rd party sources (like the US) are presented in the infobox. As for citing Russian claims, if we are already citing one belligerent's claims (Ukraine) we are obligated to do the same for the other side as well as per Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and presenting all sides POV. EkoGraf (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the Russian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is Russian. If it is equipment used in both armies equally, it is not possible to be sure unless some serial number or conclusive identification is shown (no, an external drawing of a letter Z, V, whatever, is not a conclusive identification, anyone can paint it on a disabled/destroyed ukrainian vehicle, or similarly yellow stripes on a russian tank to pass for Ukrainian). There is equipment that the Russian army has "lost" that it recovers in its advance, the destroyed/disabled ukrainian equipment, and also what it is taking out of the Ukrainian military bases that it has occupied, and this is equipment that cannot be confirmed in quantity or type. 152.207.223.188 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding the equipment losses up above that you can join. EkoGraf (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the Russian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is Russian."

So much wrong with this comment. For one, the equipment they use is not that similar as they have been making modifications and changes independently for 32 years now. Ukraine has its own variants and paint scheme that makes its tanks and other vehicles, even when destroyed, readily identifiable and differentiable from the Russian ones. Russia also has a much larger variety of vehicles than Ukraine and generally much newer ones Ukraine does not have acces to. Tanks for example Ukraine's most numerous tank is the T-64, while Russia does not even operate the T-64 anymore really, and the only model they really share in numbers is the T-72 but after 32 years of independent modernization and modification are different variants that can be differentiated.

Also, even when destroyed the paint is often left somewhere, which usually can identify who it belongs to. If not that, the Russian dead bodies, scattered Russians MREs, or big Z, O, and V letters are a good hint. Also who is posting the picture or video; a lot of it is visibly from Ukranian fighters when you trace them to their twitter origin.

Finally, the simple fact is Russia has a lot more combat and other vehicles and is on the offensive, while Ukraine has comparatively few and is mostly defending. The ones moving around in large convoys of armored combat vehicles is vastly and disproportionally the Russians.

Again, the Ukrainian MoD track record of mostly verifiable accurate claims to date through the war bolsters their credibility as a point of fact. There is simply no grounds to doubt Oryx's count/index of destroyed Russian vehicles in Ukraine. Again, it would be crazy to think we had a photo on the internet of every destroyed Russian vehicle in the war. At the very best 1 photo for every 1.5 vehicles, and even that would be rather unlikely as somewhere closer to 2 is more likely with a potential of even 3 vehicles for every 1 photo we have. And a ratio of about 2 vehicles to 1 photo would mean that Ukrainians MoD claims for Russian vehicles destroyed is more or less right on the money per Oryx's visual index. And again by extension this, and the Ukranian MoD generally good track record for accuracy thus far, means their claims of 13,000+ Russian dead/casualties, whichever it was, is extremely credible. And that fact should be reflect better in this article. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

even that is what the site says (but the commenters even find duplicate images). and this is similar with all other numbers and estimates. yes, tanks are easier to tell apart, as well as some types of light vehicles and transports/freighters, and if there are casualties form one of the involved sides associated with it, more can be believable. but how do you differentiate, for example, a BMP-1/2, BTR, BRDM, with little or no modification just for an exterior photo (some of its major modifications are internal)? How can you confirm or count the equipment and weapons that the Russian army captures or recovers in its advance? neither they nor anyone is publishing photos and serial numbers. Again, drawings and marks made a posteriori (not from the factory or officers of a combat unit) cannot be taken as reliable evidence, since anyone can do it. The numbers closest to reality may be known at the end, whatever it may be, when the dust settles, in some investigation on the subject. For now, all the numbers in all cases are estimates, manipulated information or pure disinformation. such as the cases of friendly fire, missfire, accidents, false flags, and so on that have been seen, which may only be known in detail later. right now I prefer to go with the US estimates, even despite the bias they surely have. 152.207.223.3 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is nonexistent. First you can cast all the poorly reasoned doubt on Oryx's visual index you like, but that still does not change that it is the best source we have as it is the only one providing first hand evidence from a neutral source being worked on by at least 2 people with experience doing this going back to the Syrian Civil war. Not their first rodeo. "but how do you differentiate, for example, a BMP-1/2", many different ways, probably well over 60% of the destroyed vehicles still have paint or other give away markings that make them Russian, or will have other vehicles less destroyed from the same post of images showing it was part of Russian convoy, also the nature of the destroyed vehicle often tells you what it was destroyed by, like a Javelin or NLAW. Other has discarded Russian MRE, combat gear/clothing, or bodies. Hell, roughly 1/3rd of more of vehicles are obviously Russian since they are intact and were abandoned. And again, after 32 years of independent modification most of these can readily be told apart and Ukraine has a variety of its own unique BTR models while Russia has developed many of its own variants over the last 32 years. In reality the vehicles which they even really 'share' that could be confused for one over the other is fraction of the total vehicles on Oryx's visual index. Indeed even scrolling down the list and paying attention to the flags you'd notice over 50% of the list has a RUSSIAN flag and not a soviet flag because that model/variant did not exist during Soviet times. Your entire argument either shows a lack of understanding and careful examination of Oryx's visual index or just lack of understanding on the topic in general. I will again say no issue you have with the visual index is a substitute for not having a better first hand source of evidence you can cite in an argument regarding which casualty figures are most accurate. The visual index supports the Ukranian MoD figures for vehicles destroyed; by extension of that and their strong track record of other credible claims thus far their figure of over 13,500 Russians dead is most accurate and should be reflected in the Info box or in the actual table instead of buried like footnote while blatant Russian state lies are 3 times more prominently featured in the article. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I see no valid reason for the Ukrainian-sourced casualties to be censored from the article. Its mentioned above that they are in the casualty section, but I just checked and if it is, it's hidden. I can understand not cluttering the infobox with every vehicle claimed, but the total KIA should be included, especially if Russia's #s are. As it stands at the time of writing this, they are claiming around 12k and upper bound from US officials is 8k. It's relevant. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 04:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Its in the very first paragraph of the section, bellow the table, and the latest claim of 13,500 losses is stated. EkoGraf (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's buried in the paragraph, 4th sentence in, and omitted from the table above, on top of being removed from the infobox. It's a really bad look if this is by design. Like its been said, its in a place very few people would look. It took me multiple tries to even find it by glancing. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 02:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The info box should have both the Russian and Ukrainian estimates, not the US ones. After all it's just Russia and Ukraine doing the fighting. Burying the Ukrainian estimate in the body of the text whilst showing an outdated US estimate just hides it from a casual reader of this article. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 09:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As a 3rd party the US estimate is actually considered a more reliable source than a claim made by one of the belligerents, especially of their enemies losses. Also, the US makes fairly regular updates (every week or so), while Ukraine actually made no updates to Russian casualties for eight days, nor their own for more than two weeks. In addition, RS have been provided where it has been analyzed that both Russian and Ukrainian claims are not considered reliable. In any case, we have provided a link in the infobox, per talk page discussions, towards the other casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Because the US is a 3rd party its estimates are completely inferior to an actual first hand visual index of Russian losses like https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html. That visual index best supports the Ukrainians figures. This is just fact from the best neutral source we have with the most direct firsthand evidence. Nothing from the US or any other source can be considered more informed than a first hand visual index of Russian losses since you literally have no idea to what extent they have access to information, their methodology, or the resources they are even allocating to the task. Meanwhile, you can't really argue with photographs and videos that are verified to be new and in Ukraine. It is ridiculous that the article effectively hides the most accurate figures supported by first hand evidence and gives such prominence to clearly false figures that have no support of their own. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Its in the very first paragraph of the section, bellow the table, and the latest claim of 13,500 losses is stated"

So it is stated somewhere almost no one would ever look; I literally had to alt-F '13,500' to find it. Not not in the info box where it should be even though it is the best figure given by any source actually supported by an index of photo evidence. As the most credible number it belongs in the info box. If not that in the table in the casualties section. Not buried in a paragraph 3 pages down the article squished between two tables neither of which it is on. This article simply paints a false view of the actual numbers by refusing to readily provide the accurate numbers while unduly giving prominence to the most bogus ridiculous numbers being given by Russia. By all means, report the Russian given figures somewhere, while making them clear to be Russian state figures, but the info box and article overall should not compromise accuracy for unreasonable neutrality. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Mmm... yes. If I were looking for information on casualties, I'd never think to check the section entitled 'Casualties'. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have to go digging into paragraphs in the casualties section to get the actual most accurate and real casualty figures for any war wiki article EXCEPT this one. Every other such article you can use the info box for the best figures. Not here apparently.

Indeed, in other war wiki articles you would read the casualties section if you wanted more info on the best figures that are given in the info box in addition to other figures that are generally less accepted. Here it is backwards, you get the worse figures in the info box while you have to go on reading 3 pages down between 2 tables to realize the actual most accurate figures are placed in some obscure spot the majority of people will not see it when they casually scroll the article. Even looking for it I didn't see it since it wasn't in the Info Box or Tables. And I was not the only one as other people have said themselves. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

End of discussion copied from #The removed Russians Casualties per UA MoD were the most accurate ones based on actual Evidence. Please continue.

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

I agree reporting multiple sources bloats the info box while obscuring the facts. Report the most accurate estimate for each side, and list the rationale and sources in the casualty section if people want more info. As it stands the info box has some of the worst/most inaccurate sources while being bloated and confusing with different casualty sources often saying radically different things. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

RS have been provided where it has been analyzed that both Russian and Ukrainian claims (as belligerents) are not considered reliable. And there is an ongoing discussion to potentially cite only 3rd party RS estimates in the infobox, while expanding on the belligerents' claims in the casualties section. We have also provided a link in the infobox, per talk page discussions, towards the other casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The assertion that Ukrainian sources are the "most accurate" for either their own or Russian losses and the basis for making this assertion is wandering deep into WP:OR. WP:RS specifically deals with independence of sources. Neither belligerent sources are independent. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is a summary an not everything. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The only real assertion is that Oryx's visual index, a neutral source with experience in what they do going back years, is the best first hand source of what the real scale of the losses are. Any other source is merely words with zero methodology, reasoning, or facts of any kind regards who it is from. As far as I can see that is an irrefutable fact. The photographic evidence is going to win vs tweets by some US gov channel from the other side of the planet from the conflict with no evidence or info of any kind for its basis. It just so happens Oryx's visual index best supports the Ukrainian MoD's claims for Russian casualties unless somehow people think the website has managed to get OVER 1 photo of every 1.6 Russian vehicles destroyed. Also, taking note of the fact Ukrainian official MoD claims have a strong track record of being relatively accurate thus far in the war does make them a reliable source on the topic as a simple fact without bias being a factor. It is basic inductive reasoning at this point. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It is basic inductive reasoning at this point. = WP:OR But, the current Oryx figure is 1380 v Ukraine (2741) - nearly twice. The US figure of 7,000+ v Ukraine 13,500 (killed as of 7 March per table in article) has the same order of difference (ie about two times). Guess that just blew that argument out of the water. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting in a warzone with operational security measures for people in the military, and where civilians don't go outside very often and are being evacuated from high intensity conflict zones, that we would have a photo of every destroyed vehicle in the conflict in real time? Because that is what you would basically have to be suggesting to say that the Ukrainians MoD figures are not the ones best supported by the Oryx visual index. Keeping in mind almost all the photos are up close of people walking up to destroyed vehicles only after fighting has well died down in that location and that many areas of Ukraine are experiencing internet blackouts so cannot upload such media. Even the lowest ratio I can feasibly imagine, that of about 1 photo for every 1.5 vehicles destroyed, would yield a figure of 2,130 vehicles as of Orxy's most recent figure of 1420 vehicles, IE even with the lowest realistic ratio 1.5 to 1 ratio Oryx still would support the Ukrainian MoD claims being 77.71% accurate which would clearly be superior to any other figure provided by any source on the page. Never mind a more realistic ratio of 2 to 1 would basically mean Ukrainian MoD claims are effectively right on the money. The ratio could well be 3 to 1 or more and certainly that is vastly more likely than it being below 1.5 to 1. I seriously cannot fathom how you or anyone can think anything was remotely 'blown out of the water' by any stretch of the imagination. You basically have to submit a rational argument for why it is reasonable to believe we have MORE THAN 1 photo for every 1.5 Russian vehicles destroyed which given all the reasons listed above it is extremely unlikely either you nor anyone will ever be able to do persuasively. Really the damaging outlandish aspect to any argument you or anyone makes against the accuracy of the Ukranians numbers relative to Oryx's visual index is that WE DO NOT need some crazy high ratio of photos to actual destroyed vehicles to prove them correct, and indeed the Ukrainian claims could actually be low by the standards of actual lost equipment relative to real time internet photos of said lost equipment in any other conflict thus far in the digital age. People are simply not paying proper import the scale of destruction of Russian forces we are seeing in photographic evidence which even without years of aggregation of older conflicts is surpassing the catalogue of photographic evidence of virtually every other conflict I can think of in terms of destroyed vehicles and equipment sans maybe WWII and we are only in the 3rd week. Take for example Oryx's visual documentation of ISIS tanks in 2014; we know ISIS had about 109 tanks at one point or another. Oryx's only managed to visually index 35, less than 1 in 3, or about 32.11%. I'm in fact being CONSERVATIVE when I suggest the ratio is to 2 to 1 in Ukraine. Even by that CONSERVATIVE estimate the Ukrainian figures are clearly the most accurate. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could ever debate otherwise, much less ever think they could blow anything here 'out of the water' in any convincing manner whatsoever. The figures in this article must change to lend proper weight to the most accurate figures and less prominently feature some of the most offensively bogus numbers that instead somehow get to sit in the info box to misinform every casual reader of the article. To the benefit of the Russian state I might add as it helps to obscure the true cost of the war from Russians readers. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary of TLDNR discussion moved here (the discussion has continued since it was initially moved): The gist of the main proponent is that the Ukrainian figures are the most accurate for human casualties. Their rational is based on an asserted correlation for equipment losses between Ukrainian reports and reports in an Oryx article. They would assert that the Ukrainian equipment loss figures (for both sides) are "accurate" and therefore, that the Ukrainian figures for human casualties (both sides) are the most accurate. Much of the discussion has digressed to a discussion of equipment losses with a main opponent questioning the "accuracy" of the Oryx source. One editor notes that a third-party source is considered more reliable. One would only use belligerent sources. There is a reference to "burying" information in the article and another that would support Ukrainian claims of Russian casualties be in the infobox (with a reference to censorship). One observes they would go to the "casualties" section. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Source: came across this article: Why is it so hard to get accurate death tolls in the Russia-Ukraine war? that starts: Despite the world’s attention being focused on Russia’s catastrophic invasion of Ukraine, key information still remains unclear⁠—in particular, the numbers of people who have been killed. I am not a subscriber so I can't see more but I would guess that the thesis of the article is Fog of war. If anybody has fuller access, they might give some more detail. It is probably relevent to this discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why barely even mentioned : I get that some people here mistrust or want to hide the UA official claims but at this point they're close to completely removed. Not just in the infobox but also here : 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties_and_humanitarian_impact , it's barely glimpsed over as if to borderline hide it . Meanwhile there's claims of some old 'consensus' to keep them out yet I haven't seen a proper vote on the matter. If self-reporting is completely off the tables then I suggest we also remove it from the following articles :

2016_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict

Kargil_War

Eritrean–Ethiopian War

Tigray War

etc etc .

Why am I sounding disingenuous ? Because it seems deliberately hidden .It's one thing to not post a single side's numbers but it's a completely different thing to borderline completely removed that side's claim , especially when there's already the precedent of self-claims to be available in the infobox. Romdwolf (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason why the numbers where removed from the table was because the person who added them (i.e. me) was unaware of the local consensus of the casualties article, which is where that table came from (it was not part of this article, just included). EkoGraf copied the table into this article and hence was able to add the UA numbers back in as of a few hours ago. Phiarc (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with images

Summary

• Various WP:P&G touch on the use of images generally and specifically in an infobox/lead.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: The infobox is also often the location of the most significant, even only, image in an article.
• Wikipedia:Image use policy: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Also: The lead image in an infobox should not impinge on the default size of the infobox. - though this mainly deals with width.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. And: It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.

• For the initial life of the article, the map was the sole image until a collage was added. (I don't recall any specific discussion re this though there have been some minor changes to the overall collage.)
• In mobile devices, the collage presents as individual images that "stack" and significantly add to the infobox length. Some experiments have been made to change this but without success.
• Examples where the images don't stack, it is because the image is actually a single image file, rather than a collection of image files.
• It has been observed that the map is a more important image than the collage (ie it should be retained over use of the collage).
• Comments would generally reduce the number of images (or their captions) - even down to a single image.

Even though the WP:P&G wasn't raised through the preceding discussion, I thought it appropriate to add. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

About images... Never been a fan of the collage approach because we end up with lots of small images instead of one image that is clearly visible. Kind of like collages in city articles.... mini images are useless on a phone... that now represent 70% of our viewership....they also cause a scrolling nightmare losing us readers. Here's a similar discussion COVID-19 info box images RfC.Moxy- 03:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Moxy, I'm also not a fan of the collage. Go with the map only. - wolf 17:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment With reference to the images in the collage, none of the images meet with P&G on images generally and in the infobox specifically. At best, they tell us we have arrived at a page about a war but not which one. Compare this with the image at Normandy landing, which one could describe as iconic. I doubt we could find an image rising to this level. The collage is therefore largely aesthetic. It is also problematic for mobile users per above. Even on a PC, it takes about one-third of a screen for no particularly useful purpose. I could live with an image that was one row of the collage, taking the same height it does presently and constructed as a single file so that it doesn't stack when displayed on mobile devices. I don't disagree with Moxy and Thewolfchild WRT size and ability to see detail but I don't know if it matters that much if there purpose is purely aesthetic. I would support no photo images because of the size they add without any significant value (per P&G). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Removed collage based on rough consensus here and in main thread. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think leaving just the map is fine. If we need an "iconic" image though, the strongest candidate I can put forth for now is something from c:Category:2022 Russian Invasion Z-shaped markings on military vehicles. AFAIK these markings on military vehicles are uniquely associated with this topic. --N8 11:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

N8wilson, I appreciate your comment but let's see where this goes before we start preempting which images we use. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, not preempting; just good faith discussion. If indeed we want to see where this goes I think it's productive to explore the possibility that an iconic image might be available to improve the article - a la Normandy landing as you pointed out above. --N8 12:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

N8wilson, as I said, "I appreciate your comment". but it is almost WP:BEANS. Hope that makes sense. :) Cinderella157 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

minsk 2 agreement any insights?

any insights on the minsk 2 agreement 92.28.21.114 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're looking for general thoughts, the place to ask is the reference desk. Regarding this article, it might be helpful to note that Minsk II was seen as generally unfavourable to Ukraine, and neither side upheld it. The problem is space constraints in our already compact and information-dense background section. Currently the two Minsk agreements are lumped together for simplicity, which works reasonably well. Jr8825 • Talk 20:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Casualty section of article and table

At present, the casualty section of the article tabulates some of the casualty figures using particular sources, while additional information is provided in prose. It would be better balance (IMHO) if the prose material was incorporated into the table but I'm not great with tables. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What information in the prose do you wish incorporated into the table? How would you like it to appear? Fieari (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically all of the information in the paragraph immediately following the table could be tabulated. If it helps, the start date in all cases is 24 Feb, so it could be placed in the column heading instead of being repeated in each cell. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to the belligerent's claims of their enemies losses, the table is part of the casualties article, which is written based on a compromise solution reached between editors at the start of the war back in 2014, where it was agreed that only 3rd party sourced and self-admitted casualty figures would be included in the infobox of the war's article and the casualties table, while belligerent claims of their enemies losses would be mentioned in prose due to the high possibility of propaganda. EkoGraf (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

EkoGraf, we are not talking about the infobox here but the table at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Casualties. It makes no sense for some of the casualty figures to be reported in the table and some figures to be reported in prose. I don't know if I am a fan of the table being linked from Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. If anything, it should be the other way around. As that article would state at Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, This is the main article for the 2022 invasion - and for the reporting of casualties. A local consensus elsewhere might guide us but does not bind us. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157, and I was referring to both the 2014-present war's infobox and the tables of the 2014-present war's casualties article to which the 2014 editor consensus is applied. I did not say that consensus also applies to the 2022-invasion article (a guideline as you say maybe). As for the 2022-present invasion infobox and tables, there is a rough consensus regarding the infobox for it to be cut down, with claims of enemy losses already being moved to the casualties section and some editors currently advocating that self-admitted losses be also delegated to the casualties section, leaving only 3rd party (US) figures in the infobox, with a link to see other estimates in the casualties section. As for the table, I did not link the table from the 2014-present casualties article to the main invasion article here, that was someone else. If you want to create a table specifically for the main invasion article's casualty section, including all of the various claims, I have no objection IF other editors also agree. EkoGraf (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I think I understood your previous well enough. If my brevity was construed as censure, there was no such intention. I certainly did not think that you had linked the table. As you note, this table and the infobox are separate issues. However, as I am reading the above comments above (the infobox discussion), cross-reporting by belligerents in the article body should not be obscured but having some of it in the table and some in prose firstly, doesn't make a lot of sense and, secondly, tends to obscure what is in text where all of it could be summarised most effectively in the table. I would read that there is already a rough consensus to amend the table as I have indicated (above discussion). Indeed, I thought that it had happened but instead, it was added as prose. I now understand why as the table is linked so the addition isn't so straight forward (no criticism intended). The first step is to either reverse the link (per my previous) or sever the link - but I would think the former best unless there is push-back from the other article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157, considering the casualties article falls under the 2014 discussion consensus as the general article for the 2014-present war, I would suggest to sever the link in the invasion article and make a table specifically for the casualties section of the invasion article, including all of the various claims, if all the other editors agree. EkoGraf (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I would suggest WP:BRD for a reversal of the link and severing if there is then push-back. As you say, the old consensus for the 2014 article is for the infobox, not the article body and there is already a rough consensus here. Let's see if we get other comments here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157, the 2014 consensus was for both the 2014-present war infobox and the tables in the casualties article which was created in response to the start of the 2014-present war, with the belligerent's claims of their enemies losses being delegated to the article text and expanded on in prose. I will create a new table for this invasion article here to include all claims. EkoGraf (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. EkoGraf (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

Outdated information Shekishek (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please specify a SPECIFIC change you would like made, and provide references as appropriate. Fieari (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

NATO should be added as supporters of Ukraine

See /FAQ, Q2.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Supported by NATO[a][1] European Union[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.217.225 (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (3)

You should change the map and include Mariupol in the south since it has been captured. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-60774819

• That source doesn't say Mariupol was captured. It says Russian troops have reached the city center and are still fighting. That is very different than captured. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army

(UPA) is nationalists. It's "Ukraina for Ukrainians" they say about themselves. Are they ultranationalists or just nationalists? I mean if they are welcoming to other people from other countries with other color and not racistic? (OUN) is mentioned in their history, but seam to not be anything alike them. --92.40.174.72 (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any such comment may be removed or refactored. If you request a edit to the article, please make your request clear and concise, preferably with reliable sources. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 15:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC) —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 15:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"Propaganda"

LMAO why don't you guys have a section of Ukrainian/NATO propaganda? This article is so completely one-sided. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:85EE:CAC9:C115:A8A9 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Provide some RS talking about it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

While doing that, please see WP:SOURCE. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 15:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you please shorten and de-clutter your signature ? Pixius talk 16:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There needs to be mention of Ukrainian propaganda for sure. Outright lies like the garrison of Snake Island dying to the last man, and the Ghost of Kiev would be a start.174.0.48.147 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

As for "reliable sources", well that's the conundrum isn't it. Countries at war tell lies as a matter of course. It's their job. This opinion piece at the National Review tells us Ukraine is doing as good a job as anyone at waging a propaganda war. https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/ukraines-historic-propaganda-war/ Obviously, there will be no "reliable source" about Ukrainian efforts because the war is still going and the western media is actively supporting the Ukrainian side. It would be wise to remove claims of Russian propaganda or at least concede that both sides are doing it, because the article as constituted implies that everything Russia says is a lie but everything Ukraine says is supported by fact, which often isn't the case.174.0.48.147 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You need a reliable source for that. We can't just add things without evidence. Sans9k (Talk) 17:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCE are fighting each other on this article. As the English-speaking community is mostly Western and WP:RSP is tailored accordingly, the article inevitably leans toward the Ukrainian/Wester viewpoint and is overall nicely aligned with en.Wikipedia's reference geopolitical block. On the other side, NPOV would require from us to be as detached, balanced and unbiased as possible, which in case of a war is almost impossible. References to WP:RSP run the risk of avoiding that commitment of ours towards neutrality. One wonders if a different approach would be possible - a way of coupling WP:NPOV with WP:SOURCE and deliver an account which is rich of contents, reliable and yet different from what anyone reads in the morning paper. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason why we are limited to Anglophone sources. It is true that most editors of English Wikipedia speak primarily English but if there is an independent reliable source in Russian speaking about Ukrainian propaganda, then yes, we can most certainly include it.

I suspect the OP of this discussion deems anything that isn't in line with Russian state media as propaganda, but if a good faith Russian speaker wished to put together prose sourced from independent reliable sources in Russian language, there would be no reason why such prose would not be accepted. Melmann 07:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "indepenendent" sources? Stop pretending that Wikipedia supports independent sources when virtually all of your "reliable sources" are Western corporate/state media, which everyone (incuding Americans themselves) know are generally American deep state propaganda. You're no better than the Russians. I think this is a systemic problem with Wikipedia as a whole rather than isolated to this article, where your definition of "reliability" is basically equivalent to "what Western elites think". But for this particular article Wikipedia's decision to be one-sided is frankly just dangerous. It is a disservice to the Ukrainians for this site to ignore things like the Ghost of Kiev/Snake Island propaganda. Ukrainians deserve the truth.2001:569:57B2:4D00:E033:E427:5656:B63 (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place to complain about longstanding core Wikipedia Policies. This page is only for discussing improvements to this article based on existing policy. If you want to recommend changes to policy there are other places to do that but if all you want to do is rant about them, then contributing to Wikipedia probably isn't for you. Cakelot1 (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It's really cute when Wikipedia editors link to their policy pages so fervently when an outsider comes in to discuss their ludicrously written articles (which, mind you, are so egregiously written that the founder of the site Larry Sander himself was forced to speak up). Here's a crazy thought: why don't you consider thinking for yourself for a change instead of Bible-thumping your "policies"? This is evidently too much for Wikipedians to bear. Your project is on a decline, and everyone knows it. Openly and shamelessly promulgating the war propaganda of NATO and Ukraine, without even a half-assed attempt at pseudo-neutrality like you sometimes try, is really just cementing this fact. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:E033:E427:5656:B63 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I've heard of this "Larry Sander" and apparently he's a complete crackpot. EEng 23:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of your views on Wikipedia's policies, this is not the place to be discussing them. Kotobdev 19:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Has anybody else noticed that as the war has progressed, that the number of broadcasts that President Zelenskyy has made have actually increased and been transmitted live from different venues, and that the number of broadcasts made by President Putin have actually decreased, are pre-recorded and almost always have the same background? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

NATO support not listed

NATO supports Ukrainian side with weapons, equipment and machinery. Why does Belarus appear as Russia support but NATO does not in Belligerents? On other war articles, countries supporting with armament are listed as support (like USSR did many times). Definitely one sided article. 95.169.234.196 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a thorough discussion of that available here which might help: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#RfC:_Should_the_individual_arms_supplying_countries_be_added_to_the_infobox? --N8 02:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Voznesensk

Just wrote a draft for the Battle of Voznesensk, a battle that reportedly took place north-west of Mykolaiv and was covered by The Wall Street Journal. Would appreciate if some of y'all could take a look at it and/or help polish it up a bit. Thought it was rather important because of the strategic value that the defense held, as it stopped a Russian advance in the western Ukraine and likely stopped the Russians from seizing the neighboring power plant. --LeukonTheBosporan (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I can help edit/make suggestions. So if you need some help, you can message me on my talk page, or the Draft's talk page. For example: After a quick glance at the article, make sure you use inline citations frequently, especially after any quotes or contentious material, and to ensure text—source integrity. See: WP:INTEGRITY and WP:INTEXT for more info. And I found WP:CITEBUNDLE to be extremely helpful when there is multiple citations at the end of an text (especially when you want the text to be easy to read).Also, make sure you cite your sources properly. This is explained at WP:CS. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 00:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

LeukonTheBosporan Done. EkoGraf (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this article should have a link to that article, or at least to a page that itself links to that article. Would it make sense to mention Voznesensk e.g. in the Southern Front section of this article, with a wikilink? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

typo in "Sanctions and economic ramifications" -> Airspace

Turkey invoked the "Montreux convention" and not the "Montreaux" convention.

See extract :

«Turkey invoked the Montreaux Convention on 28 February and sealed off the Bosporus to Russian warships not registered on Black Sea home bases and not returning to their ports of origin, rejecting passage of four Russian naval vessels through the Turkish Straits.[498][499]» Aabizri (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done (diff). Elli (talk | contribs) 22:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

South Africa blames NATO for provoking Russia

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/south-africas-ramaphosa-blames-nato-russias-war-ukraine-2571631

Please edit the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ09012011 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

As a top level article, that is a bit too detailed. This information might be better suited in the Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. Fieari (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@JJ09012011 Can you please be more specific about what changes you'd like to make and where? Depending on the changes, you might also consider editing or discussing your changes at these articles: Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis --N8 02:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-War Committee of Russia

I recently created a draft for the Anti-War Committee of Russia. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-War Committee of Russia

I recently created a draft for the Anti-War Committee of Russia. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

UKRAINE GETTING SUPPORT FROM US, EU. WHY IS IT NOT MENTIONED?

UKRAINE IS NOT ALONE FIGHTING THE WAR, COUNTRIES LIKE USA AND EU SUPPORTS THE WAR AND IS SUPPLYING WITH LETHAL WEAPONS, IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED THAT USA AND EU IS SUPPORTING UKRAINE IN THE WAR. 103.101.213.28 (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned here: List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War which is also linked from the section "Foreign military involvement" in this article but if you're wondering specifically about the infobox, that was discussed previously in Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. --N8_wilson 05:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned also in this article here: "Reactions" > "International organisations" > "European Union". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (4)

Update the internally displaced people in the infobox from 1.85 million to 6.48 million. Source here.Matthewberns (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I second that there are now numerous RS stating the internally displaced people are over 6M (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian refugees in other EU States ...

You should add other EU States which Are receiving Ukrajina refugees. For example Czech republic has receiver more than 270 000 ukrainians (mostly children And womans). Italy And France Also received some , ... Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:9193:A92E:B7:7317:D7C3:5E8A (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is already quite large, so there's a separate article for that at Ukrainian refugee crisis, which is linked from here at 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Refugees. Storchy (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

However, the way it's worded in this article could easily be interpreted as meaning the countries listed (in the middle of the last paragraph of the refugees section) are the only ones with refugees, which is incorrect. To improve this, I suggest changing "in specific nations" to "in some specific nations", or some other way to make clear that there are also other countries involved. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Animated map updated but description not

The animated map has been updated to march 20, however the text beneath it says: "Animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 4 March". It should change from 'Animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 4 March' to 'Animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 20 March' This text should probably be updated every time the animated map is updated.

[link to the map ]

If I did anything wrong in this request, or there is anything I can do better, I appreciate critique since I am quite new to the world of wikipedia edits.

Speederzzz (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 12:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (5) info box commanders

Woefully amateur info box listing the commanders as only Putin and Zelenskyy.

Add these under Zelenskyy.

Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskyi. He's head of the Ukrainian Army.

Serhiy Shaptala. He's Chief of Staff for the armed forces.

Charliestalnaker (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

We're all amateurs here, right? This was discussed previously here. Consensus was for just Putin and Zelenskyy. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus is that the article must reflect who is listed in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Energy sources

I got this about Russian energy sources https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russias-energy-clout-doesnt-just-come-from-oil-and-gas-its-also-a-key-nuclear-supplier-2832494 Almost forgot about nukes https://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/598825-us-thinks-russia-would-lean-into-nuclear-threat-as-invasion-drags Persesus (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Got this from NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/world/europe/ukraine-russia-nuclear-war.html Persesus (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons are not "energy sources" per se. 50.111.16.144 (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

4 chinese students killed

can someone edit the casuality list to include 4 chinese students killed, i dont have ability to. here is the source: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4461836 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YipB (talk • contribs) 14:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I looked this up, and I found an article that states that this did not actually happen. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3169315/ukraine-crisis-no-chinese-students-killed-kharkiv-clashes I'm not sure what the truth is here, so I think it should not be added, at least yet. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Indian student claimed to be killed in the same attack was actually killed while attempting to buy food. https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2022/03/01/friend-naveen-shekharappa-indian-student-killed-ukraine-recalls-ordeal.html Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Allegedly, anyway. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh no Persesus (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Update on the students

https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3169315/ukraine-crisis-no-chinese-students-killed-kharkiv-clashes Persesus (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/evacuation-03042022100422.html/ampRFA Persesus (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

War of aggression

This entire section has become a hot mess of WP:OR and WP:FORUM, and is obviously not going to lead to any content developments. If there's actually a content issue that needs discussing, starting again from scratch in a new section with a tightly focused question is more likely to be productive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There'll be inevitably be a discussion on this, so I figured I might as well start it. Sandstein added the wording, with sourcing, and I subsequently qualified it with "internationally considered", as Russia claims (counter-factually, to my understanding) that it isn't a war of aggression. There are a few questions which follow from this. Should "war of aggression" be stated in wikivoice without qualification or attribution (i.e. is there no serious dispute about this among reliable source that it is a war of aggression)? Do countries' official stances/positions on this matter (for example, if China echoes its ally Russia and says there were legitimate defensive reasons, can we safely ignore these statements)? Is this a legal accusation (in which case, is additional caution needed)? What have the UN's courts already said (if I recall correctly, one has already ordered Russia to withdraw)? Thoughts welcome. Jr8825 • Talk 21:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, it is a legal accusation, as the article we are relying upon and verbatim quoting (by a former US ambassador on "Council on Foreign Relations") makes clear: "Russia's invasion of Ukraine constitutes the crime of aggression under international law". And yes, the fact that Russia, China, perhaps India, South Africa and sectors of Western public opinion think that Nato's policy of enlargement has much contributed to the crisis – that is also relevant. While there is a substantial international consensus that this war is contrary to international law (and we could write on this, in a self-standing section or article, based on solid scholarly sources which are already available), we should avoid expressions like "war of aggression", "false accusations", etc., which only convey that we are fully aligned with the Western view: what about Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, were they preventive or aggressive wars? Echoing the value judgments of the Western media as if they were the Perennially reliable source of Truth is a way of endangering the collaborative potential of a transnational project such as this. And it is useless: not conducive to peace nor to critical understanding of others' viewpoints (that is, knowledge). We should rather think about how could we combine our commitment to WP:RS and to WP:NPOV under the present circumstances. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Preventive war occurs in connection with a real threat. A hypothetical threat isn't grounds for the use of force. Enlargement of the NATO is a hypothetical threat because the admission of new members does not necessarily mean that territory of these new members will be used for an imminent attack on Russia (Baltic States have been members of NATO since 2004 but the territory of these states is not still used for the placement of group of forces capable of threaten the existence of Russian statehood). Thus, there was no real threat in this case, and therefore Russia didn't have a legal ground for the use of forces against Ukraine. The conclusion is simple - it's war of aggression. The discussion about Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya isn't relevant, otherwise let's talk about First Soviet-Finnish War and other wars of conquest fought by Russia for the last 300 years. K8M8S8 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC) @Jr8825, thanks for starting the discussion. I did not qualify the characterization as a war of aggression because my impression is that it is an assessment universally shared by scholars of international law, and indeed now also the International Court of Justice. The opinions of those with a vested interest - such as the parties to the conflict and their allies - isn't what we base our articles on, nor is the political opinion of various countries and politicians, although it might be noted in a more detailed section about the legality of the war. We base our articles on the consensus of reliable scholarly sources, and I'm not aware of any who is of the view that this is not a war of aggression. Sandstein 07:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC) This is not a place for some resurrected Cold War propaganda machine. This is an encyclopedia. Russia got support for actions from numerous countries, minority of countries imposed sanctions also. If it is claimed that it is aggressive war counter opinions should be noted at least. Or qualifications especially "legal" to be removed all together especially considering to it is the lead section.109.93.126.5 (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Serbia is one of the very few countries "supporting" Russia, it's traditional ally. The vast weight of evidence shows this article to be very fair and well-documented.50.111.16.144 (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC) The paragraph 2 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 of 2 March 2022 states: "Deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in violation of Article 2 (4) of the Charter". What more sources do you need? Yes, United Nations General Assembly resolutions are not binding, but it does not have a significance in the context of the article. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a court. The fact of condemnation by the vast majority of world community, which considers it an agression, is enough. K8M8S8 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC) @K8M8S8. That source doesn't do the job and it shows the problem with the "war of aggression" label: it creates misunderstanding, which we should avoid. International law distinguishes between "act of aggression" and "war (or crime) of aggression". Acts of aggression are defined in a 1974 resolution of the General Assembly, this one, which according to the ICJ has now become customary international law. Based on that definition there is no doubt that the invasion of Ukraine is an act of aggression - honestly, I don't think that anybody could reasonably deny this. Plus, nobody to my knowledge has yet argued that the invasion of Ukraine is lawful under of UN Charter. So, provided that is is an unlawful act of aggression, the tricky question is: does it qualify as a "war of aggression", which is a war crime defined in Art. 8 bis ICC Rome Statute? By speaking of "war of aggression" we are implicitly answering "yes". And indeed many scholars, commentators and politicians are claiming that it amounts to a crime of aggression (see the sources we quote in the article Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). But the question is not as straightforward as the previous ones (act of aggression / lawful or unlawful) because a crime of aggression is "an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations" (art. 8 bis ICC Rome Statute). The Russian government can provide several arguments that probably we could not quote because they are not published on our reliable sources: aggressions to pro-Russian activists and members of the Russian minority, Ukranian language policy as incipient genocide, failed implementation of the Minsk Agreements, threatening eastward expansion of Nato requiring decisive preventive action, etc. The issue here is legal (and political), not factual. So, as per WP:NPOV and WP:CHRYSTAL, a few references to mainly Western newspapers and blogs do not justify en:Wikipedia anticipating the outcome of a possibly controversial judgement by the ICC, a judgement which perhaps it will take years to deliver. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC) @Gitz6666: International law distinguishes between "act of aggression" and "war (or crime) of aggression". Acts of aggression are defined in a 1974 resolution of the General Assembly – the 1974 resolution you linked doesn't make that distinction, which I suspect is WP:OR (and by that 1974 UN definition, this invasion is clearly an act of aggression). Editors at Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine have already done the work for us and gathered a mountain of sources stating unambiguously that it's a war of aggression (also, see this sourced section which, if correctly verified, contradicts your assertion that the crime and act of aggression are different things). Also, the sourcing calling it such is much stronger than "claims" in "a few references to mainly Western newspapers and blogs", they appear to me to be factual statements in a range of international and scholarly sources. If we can't treat Russia's claims as serious because RS don't, this indicates our answer: we follow what the sources say. Jr8825 • Talk 10:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC) If RS say it is a war of aggression so do we. I am unsure any one disagrees with this except the Russians. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC) No WP:OR here, @Jr8825, you can find plenty of RS on the notion of "crime of aggression", starting from here and here. While there is no doubt that the invasion is an act of aggression, in order for it to qualify as a "war of aggression" (that is, a crime under the ICC Statute) it needs to be "by its character, gravity and scale ... a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations". "War of aggression" is a legal concept, not an empirical one, and if we want to be neutral and objective we should only report that "according to experts (quote) the invasion constitutes a war of aggression". However, "Internationally considered a war of aggression" (as one now reads in the article) is WP:POV, is WP:CHRYSTAL, and it is also likely to be false. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC) "According to experts, the invasion constitutes a war of aggression" would be fine by me. Jr8825 • Talk 11:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC) I now realize what you mean. The topic is titled "War of aggression" but you say that not each war of aggression is a crime of aggression. Ok. I think it's clear that 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the war of aggression. As for crime of aggression, let me provide my views on this matter: 1. According to the articles 353 and 354 of the Criminal Code of Russia, the planning, preparation, outbreak of war of aggression, waging such war and calls for such war are most serious crimes with no statute of limitations. There are no exceptions. Any war of aggression is the crime under Russian law. Of course, Vladimir Putin will not be punished by Russian authorities, because 2020 amendments to the Constitution of Russia gave him absolute lifelong immunity from prosecution even in the case of impeachment. However, it doesn't change the fact of the commission of the crime. 2. According to the article 8bis of the Rome Statute, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the crime of war, without a doubt. Just see paragraph 2 of the article. Furthermore, we need to consider the stated objectives of the invasion, namely, "demilitarization" and "denazification" of Ukraine, together with Putin's article titled "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians". It is absolutely clear that Putin denies the right of Ukrainians to be self-sufficient nation, the right of Ukraine to pursue an independent policy and protect its own interests. The features of initial plan of the operation indicate that Putin aims to take whole Ukraine under his control. When the war had just begun Russian officials stated that Russia would prosecute Ukrainian senior officials for "their crimes". Thus, unlike the Annexation of Crimea and War in Donbas (which are illegal too), this invasion is not simple border conflict or territorial dispute; the true purpose of this invasion is the liquidation of the real Ukrainian statehood. Putin wants to make Ukraine his puppet state and Ukrainians his slaves. It doesn't just violate the paragraph 4 of the article 2 of the UN Charter, it goes against the fundamental principles of international law. So, of course, it's crime of aggression. 3. As for Putin's narrative about "enlargement of NATO, neonazi, etc.", I must say that: 1) this narrative is false and manipulative; 2) anyway, this narrative isn't legal grounds for the use of forces against sovereign state in the absence of United Nations Security Council resolution, and the invasion can’t be qualified as self-defense because there was no real threat (and we can talk about real military threat only, not hypothetical) to Russian security. 4. The problem is that Russia signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but withdrawn its signature in 2016, and, of course, will not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. But universal jurisdiction has not been canceled. Conclusion: this war of aggression is the crime of aggression but Vladimir Putin would be punished for that crime only in the case of the fall of his regime or in the case of Russia’s military defeat and unconditional capitulation. And the article Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine already contains aforementioned logic speculations in some manner. K8M8S8 (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC) I think this falls under don't be so open minded your brain falls out. It's not super difficult to look and see whose tanks are on which side of the border. The original research bit here is trying to play internet lawyer with the UN. We're not writing a legal document. We're writing an encyclopedia at about the secondary to undergraduate level. It's not really required to hedge our bets on whether something was like...a "defensive bombing of a hospital" as if the hospital is about to launch it's dreaded navy and air force. No, we don't need diatribes about the evil western media. No, we don't need to square the cosmic ledger because what about Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan. One country attacked another one. Them tanks right there on that other side of the border doesn't require any fortune telling. It's not rocket surgery. GMGtalk 11:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC) References Agreed, but one country attacked another WITHOUT PROVOCATION, to tweak your comment a bit. 50.111.16.144 (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Either way, we try to write the way people speak, that's accessible to the largest audience possible, especially those who speak English as a second language, because we're the largest project and we're writing in the lingua franca. It ain't a defensive war if you're the one rolling divisions across the border. Therefore, in the common way that common people speak, it's an aggressive war. GMGtalk 12:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC) @GreenMeansGo If we are using "war of aggression" in the common way that common people speak, then you argument about "whataboutism" is not convincing: Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan (and Syria, Libya, etc.) were not "defensive" in common parlance as NATO was rolling its divisions across the border (Iraq, Afghanistan), or at least enforcing no flight zones, bombing foreign territory and pursuing regime change, and yet en.Wikipedia didn't label these military interventions "aggressive wars" but rather provided reliable information on the issue of their contested legitimacy. Departing from that fair way of doing things looks WP:NNPOV to me. If, on the other side, we use "war of aggression" in the technical legal meaning, we have plenty of RS stating that the ICC has no jurisdiction over Russia for that crime. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC) If there's a problem with those articles then you should go and fix those articles. There is no shortage of sources calling this aggressive. No, I won't google it for you. I cannot possibly express how much I don't care about some nit picky argument that Russia withdrew it's participation in the ICC in 2016, and so there's some ethereal philosophical sense in which we can't call aggression aggression. It's perfectly fine that we call a spade a spade. Maybe to employ a personal Appalachism that no one will get, to use the good sense God gave a goose. GMGtalk 13:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Actually those articles are perfect as they are. They are based on the assumption that good sense (and good heart) are more or less equally spread across humanity, so that we don't need to do all the thinking and judging for the others: we can provide reliable information on the relevant facts and leave it to them to form their own view as to who is right and who is wrong. There will always be somebody who thinks they see things more clearly than you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC) I'm gonna need you to come down from the philosophical clouds and get over yonder on the ground where folks are bombing hospitals, schools, and apartments. Lemme know when you touch down. GMGtalk 13:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't know you were now editing under such duress. Stay safe Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC) I'm using figurative language. Perhaps I should be more literal. No, I do not presume that the people blowing up a preschool are working with a "good heart". This isn't a children's book where everyone comes out okay and learns a moral. It's the part where a kid gets their face blown off and bleeds out through what used to be their mouth. I'm not sure what part of that leaves room for everyone involved acting in good faith. GMGtalk 15:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Same with the sentiment of stay safe Persesus (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Consensus of reliable sources is that the war is Russian aggression. The same was overwhelmingly affirmed in the UN - only 5 countries voted no against the designation. The above distinction between an "act of aggression" and a "war of aggression" seems both spurious and irrelevant to the matter at hand. The "what about" [list of NATO wars here] is also not relevant. This is the talk page for the article "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" - wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not within this talk page's scope. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of subjective adjectives and adverbs

The following discussion 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.

---

Avoid using descriptive words that would be construed to be subjective. E.g. "Russia falsely accused.." vs "Russia accused.."

This statement is not consistent with the rest of the document. UrCompanionCube (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussed previously: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_8#NPOV_in_the_lead_section?_Putin_"falsely"_accused_Ukraine_of_being_dominated_by_Nazis Phiarc (talk) 15:11, 19 March 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.

Date

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the invasion date from 22 February 2022? Tanks started moved in Donbas region in the early morning of 22nd Feb [26]. Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Invasion also mentions invasion started on 22 February 2022. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

No, as this does not say the invasion of Ukraine had started, its a bit of a grey area. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 20 March 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2022 (2)

The following discussion 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.

---

edit causalities numbers to be 9861 Russian soldiers dead and 16153 injured according to komsomolkaya Pravda quoting the defence minister SKELOTONOVERLORD (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Renat 17:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Just as a matter of record, Ukrainian soldiers constitute a significant part of the Russian army. Their identity only changes when they rise in the ranks to major positions, whereupon it is usual to renominate them as Russian. This is perhaps one minor factor in the curious inefficiencies of the invasion's original battleplan, and the increasing use of non-Russian irregulars on the frontline. Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 22 March 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

The following discussion 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.

---

Change 498 killed Russian soldiers to 9861 killed Russian soldiers

Modification based on the article of the Konsomolskaya Pravda, published on 21/3/2022 : https://web.archive.org/web/20220321131726/https://www.kp.ru/online/news/4672522/ (9861 killed and 16153 injured) Indy75 (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - Konsomolskaya Pravda is an unreliable source. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:53, 22 March 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.

Ukrainian government civilian fatalities figures citation needed.

The following discussion 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.

---

The figures under the section 'Casualties and humanitarian impact', specifically the Ukrainian government estimate of 2,734–3,000 killed requires a citation. None of the three references given mention those figures. MathewMunro (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

An aggregate from the three sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:56, 20 March 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.

neutrality

hey @EEng:,i am not too sure how to phrase correctly what german speaking sources say about what neutrality means in the ukraine case, referring to sweden and austria. if austria is a model, as the most recent one from 1955, it means all is possible apart from joining NATO. UN peacekeeping, european union to mention examples. it also means the government declares by itself the neutrality, in its constitution, not in a treaty signed by somebody else. the text you found intelligible was:

"On 17 March, more details on the Russian demand of "neutral like Austria or Sweden" emerge. Sweden declared neutrality after the napoleonic wars and the loss of Finland to Russia. Austria was occupied by the winners of WWII, and they left after a signing a treaty. The treaty did not include that neutrality itself. Austria promised neutrality in the Moskau Memorandum and declared it "permanent of its own accord" a couple of months later, and Austria bordered the iron curtain between NATO and Warsaw Pact for nearly 40 years."

you d have a better wording for it? ThurnerRupert (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"More details" in addition to what other details? AFAICS the article says nothing about this, so the reader has (and I have) no idea what this is meant to clarify. EEng 10:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

the article says "the kremlin demanded ukraines neutrality". no details. english news sources are generally a little thin on this topic, reuters mentiones it in a couple of sentences. ThurnerRupert (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Your source seems to be simply speculating on what Putin might have meant. EEng 19:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

saying "like austria or sweden" leaves not so much room for speculation as there is written law, otherwise it would not hold in courts. you most likely know that different countries put in place different law when they declare neutrality. like demilitarized costa rica, armed switzerland. swiss citizens going to prison if they would fight in syria or ukraine. like the international law "permanent of its own accord" (in german: immerwährende") which the austrian parliament put into its constitution. the sources then mention a couple of examples what was allowed and done in the past, and what not, within this law. that austrian soldiers go to cyprus, or golan hight. ThurnerRupert (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I honestly don't understand how any of this is going to lead to something that can go into the article. EEng 00:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

you are right, lets leave it like it is, no point to make the article longer for details like this. ThurnerRupert (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Bad writing

At the end of the intro paragraph it says

"and millions more fleeing their homes.[33] and millions more have fled their homes.[34]"

Is it meant to say the same thing two times in slightly different ways? 130.226.179.58 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not. Fixed. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2022 (2)

In the section Other Legal Proceedings, add Sweden to the list of countries which have opened domestic legal investigations of Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Source: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/aklagare-i-sverige-utreder-krigsbrott-i-ukraina (SVT is Swedish public service, i.e. a highly reputable source. I can add more if needed.) /2022-03-24 31.209.52.211 (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Checks out, Sweden added. Benjamin112 ☎ 07:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Great! Just change "Northern Sami" to Swedish in the footnote. /2022-03-24 31.209.52.211 (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that typo! I incorrectly assumed the language code would be the same as the domain, but it's been fixed now. Benjamin112 ☎ 08:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's new to me too. (Northern) Sami is one of Sweden's official minority languages. /2022-03-24 31.209.52.211 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguity in infobox

The following discussion 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.

---

I see two problems with the infobox: first, the "Equipment Losses" listed under Donetsk PR could mean losses for Donetsk, or (probably) losses for both Donetsk and Russia. There are a number of ways to make this clear. I suggest fixing it by putting the heading "Casualties" before the Russian flag, in the same font as the heading "Equipment Losses". Secondly, "Acc. to ind. res." has superscript "expand acronym", and when you mouse over it, it says "The text near this tag needs the full version of its acronym at first occurrence". I don't know what the expanded text would be; incidentally, it's also an abbreviation, not an acronym, but that might be OK. Generally, great job creating this article, everyone. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

On the second point, the 'expand acronym' is a maintenance tag (i.e. like cite needed). I'm guessing 'ind.' means 'independent' and 'res.' means 'research'. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

So does anything need doing here? EEng 00:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes; see my first message above. Add "Casualties:" as a heading before the Russian flag, in the same font as the heading "Equipment Losses"; and also expand or explain the abbreviation. It's been changed to "Acc. to ind. researchers", which removes the abbreviation on one of the words, but the word "ind." is still an unexplained abbreviation. Find out what it's an abbreviation for, probably "independent"; give it a tooltip the way "Acc." has, or expand the word, or do something else to tell the reader what it means. Thanks! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:31, 22 March 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.

Update animated gif

The following discussion 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.

---

I really don't want the progress updates to be missed. I believe the creator of the map has posted links to daily snapshots of the conflict map on the gif talk page on commons, but the gif itself only goes up to March 4th. Anyone good at compiling gifs? BlackholeWA (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There's little use bringing it here. The animated map has its own discussion page at File talk:2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine animated.gif. It's better to raise it there. Melmann 19:12, 20 March 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.

Russian casualities

The following discussion 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.

---

According to https://web.archive.org/web/20220321121337/https://www.kp.ru/online/news/4672522/ the infobox shall be updated this way: "Acc. to Russia (21 March): 9,861 soldiers killed, 16,153 wounded" --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Who are they claiming the casualties for? Themselves or Ukraine? KD0710 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

disregard. This is a tabloid paper, therefore not a RS. KD0710 (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

KD0710 Agree. The newspaper has in fact already removed the information, denied it and stated they were hacked. This has been covered by reliable sources who have questioned the accuracy of the information. I already tried re-establishing the original information cited to the MoD (from March 2nd), while still mentioning the whole event in the casualties section. However, I have been reverted twice [27][28], with an editor reinserting the cite to the removed & denied tabloid information in the infobox who considers it to be all a cover-up and is ignoring the RS-covered denial (unsourced OR in my opinion). EkoGraf (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if the website was hacked or not that's not important. We can't use unreliable sources for English Wikipedia it doesn't matter the numbers displayed there. It's just a simple No. Mr.User200 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I would also recommend to remove this number from the page. It's not reliable. Sifalot (talk) 00:51, 22 March 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2022 (3)

In the section Other Legal Proceedings, add Lithuania to the list of countries which have opened domestic legal investigations of Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Source: https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1633685/lithuania-opens-probe-into-crimes-against-humanity-in-ukraine-attacked-by-russia (LRT is Lithuanian public service, i.e. a highly reputable source.) /2022-03-24 31.209.52.211 (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done And so completes the Baltic states. Added. Benjamin112 ☎ 01:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There should be more sources

Because this is such a controversial topic at the moment, many sources can be misleading or false. I think it’s important we have more sources so that the information on Wikipedia can be as accurate and neutral as possible. Benflyingace (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you familiar with our Reliable Sources policy? All 600+ sources used in this article are reliable. Is there a statement you've found that is backed by a misleading or false source? If so, please be specific and we will review it. Fieari (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia's reasons for this ?

I can't find anything of this topic. Why did Putin invade ? And what is the Russian goal ? Are we in the West not grown up enough , for listening to both sides. West are censuring Putin and the Ukranian president is given an extreme amount of time and space in television and in papers. (I can watch TV news from Germany, UK, France and Scandinavia - and for every word from Putin, the Ukraine president gets like 5000) There's a lot we do not know anything about related to the reason for the invasion and Putin, which free people should be entitled to here. And this could well be a topic for this article. Neutral balance. 83.250.73.248 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the "Background" section of this very article for the what experts believe are the reasons Putin is doing this. The last paragraph of the section in particular... he believes Ukraine is spiritually part of Russia and should be re-integrated into the nation. So according to experts, the invasion is purely imperialistic in nature. Fieari (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The last paragraph is probably the most one-sided piece in the whole article. According to a real expert (notable, serious, world-renowned academic studying precisely topics like this one) called Mearsheimer (relevant 2015 talk on youtube [29]) this has has absolutely nothing to do with imperialism. The last paragraph should focus more on established theory of International Relations/Politics/War and Political Realism (and of course other schools of thought) rather than just rely on US/British historians. Also references to public speeches are a terrible source for drawing conclusions about actual reasons since they give nearly 0 context into the actual reasons behind any sort of arned conflict or policy.

Hopefully someone with appropriate permissions will replace that part with something that at least mentioned other academic sources and viewpoints. KMourat (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I should've made a better job in my previous comment to further substantiate claims about what the actual reasons were. In my opinion, it is a much better idea to focus on topics discussed in peace talks, like Ukraine not joining NATO. An article from NYTimes references this topic 1 month before the conflict even started, and according to another NYT article published yesterday discusses the progress of recent peace talks and again references the same issue. I believe this gives us more insight into actual reasons. KMourat (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"West are censuring Putin" what exactly makes you think that? Putins Feb 24th speech was widely covered (in fact, it has its own article: On conducting a special military operation) as are many of his public appearances and speeches since then as well as appearances of Lavrov and Maria Zakharova. Phiarc (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fieari gotta laugh at “according to experts, the invasion is purely imperialistic in nature”.

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that prints factual information, not edicts from “experts”. Do you understand the concept of NPV? Do guy understand the role of propaganda in wartime? (Rhetorical questions, no need to answer.)

Contentious political articles on English Wikipedia will, by design, always present a POV sharply slanted towards the prevailing Western perspective. It doesn’t help matters that even apparently earnest contributors don’t understand what a neutral point of view is and why it’s important for an encyclopedia to uphold that principle.

Getting articles like this one to reflect a NPV is a Sisyphean task that will never be achieved. A more honest Wikipedia would brand itself as an amateur driven western-based encyclopedia project instead of pretending it’s a noble, high quality repository of NPV knowledge free from political and cultural biases. User2346 (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot we do not know anything about related to the reason for the invasion I mean, Putin did two hour-long speeches a few days preceding the invasion, rambling on about global power dynamics, NATO, and apparent nazification in Ukraine, etc. And he wrote a long essay about his views on the status of Ukraine and its people. Much of it isn't very justifiable, so it's hard to take you seriously when you decide to ignore Putin's own words, fail to even attempt to articulate exactly what content the article is missing so that it can 'be neutral', and instead make vague references to 'Western bias' and 'things that are unknown'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

We go with what wp:rs say, that is what wp:npov means. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone find RS that tell us what Putin said in his speech? Any RS that summarize what he said? Can we add that (briefly) to the article? Is there another article that explains more fully the Russian viewpoint on the war, and can we put a link to it? There's a link to "Russian irredentism", but that doesn't seem to relate specifically to this war. What reasons did Putin give for the military operation (or whatever he calls it)? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Oops. Never mind. I was just looking at the lead. I see there's already a section about that, "Russian accusations and demands". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above that (the right wing) Mearsheimer's analysis should be mentioned here. Also, the article doesn't really mention much about how the US & colleagues misled Russia: James Baker is famous for saying "not one inch eastward" to M Gorbachev about NATO expansion (which the naive reader may not know from this article alone was a military alliance whose main purpose was to oppose the Soviet Union). (see https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early for the Baker quote & US documents on misleading Gorbachev.) In Mearsheimer's exposition, all this is more apparent. A variant of Mearsheimer's view can also be found in (the left wing) Noam Chomsky's recent comments on the current situation & also during the Russian invasion in 2014–2015 in various media including Democracy Now (which is less pro-US government source than, say, the NY Times, etc.). – ishwar  (speak) 21:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like it should be possible to work in a prose link to John Mearsheimer#2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine somewhere. --N8_wilson 22:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Equipment Losses

My concern is the fact that the article doesn't show estimates for ukrainian losses (independent sources). Currently, losses by the ukrainian military are displayed in the article acc. to russia only. It gives a bias view if you don't add indepedent estimates to ukraine.

These are some solutions: - Add independent sources that are estimating ukrainian equipment losses. - Delete independent sources estimating russian losses

Im favoring the first option. 2.205.129.206 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Please find those sources if you’d like the change. Thanks! KD0710 (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This website documents visually confirmed losses on both sides: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html P4p5 (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This BBC article describes Oryx as a blog? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_8#wikipedia_please_stopped_spread_Russia_propaganda for prior discussion and a viable source Phiarc (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Joint Slovenian/Czech/Polish visit of PMs to Ukraine vs Turkish FM visit

The article doesn't mention the visit of Prime Ministers of Poland, Czech Republic and Slovenia to Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv that took place on 15th March 2022 - I don't know if it is a notable event that fits the scope of this article, so I don't appeal for adding this information. I mention it merely as it provides context that invalidates the claim of "On 17 March, Çavuşoğlu was the first foreign minister to visit Ukraine after the start of the invasion."

Clearly a delegation of four ministers from three countries on 15th makes a "first foreign minister to visit" claim in regard to Turkish MoFA unsubstantiated . Some sources about the visit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/world/europe/european-leaders-ukraine-trip.html

https://twitter.com/MorawieckiM/status/1503652747647799298 89.75.169.132 (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

World war 3 claims

Should the claims about this being the start of WW3 be added https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/world-war-iii-may-already-started-russian-invasion-zelenskyy-says-rcna19967 https://thehill.com/policy/international/598459-zelensky-world-war-iii-may-have-already-started https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-president-zelenskyy-warns-ww-iii-may-have-already-started https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10620665/Zelensky-says-World-War-Three-started.html https://www.businessinsider.com/zelenskyy-russian-invasion-could-lead-to-start-of-wwiii-2022-3 Persesus (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No, his comments are meant to spark emotion, much like how he used 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as event comparisons to US lawmakers and the Holocaust to German lawmakers in attempts to increase their involvement. KD0710 (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting question. In this wise Pope Francis spoke of a "piecemeal WWIII" in 2014. On the other hand we have to wait on a reliable source for the nomenclature. On the other other hand, can WWIII be non-nuclear? Stay tuned.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/World_War_III#cite_note-94

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/World_war#cite_note-6 kencf0618 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well it can start off as conventional then escalate from there Persesus (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Syrians in Ukraine

I found some stories about the Syrians fighting with both Russians and Ukrainians https://www.reuters.com/world/some-syrian-veterans-ready-ukraine-fight-commanders-say-2022-03-20/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/18/syrians-join-russian-ranks-in-ukraine-as-putin-calls-in-assads-debt https://www.mei.edu/publications/will-russia-deploy-syrian-fighters-ukraine https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-war-syrians-reportedly-register-foreign-fighters/ Persesus (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

The following discussion 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.

---

Change the death toll according to NATO to 40,000 killed, as NATO just released a statement saying that number. It is said in the same source that is currently cited. DragonLegit04 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Rest assured, numbers will be updated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That 40,000 number was killed, injured, missing, or captured. KD0710 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

NATO said 40,000 killed, wounded, missing or captured, including 7,000-15,000 killed. EkoGraf (talk) 02:39, 24 March 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.

American Non-Governmental Weapon Aid

The following discussion 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.

---

Hello, my edit was reverted twice as I attempted to put information pertaining to American non-governmental or private sector involvement. The original placement of this information with links and sources was near the “foreign military involvement” and “foreign volunteers” area of the page. The edit contained the following:

US based Ammo Inc. pledged 1 million rounds of ammunition to Ukraine and the National Shooting Sports Foundation introduced an step-by-step export tutorial for their 8,000 members to ship firearms on a wish list.

In addition to these details, other facts include multiple police forces donating helmets and vests, and a New York weapons drive that successfully added 60 rifles to the Ukrainian arsenal. I would like to try to get this information back into the page, and it was asked of me to come to the talk page and receive guidance before changing it back a third time. Some of the information also leads to a page not expressed on main, The Ukrainian American Coordinating Council Twillisjr (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, but this seems rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Maybe another page would be a better fit as this page is just an overview. KD0710 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Russian Armed Forces casualty estimate source

The following discussion 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.

---

https://archive.ph/f0A2Y has the sentence "According to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, during the special operation in Ukraine, the Russian Armed Forces lost 9861 people killed, 16153 people were injured." I can't edit the page, but presumably someone else can. Jsnider3 (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I was coming here just to ask this: The figures were on the news article for quite a bit of time (40 minutes?) until the article was edited to remove the figures. No explanation was provided.

Is this something that should be added to the article? Falconet8 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Internet Archive, earliest archived version of the KP article with these numbers is from 12:13 GMT, latest archived version from 19:39 GMT has them too; it was there for seven hours at least... Kuracyja (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

They've since said they were hacked. Falconet8 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Important to note the article also said Russian General Staff estimated 14.7 thousand. The 9861 figure is Russian Ministry of Defence. How would this tabloid have got this information however? They are not state controlled, although of course are pro-Kremlin. --CringeFringe22 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Important to note the article said according to Ukrainian HQ it was 14.7k, and Russian ministry supposedly denied the numbers and provided 9861 figure. The article was up for about a day without any edits, but it was then edited. KP said that their website was hacked. No where in any briefings does it provide any official numbers. For a comparison, in Syria Russia lost around 100ish officially, around 4500 to 5000 in Chechnya depending on the sources and 67 in Georgia. Those numbers were also not published right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.174.219 (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Since when is some yellow press that got hacked is a reliable source? Please refrain from posting anything that isn't from Russian MoD as "Acc.to Russia" DeiDrah23 (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove tabloid nonsense on russian casualties. even the tabloid says it's false. Goggo2022 (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That information is speculative and should be moved to "other estimates" or something... RomanPope (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Revert the Russian casualties to the official RU MOD figures thank you. This is simply not from a reliable source. It is not as if this article isn't already anti-Russia enough. Nebakin (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with removal, if it was the truth, where is the MoD statement it refers to?--Havsjö (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As I, and a few other editors already stated in our other discussion up above, the figure should be removed from the infobox and casualties table. First, tabloid newspaper - not verifiable/reliable source per WP guidelines. Second, the publisher himself removed the information, denied it and said the outlet was hacked. Problem is, some editors have disregarded the (un-)reliability of the source and that it itself already removed the information and made a denial it wasn't them who published, but instead that it was the result of a hack. EkoGraf (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove tabloid nonsense from infobox.

Even the tabloid says it wasn't them, which wouldn't be surprising. and even if it was them, it's just an unreliable source. Goggo2022 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

the desperation is pathetic

numerous sections already stated that the tabloid source for russian casualties in the infobox is not only FALSE but an unreliable source. yet in a desperate attempt for a few more propaganda points wiki editors are refusing to correct it. so much for wiki standards. Goggo2022 (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Dude chill out. This sort of thing happens on wiki especially in a time of rapidly changing events. Patience is key, this will work themselves out. Instead of getting so upset with an online website, log off and go cool off. What is written here isn't worth getting g so upset over. The Introvert Next To You (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

how much time does it take to figure out that a tabloid paper that says it's output is not reliable treated as an unreliable source, which is, you know, actual wiki policy? this is where the bad faith comes in. it's not about making a mistake, this is a clear attempt at propaganda and wiki is the battle ground. Goggo2022 (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What tabloid source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Goggo2022 The paragraph at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Casualties which say "On 20 March, the Russian tabloid newspaper.... other outlets," should be removed. We all agree that KP is unreliable source and is a tabloid. Why we need to provide coverage to the event in which their site got hacked and the casualties numbers were changed as if KP could have been used if it wasn't hacked at all? >>> Extorc.talk(); 11:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We are not only using it as a source, but also the BBC reporting on it. But I agree, we can remove it (the confusion came from the fact we do not use it in the Infobox). Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The problem that arose was that some people were trying to include it in both the infobox and casualty table and present it as if the Russian MoD is the primary source, while disregarding that the secondary source, that allegedly reported it, was a tabloid (inherently unreliable), plus they disregarded that the outlet removed the information, denied it and stated it was hacked (reported by RS). At this point I also agree that the prose paragraph itself should maybe be removed. EkoGraf (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Important to note that the figures referred to Russian Armed Forces casualties. That means it doesn’t include losses of the National Guard, OMON, Kadyrovtsy, or DLNR. —Michael Z. 15:25, 22 March 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.

Day ??? Invasion

What exactly is the point of all these links? Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

all of the links you can use for the article Persesus (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please put in a sandbox and leave a link here. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We do not need a huge list of sources, we are capable of finding them ourselves. What we need is edit suggestions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but what are we supposed to do with "Mickey Rourke Calls Putin 'A Man With Empathy' As He Talks Ukraine Invasion"??? This seems like a pile of random junk. EEng 22:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I collapsed the list. Comments are, not here. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure what Comments are, not here means, but I'm archiving this. EEng 23:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2022 (6)

There was consensus on the talk page of the [30] that it should be merged into [31] so perhaps the main article should link to it as well? (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Genlef please be specific as to what edit you think should occur. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderlla157 I think that this sentence "Numerous companies withdrew their products and services from Russia and Belarus" should be linked to [32] rather than [33] (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Mariupol art school bombing

New stub for expansion: Mariupol art school bombing ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we really going to go for "Acc. to" instead of "per" on the infobox?

Why are we using an abbreviation instead for the infobox on casualties? This is entirely unnecessary when we could just be using "per" Flalf^Talk 14:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Have there just not been a conversation about this? Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking in the archive it seemed to be a small discussion with no proper conclusion. "acc. to" is far more confusing than per. Flalf^Talk 15:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think "Acc. to" is more likely to be understood than "per". "Per" is the Latin word for "through", I believe; would it mean casualties that occurred while going "through" the territory mentioned? "Per" is also used to represent ratios: does it mean as a ratio of the population of the country mentioned? Perhaps some sort of survey could be done (including people who speak English as a second language, and beginning speakers!) to see which is better understood. "Per" is also used in Wikipedia discussions to cite someone's comment, so Wikipedians might think it sounds natural, but I found it strange at first when I encountered it in Wikpedia discussions being used like that. Hah! I just moused over "Acc." and it says "According". So that's explained, and unambiguous. What would happen if you moused over "per"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You're looking at a tooltip template. See {{abbr}}. Just adding 'acc. to' doesn't result in an explanation. You could feasibly do per. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The tooltip isn't intuitive either. Only shows a question mark unless you hover for quite a few seconds Flalf^Talk 16:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Quite a few seconds? I just timed it and it takes less than a second to show its meaning. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Although that could just be me and it differs depending on device? Either way it does not take that long for me. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that per is better. There was a discussion about it, see Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#"per"_is_confusing. I would support switching back to 'per'. Melmann 16:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Per is well established, which acc. to is not. Plus it's more compact, which matters in infoboxen. EEng 09:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Jr8825 • Talk 10:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is saying it should be left to the citation or a note. What is being said in the infobox is another matter. The infobox should represent an "executive summary" and not a regurgitation of multiple sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've supported 'per' in each discussion prior when this has been raised, and I'mma support it now. The fact that 'per' has more than one definition – which is the argument presented to modify – does not make it ambiguous. Context determines meaning. And if 'acc.' needs a tooltip at each instance, that makes it a worse, not better, replacement for per. I'm neutral on 'according to'. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If we didn't have 24h archiving, perhaps one of the previous 3-4 discussions could've come to a resolution. See Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries; neither have a definition of "per" like Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia talk pages do. Further, I'll note that we've varied between styles since this article began. When we use "per", new accounts tend to post on talk saying they're confused by the meaning. When we use "acc. to", established Wikipedians post on the talk encouraging the use of the word "per". I feel like that does say something about the comprehensibility of using "per". Mind you, I'm not saying I support "acc. to" either. I would much prefer something like "Russian claim:" "Ukrainian claim:" etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

»I would much prefer something like "Russian claim:" "Ukrainian claim:" etc.« why aren't we doing that? It's plain English. Phiarc (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Let’s just do that. Wtoteqw (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to that from "per" in the first 24 hours of the invasion, and hoped that it would stick, but someone reverted me at some point along the way. "X claim" is concise, unambiguous, and relies neither on an usual abbreviation nor a somewhat jargony usage of a preposition. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I've implemented that given the apparent consensus here. Alternate words for 'claim' may also work, e.g. 'Ukrainian data:' etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"Claim" is contrary to WP guideline which guides us to avoid the term since it casts doubt on the credibility of the person saying it. See MOS:CLAIM. So based on this I was obligated to remove the term. Sorry. Lets continue discussing. I'm for "per" by the way. EkoGraf (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't actually think that applies in this context, because all the data supplied is being labelled as a claim, from both sides and uninvolved parties, so a 'casting doubt' interpretation isn't reasonable (whereas in prose it might be). Nevertheless, how about "Russian data:" "Ukrainian data:", etc? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"Russian estimate:" "Ukrainian estimate"? EkoGraf (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm... "estimate" might actually imply that these are objective numbers with no motive for potential distortion. I could see "estimate" used for 3rd party analysis, such as from the US, but I think I prefer "claim" for both the Russian and Ukrainian numbers (even though I believe the Ukrainian numbers are likely most accurate given the photographic evidence provided). Fieari (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Are equipment losses being recorded elsewhere?

Are equipment losses being recorded elsewhere - ie in another article related to the 2022 invasion? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, chiming in b/c you've been #patiently waiting: not that I know of on WP. Closest I can offer is List of ship losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War and List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War both from the navbox on this article. There's also a list of weaponry used but it doesn't tabulate losses and isn't invasion specific. Outside WP I've seen some editors reference the "Oryx" site for numbers. I expect the reason few editors have replied here is the difficulty in giving your answer a definitive "no". They might be in an article sub-section or a draft somewhere but if so, I haven't seen it yet. --N8_wilson 05:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes Persesus (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Persesus, where please. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

How is Ukraine winning ground in this map?

The following discussion 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.

---

How? 86.123.7.243 (talk) 18:12, 26 March 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.

Wagner Group

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the Wagner Group be added to the list of belligerents? Reportedly they are in Ukraine, have been unsuccessfully attempting to assassinate Zelensky, and at least one of them has been killed in combat. [34] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2EB0 (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

They should not be added to the list of belligerents. To quote one of the previous answers to this question, "They are Russian citizens and therefore covered by Russia being listed. E.g. the Afghanistan or Iraq wars don't list every subcontracted PMC, either." Benjamin112 ☎ 05:31, 26 March 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.

Ukraine Casualty List Update

Ukrainian Defence Ministry has claimed over 15,000 Russian casualties since the start of the war. Of course this cannot be independently verified to be an accurate number, but it should still be added to the casualties list in the article under Acc. to Ukraine in Russian casualties info. --CringeFringe22 (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We seem to have removed both the entries for Russian claims about Ukrainian casualties and Ukrainian claims about Russian casualties. I am not sure this is a bad idea. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Earlier consensus has been to remove the belligerent's claims of their enemies losses from the infobox, but still show it in the casualties table in the casualties section. Its there. EkoGraf (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I thinks its good idea Persesus (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"According to the United States"

Why do we need the United States' estimates for the casualties in particular? Are they a reliable and neutral observer of the conflict? No, they are clearly aligned with Ukraine. Furthermore, it's not clear why America's opinion in particular needs highlighting. This seems to be a simple situation of Americo-centrism ("America thinks so, so it must be true"). Like I could understand having the UN's estimates or something, but why America? 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C053:F038:23A:2CB8 (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what a gov't support of Ukraine could translate into false losses - that would be counter-productive, and there isn't any proof of such in any case. 50.111.16.144 (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

They are a third party, but it might be better to have a NGO claim, do you have any we can use instead? 10:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

They are the only third-party source that has been presented. Belligerent sources are generally inherently unreliable as attested to by a source in the article body of this article for this particular case. There are no "good" sources being presented but the US sources are better than the belligerent sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"America thinks so, so it must be true" if that were the case, these numbers would be claimed as fact, which they are obviously not.

"Like I could understand having the UN's estimates or something" the UN does not publish military casualty estimates. The civilian estimates come from the OHCHR.

At this point I'm kind of wondering what's up with CA v6s, by my estimation 80 % of all v6 IP edits on this TP are CA and always odd straw-men... Phiarc (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you should ask them Persesus (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Transnistria and the war

Much has been talked about Transnistria and the role it could play in a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine ever since Russia started amassing troops on its border. I've thought about writing an article about this but I don't know if it would be a good idea. Transnistria definitely does not have the same level of involvement as Belarus or Chechnya nor is it as important as China in the international arena (all of these 3 have their own involvement in the invasion articles). I also thought about expanding the scope of such article to the whole Russo-Ukrainian War since already since the annexation of Crimea it was said that Russia could attack Ukraine from Transnistria. What do you think? Would such an article be notable and independent enough? Super Ψ Dro 08:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I... am not sure about that. I don't know what stakes Russia holds in that region other than being a big factor in its partial recognition, and to that extent I also don't know how many scholarly articles will uphold recognition of the Transnistrian state.

Geographically I don't see what Russia could do to ask for resources either, planting troops there if there weren't any already would require either further pushes into Ukraine. They can't enter NATO countries, that's for certain. I'd say for now there's not much reason for the article to exist :/

Icepunchies (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

We need to see examples of "all this talk" in RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a Russian military base in Transnistria. Transnistria is demographically about a third Russian and a third Ukrainian. It's not a bad idea to create this article if there are enough reliable sources, and there probably are enough reliable sources. --JECE (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this exactly the kind of thing WP:Draft is for? --N8_wilson 04:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Such an article would not have an obvious notability. Thus, I can't leave it as a stub, so I'd need to write an extensive page which will require work I am not willing to put in for it to only become a draft. I first wanted to see opinions. By the way, here are sources to show Transnistria's context in this is being discussed: [35] [36] (American senator saying Transnistria might get involved soon) [37] [38] [39] (how Transnistria might end up in a Russian invasion of Moldova) [40] (Transnistria on Lukashenko's leaked map) [41] (Transnistrian puppet president had to talk about rumors of Transnistria attacking Ukraine) [42] (Ukraine blew up a bridge connecting it with Transnistria amid fears) [43] [44] (analysis on Transnistria's reaction and potential role in the war) [45] (Transnistria supposedly bombed Ukraine and Moldova denied this). And I did write a bit of this article, see here [46]. Super Ψ Dro 19:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I just meant that starting the article in the Draft namespace allows other editors to assist you with evaluating or establishing notability. Drafts can be tagged to WP projects so that other interested contributors can find them and help develop the topic. Plus, a lack of notability in the Draft: namespace is not grounds for removal. (Except I think in cases where there's clearly no chance of notability such as patent nonsense.) --N8_wilson 16:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m Not so sure Persesus (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Rally

I've created a stub for the 2022 Moscow rally, if editors are interested in helping to expand. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll try Finton the magical salmon (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Great for doing that Persesus (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Economic Impact Outside Ukraine and Europe

To Economic Impact I think it would be fair to add the effects outside the front? Prices of oil in Turkey are skyrocketing. Food across Eurasia is affected. ^[1] Icepunchies (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Icepunchies Pls be specific as to what you would add where, if not already done. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Rate of archiving - slow down

The following discussion 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.

---

As EEng has observed, we need to steady up on the rate at which threads are being archived and removed from the talk page. Some of the threads here are pretty clearly "closed" because they are edit requests that have been addressed or because they re-raising an issue that is a WP:DEADHORSE. We still need to leave these up for a reasonable period so that editors can see that the matters have been addressed and why. Not everybody is hanging off every edit here. We don't need to remove threads as fast as new ones are being added. Some of the repetition on threads can reasonably be attributed to the rate at which threads are being archived. I have been marking closed threads with template:archive top to signal a discussion is closed. Closing allows a reader to quickly scroll past closed discussions while still seeing what has recently been discussed on the page. I think this is a better option than rapidly removing "closed" threads from the page. The other issue is that some threads need some time to mature. For example, I am patiently awaiting a response to my question at #Are equipment losses being recorded elsewhere?. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Small point: uncontentious edit requests that have simply been  Done, so that the requestor can see immediately in the article itself that the matter has been attended to, don't need to stick around at all. EEng 04:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Does the proposer get a notification when done. I can't remember. They could stick around for a little bit so the proposer (and others) can see they have been actioned or perhaps there would be further comment from the proposer. They could be closed though. Having them around a bit longer can be useful too if it signals what does get done. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Recently there have been a few threads that consisted entirely of someone pointing out a spelling error, and someone else saying  Done. I archived those the moment I saw them, no matter how recent they were. Presumably the OP is smart enough to look in the article and see that his suggested correction was made, and there's zero value to keeping the thread around. That's an extreme example, but you get the idea. EEng 05:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In favor. --N8_wilson 05:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Fog of war my friend it’s the fog of war Persesus (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines provide that archiving should occur when a talk page exceeds 75KB. Right now, this page is 88KB, so we certainly do not need to archive any slower. An overly-large talk page is bulky, uninviting and harder to navigate. If nobody contributes to a thread after three days, then nobody cares. This is the talk page of a dynamic unfolding war, not a leisurely report on a past historical person or event. ATM, I cannot support an archive rate in excess of three days. WWGB (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:TALKCOND and 75kB is a rule-of-thumb, which allows variance depending on the rate of discussions and even three days is particularly short to determine a discussion is dead. As far as I can see, all of the archiving in the last 1000 edits has been initiated manually. I searched for "bot" and the only hits are to SineBot for signing. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I see WWGB has, once again, reduced the time, saying this discussion yielded "no consensus". I didn't think I needed to pile on to the obvious, but I guess now I'm piling on. So now it's a !vote of 3 to 1, and I'm changing it back. WWGB, I'm really interested to know why you feel the need to micromanage this, giving that you don't actually participate in any of the discussions here. Keep this up and I'll be happy to issue one of my patented beat-downs. You're wasting everyone's time. EEng 23:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The rate of manually archiving is problematic too. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the rate of manually archiving can't per se be a problem, if those archivings are all appropriate (which requires judgment). If you can identify a few examples of someone doing that more than occasionally, we can address that. (I'm sure I've made a mistake or two myself.) One thing's for sure: "keeping the page tidy" is not a reason to archive. EEng 04:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, none of the pages archived in the preceding 1000 edits (then) had been bot archived but manually archived. Unless the edits are clearly disruptive, we probably should be letting the bot do the work. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Completely disagree there. No reason to bloat the page with threads that have served their purpose (broadly interpreted -- for example, some fully resolved threads might have value for a day or two longer, for example if the issue is likely to arise again, so that other active editors can mentally note, "OK, here's how we've been handling this issue."). Again, it's a matter of judgment. EEng 05:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Some sections can be immediately archived, like simple updates/copyedit requests, etc., that no reasonable person would object to. OTOH, discussions on key issues that have plagued this talk page across ~5 different sections in archives, and are still standing problems, should remain on the talk for longer so that we can actually reach a resolution rather than start–yet again–from scratch. Judgement is required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Is that mere agreement with my complete disagreement, or complete agreement with my complete disagreement? EEng 22:46, 22 March 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.

Can we Consider the War FINISHED ?

The following discussion 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.

---

Well, at beginning, 1 month ago, we saw several bombs falling, explosions, tanks entering cities, aircraft crashes, discussion about An225 etc, but since a while we see all on TV, news spread, all very calm... of course here and there are some civil die from free bullets or small guns, like revolvers, how ever for me the 'Big' actions were done... Can you as feeling see the same ? --92.218.124.118 (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss the state of the war. If you have independent reliable sources stating that the war is over, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 29 March 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.

Russian source claiming 9,861 Russian deaths.

The following discussion 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.

---

I am not sure this has been discussed yet. The pro-Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda reported that 9861 troops had been killed and 16153 injured citing the military.[47] The report was taken down after several hours and blamed on hackers.times of israelcnnreuters. I am not sure it can be included if they don't stand by it. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

No, not a WP:RS. See Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8#Russian Armed Forces casualty estimate source for main discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay sorry. Thanks. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:40, 28 March 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.

Ukrainian proposed offensive towards Kherson?

An article that the Ukrainians are pushing to recapture Kherson.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ukraine-official-says-army-to-retake-kherson-from-russians-today/

A Ukrainian official says the country’s military will retake Kherson — the first major city Russia’s troops captured — later today.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60872358

In a US assessment on Friday, a defence official said that Russia had made no progress in its advance on Ukraine's second largest city Kharkiv, and that Ukraine could recapture Kherson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmclellan82 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

The following discussion 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.

---

• Add "Supported by: Canada" in the infobox:
• Canadians have joined the Ukraine Foreign Legion.:
• :

170.52.84.180 (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done Individual Canadians =/= actual country and government of Canada. There are also countless other nationalities in the Foreign Legion, none of which have been or should be added. Benjamin112 ☎ 00:29, 26 March 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.

Map update

The following discussion 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.

---

Why is the map not updated more often and what are the sources being used to update the map? RomanPope (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The edit history is recorded at Wikimedia and you can see the multiple uses of the map on InterWiki here: [48]. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Please also see Q4 in the FAQ section at the top of the talk page for an answer to the first part of your question. Benjamin112 ☎ 21:14, 25 March 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.

Let's remove the Battle of Stalingrad comparison from the Eastern front section

The following discussion 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.

---

The battle was described by a Ukrainian presidential adviser as the "Stalingrad of the 21st century".

Is there any valid reason for including the above quote besides "the guy said it"? I assume he said it to make the situation seem as horrible as possible to garner support and sympathy. Just basic war propaganda. However, I do not get why Wikipedia promotes such a biased take. I don't think it should.

How about we remove it? Dylath Leen (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree unless it was said by someone notable and had a major effect somehow. You could say drew comparisons to Stalingrad.Mozzie (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. A Ukrainian presidential adviser is not notable enough and the comparison is emphatic and understandable but not historically credible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Comment by a non-notable person. And to be honest, in recent years (of this century) political/military experts have actually compared the Syrian Battle of Aleppo to the Stalingrad battle. And the Aleppo battle had more than 50 times more deaths than the one here. EkoGraf (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree if it was from a good quality academic source we might consider it but we don't have any of these. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:27, 25 March 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.

Counteroffensive

The Ukrainian Army has recaptured several towns and are on the offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a specific url for your source? Just listing the publisher and date is inadequate. Benjamin112 ☎ 07:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60847188 97.126.65.119 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Benjamin112 ☎ 05:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Peacekeeping mission proposed by Poland

I think the Peace effort section should also mention Poland's proposal of a NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, which will be discussed at NATO summit in Brussels on March 24. I propose we use Reuters [49] as source. --Kotys ek Beos (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This should only be on the peace efforts page if it is passed by NATO. There’s not much relevance yet. KD0710 (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

The following discussion 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.

---

We need to change the name of this page. I think the word "war" definitely needs to be incorporated or else we're just feeding into the russian game of pretending this isn't a war. 98.53.116.63 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War already exists. EkoGraf (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Plus war carries a bit of a sense of mutuality. EEng 04:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 23 March 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.

GA Nomination

The following discussion 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.

---

I'm nominating this article for good article status, but since I'm not a regular contributor to this article I'm making this topic. Regular contributors, feel free to add content to the article to make it even better as the article is reviewed. InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 23:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

No. It is way to early for GAN and it needs serious work before even considering GAN. Wretchskull (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Pigs might fly too. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Look, once Donald Trump's been president of the US, there's no ruling anything out. EEng 02:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Please keep your stupid personal comments to yourself. Keep on-topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.16.144 (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand it was a shock to realize you'd been duped by a criminal moron con man, but don't take it out on me. EEng 03:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

EEng#s, is that a comment on Trump's ability to fly or on this article? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The war hasn't reach a conclusion yet. Don't rush. PenangLion (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed to early, hell this article, could be totally out of date the second after I post this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with others that it is too early, although the page is coming together nicely. Thanks to all of those who have put the effort into improving the article.Mozzie (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

An unstable article cannot be passed? --Victor Trevor (talk) 09:34, 24 March 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.

Equipment Subsection Deletion

The following discussion 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.

---

This subsection seems to either need to expand to include Russia and Ukraine equipment use or (in my opinion) be deleted all together. The use of a hypersonic missile, while possibly interesting, has zero need for itself own section. Furthermore, the last sentence of it completely misinterpreted the article and reads as though Ukraine has lost air superiority. Which no reliable source has stated and hardly talked about, except in the respect that Russia still hasn't achieved total air superiority. The Introvert Next To You (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Support deletion. It's weird. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

same here Persesus (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, Perseus, because I removed that section 16 minutes before you said "same here" Tommy has a great username (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh I didn’t know Persesus (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Support deletion. As written, it was just another random indiscriminate factoid (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Resolved? EEng 21:00, 24 March 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.

"Civilian casualties" numbers in Infobox should have a "Greater than", ">", sign in front of them

The following discussion 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.

---

This is because ALL of the citations attached to the numbers go to sources that ALL state that the real civilian death toll is far higher than the current counts. The sources point out that constant shelling and bombing have made it impossible to gather and count bodies, due to 24 hour shelling in numerous cities. Add to this that many bodies are buried under the rubble of collapsed buildings or are going into mass graves.

Therefore putting the "Greater than" symbol " > " before each civilian casualty number is the only accurate representation of the currently cited sources.

Can an Infobox Editor make this correction? Thanks in advance!

Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

+ is the prevalently used symbol to indicate "more than" that has been used in much of the war articles. EkoGraf (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Be that as it may, > is a better choice. EEng 13:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Beside the + being the symbol commonly used in virtually all of Wikipedia's war articles, > creates a problem when you add it in front of a ranged estimate that has a minimum and a maximum figure. It being in front of the minimum figure makes it redundant since the dash and upper figure are there, already indicating the number is larger than the minimum number. Thus, the + is inserted behind the maximum number in case its established that the number could be even higher than the confirmed maximum. EkoGraf (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What other articles do carries little weight unless you can explain why it's best. On that score, I can't tell what you're saying, exactly, about the ranges. Can you gives examples? EEng 22:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried explaining why it would be best to avoid >. If its for example ">1-10", since we already have "1-10", which indicates the range to be more than 1 (up to 10) there is no need to also redundantly add > in front of the 1 in an attempt to additionally emphasis the figure could be more than 1. EkoGraf (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Then don't add > in front of it. Either just say >1 or say 1-10. EEng 03:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• It is a case of trying to capture too much detail in the infobox, when it is meant to be a summary per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. None of these figures are accurate. Presenting them in the infobox is suggesting they are. We should just be saying "Reports vary - see section" Cinderella157 (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Best of all. EEng 03:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Problem is an editor was trying constantly to add > to both minimum and maximum, regardless of the dash (-) and plus (+) already being there, making it redundant. The inclusion of the fatalities in the infobox was previously discussed during our conversation on the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well that's idiotic of course, but then so is 1-10+, which is no different from saying simply 1+, or (better) >1. EEng 04:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Unsure where we are on this. EEng 23:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Pretty certain we can say it is resolved. I did a search for ">" without finding it. I think it is safe to say there is a rough consensus against the use as described? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Against, like I said. Especially when the editor who raised the issue wanted to leave the + as well. EkoGraf (talk) 03:38, 27 March 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.

Combatants

The following discussion 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.

---

Should we update the combatants list Persesus (talk) 15:03, 21 March 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.

Activity of Russian authorities against Wikipedia and Wikipedians

The following discussion 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.

---

I've added the following text (see below) into the article Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia. Perhaps this text (or its part) also will be useful for the subsection "Censorship".

" On 16 March 2022, Russian Agency of Legal and Judicial Information (РАПСИ — founded by the RIA Novosti, the Constitutional Court of Russia, the Supreme Court of Russia, the Supreme Court of Arbitration of Russia in 2009) published the interview of deputy chairman of the commission on the development of information society, media and mass communications of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation Alexander Malkevich. In this interview, Malkevich said that Wikipedia (both Russian and others) was becoming a "bridgehead for informational war against Russia". Also he stated that Russian law-enforcement agencies had identified 13 persons, who were carrying out "politically engaged editing" Wikipedia's articles, and about 30,000 bloggers, "participating in informational war against Russia".

According to Novaya Gazeta, pro-Kremlin structures related to Yevgeny Prigozhin are actively involved in doxing "coordinators of an informational attack on Russia" including Wikipedia's editors. Also Novaya Gazeta reports that Special Communications Service of Russia (the division of Federal Protective Service) employees are trying to disseminate pro-Kremlin propaganda through editing Wikipedia's articles. "

K8M8S8 (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• I hope them guys get to safety Persesus (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• So is there anything that still needs doing here? EEng 20:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I think, in addition to the article Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia, we can add into the subsection "Censorship" of the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, after the sentence about the detention of Mark Bernstein, the following sentences: "On 16 March 2022, deputy chairman of the commission on the development of information society, media and mass communications of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation Alexander Malkevich stated that Russian law-enforcement agencies were identifying Wikipedia's editors disseminating the information, considered "unreliable" by Russian authorities. Novaya Gazeta reported that pro-Kremlin structures related to Yevgeny Prigozhin were involved in doxing Wikipedia's editors and that Russian security service employees were trying to disseminate pro-Kremlin propaganda through editing Wikipedia's articles.". K8M8S8 (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Albania sent military equipment to Ukraine

The following discussion 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.

---

Can someone update those two maps [50][51]. The sourceArchived 2022-03-18 at the Wayback Machine. Maybe other countries too need to be updated. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

someone needs to get on that fast Persesus (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

So is this resolved? EEng 20:52, 24 March 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.

Looking for expansionist adopter

Greetings,

I am user Bookku. I look for (knowledge and information) weak areas and search for suitable adopters who can expand the territory of info and knowledge. Freely available territory for expansion:

• Draft:Civil life in conflict zones
• Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones
• Women's shelter
  • See also Draft:WikiProject Peace

Pl visit and expand (info and knowledge with refs) in above territories as much as possible.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Accusing Ukraine of war crimes

There is a discussion on another page. I would appreciate if more people check it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I've been adding input as you've requested. Aside from the equivalency questions the passage seems to be really problematic for a number of other reasons aside from what you mentioned. I tried to fix it, but we'll see whether or not that gets reverted. The problem, beyond your point as to whether or not it's WP:DUE, is that A. it's WP:WEASEL it says "Ukraine has been accused" but then never says by whom it was accused, anywhere in the article. It's also WP:OR, no where in the sources that I have seen does someone accuse Ukraine of committing war crimes, or abuses, or whatever. There's a source from HRW that says that Ukrainian Authorities took photos of prisoners then says that "Such treatment of prisoners of war, or POWs, violates protections under the Geneva Conventions intended to ensure dignified treatment of captured combatants on all sides." But if that's the source that's used it seems a tremendous leap to then say "Ukrainian Authorities have been accused by HRW of abusing POWs". Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Censorship in the west

Can we add more info on censorship from the West targeting Russian media? For example, early in the war most of Europe blocked access to RT. It now seems to be inaccessible from Canada as well. Can someone confirm? 64.231.158.212 (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think we can add a line or two about blocking Russian propaganda. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Please provide sources that show they blocked Russian outlets for the purpose of censoring them. KD0710 (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually I don't see the difference between blocking and censoring. When China blocks Wikipedia aren't they censoring us? Blocking is the technical means for suppressing information that are considered objectionable for their content or source - which is the definition of censorship. Maybe one could make the case that censorship may occasionally be justified, but that's not for us to discuss here. The only editorially relevant point I see is that the info is already covered under "Media depictions > Censorship", under "Russian state propaganda" and under "Reactions > European Union. There might be a slight bias in emphasis (Cf. to prevent Russian disinformation, in response to disinformation, The Russian censorship apparatus, etc.) which should be addressed. If reliably sourced, the info on Canada could be added where appropriate. And we might also consider adding to the lead "Numerous companies withdrew their products and services from Russia and Belarus, and Russian state-funded media were blocked in various countries and removed from online platforms and news channels", if there's consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we mention that Russia has blocked non-Russian media sources? Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I hope so, don't we? There's the whole "Russian state propaganda" section and there's the lead, "those in Russia have been met with mass arrests and increased media censorship". Perhaps we should rephrase it so as to make it more clear. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell no, but I might have missed it. What we do talk about is Russia's internal censorship of its own media. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between blocking media for censorship purposes and not allowing a Russian government entity to make money in your country. Most of what I have read is that countries have not allowed RT to operate in their countries not due to what they are saying but because it is a potential income stream for them. While we can make assumptions that it was more complex than just an income stream, we'd need to have an RS reporting it as such. KD0710 (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@KD0710 Van der Leyen said on tweet: "We will ban the Kremlin’s media machine in the EU. The state-owned Russia Today and Sputnik, and their subsidiaries, will no longer be able to spread their lies to justify Putin’s war" [52]. I had a quick look at Politico ([53]) and Washington Post ([54]) and none of them mentions the objective of blocking revenues and money streams, they clearly say that the objective was political: "to combat a global barrage of Kremlin-backed falsehoods and digital tricks", "to punish the media outlets for sharing misinformation and propaganda about Russia's invasion".
@Slatersteven, we mention that Russia has blocked non-Russian media sources. In "Media depictions" > "Censorship", e.g. "On 4 March, Roskomnadzor blocked access to several foreign media outlets, including BBC News Russian, Voice of America, RFE/RL, Deutsche Welle, and Meduza, as well as Facebook and Twitter." In the "Media depictions" section we have also contents on Russian censorship over Russian media. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Could not find it, maybe we need a separate section which included both Russia's blocking of foreign media and other nations' blocking of its media. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I can reach RT just fine from the EU, though their main page (rt.com) gives a 403 - delivered and signed by their servers in Russia. I think the ban is only for their broadcasting via TV / radio and the walled gardens (Youtube, appstores etc.), though for the latter the question is whether the operating companies booted them on their own accord or were required to do so. Phiarc (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to understand if there's consensus on adding the highlighted text to the lead: "Many countries imposed new sanctions, which have affected the economies of Russia and the world. Various countries provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. Protests occurred around the world; those in Russia have been met with mass arrests and increased media censorship, including banning the terms "war" and "invasion". Numerous companies withdrew their products and services from Russia and Belarus, and Russian state-funded media were banned from broadcasting and removed from online platforms. ". We cover that content extensively and in various sections of the article (see here above for details). While the economic and military impact of these measures is, I guess, quite limited, they stand out as the main or only limitation on the exercise of rights in non-belligerent countries (a part from travel restrictions and individual sanctions). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree but it goes beyond simple censorship when you go into the area where people can disprove obvious lies with a five minute search with unbiased information that was there years before the events. RT demonstrably routinely cross this line, and it's been press regulators, not governments, who have taken them off the air in many places.

Are we going to start allowing UFOlogists free access to ancient Egyptian articles, or alkaline water advocates free access to immune system articles afraid that they may cry "censorship"?

Freedom of speech means the right to say your opinion. It does not mean the right to state it and present it, without evidence, as fact. 2.217.215.204 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not disputing this. They're probably scum and taking them off might have been a fully justified decision. I'm quite sure it was a legitimate one. The point is: is it important enough to go in the lead? I think so, we cover it extensively in the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine didnt have 100 drones

RUSSIA claimed destroyed more than 200 Ukraine drones. The fact is Ukraine only had 40 Bayraktar drones. Mosf of them still operational. Only 1 got shooted. Turkey itself only had 100 Bayraktar. Total only 300 Bayraktar had produced. How could Russia claimed destroyed nearly 300 drones ? 103.47.135.149 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum for discussing the topic, but rather for discussing how the article about the topic should be built-- what should be included, how should it be formatted, and so forth. We don't do Original Research here either, so we can't investigate this ourselves. If you find a reliably sourced reference that discusses the issue, it may be worthwhile to include in the article, but we have to determine what is due weight for such an inclusion. Fieari (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It does however indicate the inherent unreliability of any of the equipment loss figures and the usefulness of these figure to our readers, since by reporting these figures as we do, there is an underlying perception that if we are reporting them (particularly in the infobox) that figures are credible. It comes back to the question of whether we should be reporting these figures at all? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Editors insist on including Ukrainian claims of Russian equipment losses, we then have to include Russian claims of Ukrainian losses as well per WP's neutrality guidelines. So if we removing one, we need to remove both. Personally I would remove both. EkoGraf (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

We know they are, hence why we attribute their claims to them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. EkoGraf (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Surelly not only the Bayraktar drones are counted, but also drones of other types that the Ukrainian armed forces had, and very surely they must also be counting the commercial drones that they have shot down, which the Ukrainian armed forces are using a lot due to the lack of military drones, as seen in many footage of ambushes on Russian forces filmed from these drones, the Ukrainians have requisitioned as many as they can for use. 152.207.223.94 (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine says it’s received more Bayraktar drones, and there have been cargo flights consistent with this.[55] We don’t know how many, or even whether they are TB2 model. —Michael Z. 18:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 open letter from Nobel laureates in support of Ukraine

I just created a draft for the 2022 open letter from Nobel laureates in support of Ukraine. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Spelling

Change "Amid the heightened Russian shelling of Kharkiv on 31 March 2022, Russia reported a helicopter strike against a oil supply depot approximately 25 miles north of the border in Belgorod and accused Ukraine of teh attack" to "Amid the heightened Russian shelling of Kharkiv on 31 March 2022, Russia reported a helicopter strike against a oil supply depot approximately 25 miles north of the border in Belgorod and accused Ukraine of the attack" --DTLT (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Invasion wikilink (again)

The following discussion 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.

---

I'd like to re-open the previous discussion on wikilinking "invasion" in the first lead sentence, as I'm not satisfied the last thread received enough input given the hecticness of this talk page earlier in the invasion. I'm against wikilinking. I explained my rationale in the last thread (which I invite others to read), but in a nutshell I think it runs against MOS:OL (as an everday word), WP:SEAOFBLUE (see the current revision) and all previous invasion articles. Would be glad to hear others' views and determine what the consensus is. Jr8825 • Talk 13:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael, Mr rnddude, Pabsoluterince, N8wilson, and Fieari: Courtesy ping to previous discussion participants. Jr8825 • Talk 13:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be wikilinked. People can get an idea of what an invasion is by reading the article here anyway, since it is about, well, an invasion. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The definition of invasion is disputed by a core element of the article, namely, Putin. Invasion is also centrally core to the article. Likewise we must wikilink Ukraine and Russia, as being centrally core to the article. Wikilinking Invasion is supported by MOS, and is also demonstrably useful to many readers. This isn't a pointless or decorative or merely emphatic wikilink, we have data to show that it's getting used. Fieari (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be linked, because it's central to the article, which is about an invasion & has invasion in its title. That means that it definitely isn't an overlink. The page views of invasion show that thousands of people want to read that article. It's even more relevant because Vladimir Putin says it's not an invasion, when it certainly is. Jim Michael (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• As I see it, WP:SEAOFBLUE is a question of how to wikilink, independent of whether to. I'd suggest postponing the sea-of-blue question for now b/c if we remove the invasion link this concern becomes a moot point. If we keep the link, then we can revisit the tension between sea-of-blue and the "first occurrence" guideline.

Regarding whether to link: MOS:OL could suggest we also de-link Russia and Ukraine. I think MOS:CONTEXTLINK is probably what's currently supporting links on all three of these topics. While I'd normally say invasion is commonly understood, and therefore an unnecessary link, this article may be a unique corner case. A portion of sources providing information on this topic are now forbidden from using this word. It's reasonable to expect readers coming from that environment to take interest in why it's used in wikivoice here (even in the title). Combined with MOS:OL's reminder to set aside demographic biases, I'm in support of leaving the wikilink. It has real potential to assist readers and minimal drawback (if any?) for those who have a common understanding of it. --N8_wilson 16:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure why we should not, but then we often wiki link to the bleedin obvious. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I checked all 16 entries in List of invasions#2000–present. Unfortunately, most of the article titles didn't actually include the word "invasion". Of the 3 that did, none wikilinked to Invasion. However, one without "invasion" in the title did wikilink (perhaps because it involved both an invasion and a siege). This matches my impression that it's by no means necessary to wikilink such a common word, but also not odd to do so if it can clarify the situation. Ornilnas (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I support not linking as per MOS:OL. Whether this was an invasion is disputed by Russia and its supporters, but linking to invasion doesn't help resolve or explain that issue. Content in this article is how we explain that. Bondegezou (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree that it's unhelpful. For readers who believe or have been told that this special military operation was necessary for noble reasons such as denazification or demilitarization, the invasion article offers clarity. It reminds readers in the lead that the term invasion applies regardless of the reason used to support it - however altruistic that reason may be. --N8_wilson 22:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Altruistic is not the first word that comes to mind. EEng 22:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly - the article invasion clearly informs the reader that this is certainly an invasion. Jim Michael (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Now, just how many bikes do we want in this WP:BIKESHED? Removing or retaining one link in a sea of blue is insignificant. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It's bizarre that this has been brought up yet again. This is an article about an invasion, which has invasion in its title. Invasion couldn't be more relevant. Jim Michael (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's a relatively minor detail, but I don't think it's insignificant given that it's the very first sentence we're talking about. I brought it up again because I disagree with Jim & think it's a clear-cut case of overlinking, and I suspect a majority of editors might agree with me. Jr8825 • Talk 13:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Unlink This is not Wikionary. If a reader's grasp of English is so poor that they doi not understand the word "invasion", then the rest of the article will be a mystery also. They should probably go to another language wiki. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Unlink We do not need to clarify what an invasion is; it's common knowledge. Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Close? For this page, I think the discussion has gone stale and could be closed. While I commented here, I was not supporting either course. There are reasoned comments to support retention or removal but ultimately it is a matter of opinion and as far as I can see, the opinions are near equally divided. There is "no consensus". As such, the status quo is that the link remains. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

How would a/the status quo be enforced? Between the last comment and the time of writing, both the link and its corresponding hidden comment have already been removed (again). Feels inevitable that editors will act independently back and forth, and this discussion will be reignited for the umpteenth time. (And for the record, I am neutral on the matter, with regards to reinforcing whatever sort of status quo there may be.) Benjamin112 ☎ 05:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Was reworded with this edit Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 29 March 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.

Largest war in Europe since WWII?

The following discussion 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.

---

The introductory paragraph of the article claims that this war in Ukraine is the largest one in Europe since world war II. However there was the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s, for which the Wikipedia article claims the total deaths at 100000+. How come it's being claimed that the Ukraine war is the largest? 2607:9880:4018:11:CDC0:2C25:68DD:8E6A (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes...WARS as in more than one. This is just one war. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Your response is a non-answer to anyone with background knowledge on the topic, Slatersteven. Both of the major Yugoslav wars resulted in tens of thousands of deaths each and the larger resulted in over hundred thousand dead alone. Ukraine presently comes close to neither (although it's rapidly approaching Croatia's civil war in deaths). The reason for Ukraine being considered larger, has nothing to do with plurals as you've suggested twice or thrice now. IP, it's because of the number of troops committed to this offensive. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that "largest military conflict" is somewhat vague, perhaps we can add some qualifier? Such as "by some measures", or just specifically "by number of troops committed"? I agree that "by number of troops committed" is plausibly implied by "largest military conflict", but it's not obviously implied. And this is a really strong claim. Ornilnas (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

And my next answer is, how do we define size of war, number of dead, area, number of combatants, duration? But yes my answer was an answer for the reason just stated. We can't compare one war to a series of wars, no matter what metric we use. We can only judge it, by comparison, to one war. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a matter, I think, of sovereign nation-states. There is no Wikipedia article "Yugoslavian Civil War"; rather, its constituent republics had a suite of very complicated and messy wars. Hence the "Yugoslav Wars" article. No one is calling this the "Slav War", after all. kencf0618 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If we say "largest" in the Wikipedia article, I think we should know what we mean, not just parrot the words of sources. Do the sources cited explain what they mean by "largest"? I think a qualifier such as Ornilnas suggests is probably a good idea, but would need to reflect what the sources mean. If we can't figure out what the sources mean, maybe we should say "has been described as" or "widely described as" or something. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

A plain question was asked: how is this the largest war in Europe since WW2 when the Yugoslav civil wars (YCW) resulted in 100,000+ dead? There are several plausible answers to that question, however, none of them are 'this is one war'. Why? well answer the question: how is this war larger than the Bosnian War? (that's one war, not a series of wars, with 100,000+ dead). How do we define size of war? Well, if you look at our article... we don't. Neither explanation nor qualification is provided. Hence why the question is asked. To consider your mentioned metrics: by deaths (Bosnia at 100,000+) ; by area (Ukraine, presumably) ; by troops (Ukraine at ~500,000 active and ~1,000,000 reserves) ; by duration (Croatia at 4.5+ years). To consider Ken's comment about sovereignty, 'military conflicts' are not confined to sovereign nations and the article claims 'largest military conflict' not 'largest military conflict between sovereign states'. With that qualifier though, it'd be fine, and we might have fewer inquiries about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, which is why we go with what RS say, and not our own wp:or based upon what we think is significant about any one war. RS have said it is, so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I wrote and then removed, because I did not think it necessary to include, but since you're taking this route: none of the three cited sources supports the claim 'largest military conflict'. One says 'largest ground war', one says 'largest conventional military attack', and one says 'biggest assault on a European state'. And do not cite OR at me, when you're walking around saying the distinction is in the plural. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

We also do not say "largest war", but I am more than happy to see this changed to something like "largest ground war" (per sources). Slatersteven (talk)

'Military conflict' is a synonym for 'war'. In fact, if you type in 'define military conflict' on Google, it'll link you to 'war'. Just thought to check, military conflict is a redirect to war. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

And I have said I am happy to see this changed to match at least one of the sources and say its the "largest ground war since WW2", I am unsure what you opposition to this is (if you have one, I am also unsure you do). Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not WP:OR to merely notice an error in a source. 'Largest war in Europe since WW2' is a weaselly claim, and we shouldn't repeat it blindly, even from WP:RSes if we have valid grounds to doubt such characterisation. If anything, taking 3 sources that claim different things, and then interpreting them the way we are currently doing is WP:SYNT. Melmann 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. We do not mindlessly parrot reliable sources. If. RS said most people have 6 fingers on each hand we would never consider including it. Hollth (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think a bit of clarification may be necessary. Several RS have made this claim due to total military build up. The size of the war isn’t based on casualties, but on military involvement. I think it is accurate, but understand the confusion. https://www.foxnews.com/world/russian-invades-ukraine-largest-europe-attack-wwii.amp KD0710 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Largest ground war [[56]], [[57]], [[58]], [[59]]

Largest land conflict [[60]]

Largest assault on a Europe State [[61]]

Do we need more? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we agree that none of the sources are terribly good? They are all (?) news articles making a very strong claim, without substantiating it at all. Some are quoting individuals; others just state the claim outright. So I think we should either quote the sources verbatim ("largest assault on a European state" etc.) and add something like "has been claimed to be" before the claim; or remove the claim outright. If we later get a good source that makes less nebulous claims with clear arguments and numbers, we can turn that into a sentence with more elegant (and accurate) wording. Ornilnas (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

OK more then [[62]], [[63]], [[64]]. Note a couple of these are not "not terribly good sources". Want any more?Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course not, I want good sources. They should be unambiguous, consistent with other good sources, and preferably substantiate the claims. None of the sources I've seen so far qualify (although I haven't looked carefully at all the links you posted). Ornilnas (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(I missed your double negation on my first read, but I don't think the quality of your three new sources are better than the earlier ones.) Ornilnas (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

These are good sources, and they are not ambiguous, they clearly say it is the largest ground war, with no ambiguity. We also do not try and second guess wp:rs we assume they say what they say with good reason. The only reason we might is if other RS dispute a claim (well the is another, which is it is wp:bluesky wrong, which RS do not tend to be (it's they they are wp:rs)), none have been produced that do. So we have no reason to assume there is a dispute, what this is is wp:or being used to argue what RS unequivocally says is wrong. If you think these are not RS for this claim, make a case at wp:rsn, other wise they are. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

To the extent they're not ambiguous, they're inconsistent with each other: if it's actually the "largest land conflict", why does another source make the much more limited claim "biggest assault on a state"? I think it's clear that the former claim is intentionally vague/ambiguous, to avoid having to go into detail about what exactly makes this war special. That's fine, but it makes it a worse source for our purposes. I'm not saying we should definitely ignore all these sources and remove the claim entirely. But I think the current wording is too strong, given these sources. Ornilnas (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

One clarification: I don't think it's obvious that "largest war" implies "largest number of soldiers involved in war". Indeed, Wikipedia's lists of wars tends to rank them by death or casualties tolls, not soldier count. That's not to say that "number of deaths" is an obvious definition either. It's just that "largest war" is inherently vague. Ornilnas (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected to using the wording from one of the sources, I've done that. I delibirately chose one of the more limited claims ("the biggest assault on a European state"), for reasons stated above. Ornilnas (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s the best call for now Persesus (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Noting that this has been discussed previously at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive_4#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (3) and Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive_4#Largest European ground war since WWII? --N8_wilson 22:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ornilnas: (and others): We currently have the text the largest military assault on a European state. Is this meant to exclude the Yugoslav wars on the grounds that they were initially "internal" to Yugoslavia, and that NATO's bombing was "not large"? This is still weaselly. Just because the sources are parrotting each other with something that sounds believable because everybody is saying it doesn't mean that we should say it when we don't know what it actually means:

• largest by the number of soldiers involved?
• largest by the number of square km being effectively involved in the war?
• largest by the amount of weapons fired (tonnes of CO₂-equivalent greenhouse gases emitted from weapons and fires that they start)?
• largest by the numbers of military deaths?
• largest by the numbers of civilian deaths?
• largest by the amount of online social media coverage?
• largest in terms of the risks of military attacks on European Union member states?
• largest by the disruption to the Russian (and world) economy as a result of unprecedented sanctions against Russia?

Boud (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Informal proposal: I think we have to remove the "largest ..." half-sentence from the lead totally, and maybe put it somewhere in another article with an "Analysis" section. We can't have the second sentence of the lead say something that "many media say" but Wikipedians, discussing openly and transparently, cannot define in plain language as a falsifiable statement. Let people try to guess the intended meaning somewhere else than in the lead of a Wikipedia article still read about 300,000 times a day. Boud (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. I would also prefer to remove the statement outright until we get a good source with less vague/weaselly language. That said, I think it's hard to argue that the wars in Yugoslavia constitute a "larger" "assault on a state". Not just because the wars were basically civil wars, but also because they were not one massive, continuous, more or less coordinated *assault*, but rather a multitude of local insurgencies of various intensities spread over several years (or at least this is my, very uninformed, impression). So I think the current wording is both technically correct, and gives a reasonably accurate impression to most readers. But yes, it's weaselly worded, and I support removing the claim from the lede entirely. Ornilnas (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Throwing in my two cents: If you're going to call it the "largest", the "fastest", the "ugliest", "noisiest" or other metric that may appear arbitrary, especially if you could measure the same thing different ways (Fastest in air? At sea? Under sea?), then it's fair to state why, and fair to give counter-examples. "By deployed forces or displaced civilians, XXX, but by number of total casualties from all sources, YYY." That can then help to provide the reader some metrics to compare this conflict to other notable conflicts (More deaths, but over a shorter period and larger area than conflict Z? Interesting). That being said, some of these metrics are going to be hard to get reliable figures for. As one side is curiously equipped to quietly dispose of extra bodies and known for concealing unpleasant truths, it may be decades before we get truthful loss numbers from Russia, if ever. Given the likely loss of official documents in hard hit areas on top of scattered people, civilian losses from those locations might never be more precise than loose estimates... but such uncertanties exist in most wars. 174.51.68.20 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The sentence was made even more weaselly by someone ("largest conventional military attack"), so I've removed it entirely for now. The discussion has been going on for weeks, and nobody has come up with a good solution. If someone wants to re-add the claim to the article, I suggest they start by elaborating on it in the body (with sources). Then, we can try to summarize the resulting claim in the lede. But if the claim is soleley based on newspaper articles with vague or inconsistent claims -- it might not be fit for the lede at all. Ornilnas (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment "Largest" is a peacockish term that could be used in certain circumstances - ie, where it is the consensus of opinion in good quality (academic or similar) reliable sources and if the claim ia supported by the body of the article. News reports do dot rise to the necessary standard. The statement is not supported by the body of the article. So, at present, the answer is no. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:25, 28 March 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.

Nuke fears

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the fears of people buying iodine tablets be put in as well Persesus (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this aspect. Do you have a link to a source? --N8_wilson 14:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I heard on CBC radio as well as I remember that in a neighbouring country, sales of potassium iodide supplements were very high and people were scrambling to increase production to meet the demand, because of fears of nuclear fallout. Sorry I forget which country. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes that I was referring to Persesus (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Last chance to supply an RS or something. EEng 05:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I found some:

  https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putins-nuclear-comments-lead-rush-iodine-central-europe-2022-03-02/

  https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/03/14/business/potassium-iodide-pills-demand-surge/index.html

  https://amp.ft.com/content/bb5e6fde-7b08-41d9-a983-61be53cf2917

  https://www.indiatimes.com/amp/explainers/news/explained-why-demand-for-iodine-tablets-increased-in-the-european-union-amid-the-ongoing-war-in-ukraine-565104.html HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Its relevance to the war is uncertain but in early March 2022, the Russian equivalent of Air Force One flew to an air base somewhere in Siberia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Per link, not a credible source and we would need more substance for it to pass WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

NATO expansion

Currently the article states that:

Russian leaders described this expansion as a violation of Western powers' informal assurances that NATO would not expand eastward

However, that seem off according to this

In the NATO-Russia Founding Act of May 1997, the Allies and Russia pledged to deepen their security cooperation, strengthen the OSCE as a joint security organization, and adapt the CFE Treaty to the new geopolitical situation. The obsolete military bloc balance was to be replaced by national and territorial ceilings for each state party. They would also limit the number of stationed troops. NATO would not undertake any “additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces.” In addition, NATO noted it had no reason, no intention, and no plan to deploy nuclear weapons in the accession countries or to prepare logistically to do so.

These agreements overlaid oral statements made in 1990 by US Secretary of State James Baker and German Foreign Minister HansDietrich Genscher that NATO did not intend to expand further eastward after German unification. These statements reflected the situation at the time of the Two plus Four Treaty, when the end of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union was not yet in sight. Russia agreed to the first NATO enlargement of 1999 under the conditions set out in the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act.

Who are these Russian leaders? Are we talking about Putin's Russia after 1999? --Nilsol2 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Cite them please Persesus (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We are clearly talking about events prior to this invasion As we say (right before this) "several former Eastern Bloc countries joined NATO, partly in response to regional security threats involving Russia such as the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis,". Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

is this the infamous conspiracy theory about nato "betraying" Russia? Persesus (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea, as there may be many conspiracy theories emanating from Russia, you really need to be clear in what you are saying. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

that's the conspiracy theory that nato "betrayed" Russia in 90s I think because Russia thought nato was going to let them in or something. This is what I meant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg0OWPjdLzU

that video is context for what I meant Persesus (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Then yes. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Great thanks Persesus (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Please read the two sources provided for that sentence. They support the current text. The leaders are Gorby, Yeltsin & Putin. Jr8825 • Talk 19:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I propose this source from US National Security Archives, "NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard. Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?" : [65] 152.207.223.67 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

IMO the public debate on NATO enlargement warrants its' own WP page. Just sayin'.

Wikidgood (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Armenia as belligerent on the Russian side?

Armenia has handed over four Su-30 fighters to Russia, along with pilots, for use against Ukraine. This was reported by the Turkish TV channel HaberGlobal, citing intelligence. This allegedly happened on March 25 and may mean that Armenia became a participant/belligerent in hostilities in Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Densemk (talk • contribs) 12:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I would rather wait for more sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It's false https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1509636120102977548 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snguberman (talk • contribs) 21:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Embassy of Armenia in Ukraine said on Facebook that this news is fake. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=922708108407411&id=275369886474573 188.146.131.65 (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if that were true, there was no consensus to list the many other countries which supplied arms to Ukraine in the infobox so this shouldn't be listed for the same reason. Phiarc (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The news is about both arms and personels. And yet we need more sources: Armenia denies officially, even if that were true - Armenian pilots can be enlisted to Russian Air Forces - in this case they are Russian troops, not Armenian troops (see similar case #South Ossetia). Alex Spade (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Defence Ministry statement - 1st stage complete

The following discussion 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.

---

Under the "Invasion and resistance" section I have added details of the Russian Defence Ministry statement saying the 1st stage of the military operation was complete. It appears to be a significant statement and worthwhile to include in this article. The comment about the next goal, liberation of Donbass, also appeared worthwhile to include. Have included the BBC article as an additional reference as it includes a detailed analysis. Note the TASS article includes an update of casualty figures, unsure if they have been included in this article Ilenart626 (talk) 05:31, 27 March 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.

Russian National Guard fatalities

There is a disagreement over whether 6 casualties of the Russian National Guard should be added to the casualty table in the body of the article as a separate entry per this edit. I would suggest not per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, particularly since it is relatively insignificant given the magnitude and variability of Russian casualties overall. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the Russian National Guard is a separate entity/organization from the Russian Armed Forces and are not part of/subordinate to them. Thus they are not included in the already mentioned Russian death toll, which relates to the Armed Forces only. As per earlier consensus, we list all losses/estimates in the article's table. And there is no need to disregard the losses of the National Guard branch just because they have been small so far. Although, it should be noted that the Chechen Kadyrovites unit (highly notable combatant of the war) is also part of the National Guard, and there have been some unconfirmed tabloid allegations that they have suffered hundreds of casualties. The six confirmed by Meduza are most likely members of non-Chechen units. We can expand the NG's inclusion in the table with a note stating the allegation about the hundreds suspected casualties suffered by the Chechens. EkoGraf (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

One doesn't know what is or isn't reported in most of these figure. However, if the argument is largely technical, that the Russian National Guard is not technically part of the Russian Armed Forces but both are part of the Russian Defence Forces, then the solution is fairly obvious - change the table heading to "Russian Defence Forces". Cinderella157 (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't think there is a thing called "Russian Defence Forces". Just checked here on Wikipedia. Only Russian Armed Forces. As I just replied to Slatersteven bellow, if the Ukrainian/NATO/US estimates refer to all Russian forces, then it shouldn't say in the table they are referring to Russian Armed Forces exclusively, just like we noted the same for the Ukrainians, listing both the Armed Forces, their NG and the volunteers. I think your addition here [66] is perfect and could be done the same for Russia. However, Russia's own estimate has been confirmed to be in relation to the Armed Forces only, and not including the NG or Wagner Group. So their estimate should still refer to the Armed Forces and be separate from the Ukrainian/NATO/US estimates. OR, include it as part of the estimate of all Russian forces' losses, but note its only for the RAF. EkoGraf (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

And I disagree, they are still Russian forces. It only confuses the figures, with no added value. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

If the Ukrainian/NATO/US estimates refer to all Russian forces as you say, which I think is a fair assessment, then it shouldn't say in the table they are referring to Russian Armed Forces exclusively, of which the NG is not a part of. Between, Russia's own estimate has been confirmed to be in relation to the Armed Forces only, and not including the NG or Wagner Group. EkoGraf (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I made an attempt at a compromise edit in line with by arguments above. Hope its all fine now. EkoGraf (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Might be tweaked but the primary issue is addressed. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Found an article of deserting Rosgvardiya soldiers

The following discussion 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.

---

This one's from The Insider. Ominae (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Unsure what you want us to do, this really is too minor for inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wanted to add it. I'll likely hold onto it until I can uncover more of these incidents being reported (sadly only available via social media). I know Ukrainian media has reported it. Ominae (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure 1 small unit passes wp:undue, but yes if this is a widespread problem we should include it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2022 (4)

The following discussion 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.

---

Make the time period one month, it’s been exactly one month, it’s not the 25th of March, it’s the 24th. 74.104.116.151 (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done It's one month and one day inclusive, today is the one extra day. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:38, 24 March 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.

Article on Russian internal policies and changes due to the invasion

I think it might be warranted to create an article (which I will provisionally call Z Russia despite the terrible name) that focuses on the internal changes and policies of Russia during the invasion and possibly beyond. MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I like the name, the New Yorker was pointing out the irony of Russia fighting a war against "Nazism" whilst choosing a symbol that is eerily similar to the swastika, hahaha. There are a couple of articles I read recently that might be of interest to an article about the changing of Russia's political narrative. Stalinisation_of_Russia, Z_is_the_Symbol_of_the_New_Russian_Politics_of_Aggression, The_Weakness_of_the_Despot, Russians_Fleeing_Putins_Wartime_Crackdown and Vladimir_Putin_Is_Pushing_Russia_into_the_Past. All of these I thought had quite good takes on the internal changes and policies of Russia since the invasion. I'd also be happy to contribute to the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets make a draft here Draft:Z Russia and then rename it to a more neutral title in the future. I think this is noteworthy MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is this going anywhere? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Alcibiades979 I redirected it to Rashism because that is essentially the same article MaitreyaVaruna (changing name to Immanuelle) please tag me (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

American and NATO concerns about possible imminent Chemical Weapons use by Russia

The following discussion 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.

---

I did a "find" search and this is not yet mentioned in the article.

Today, President Biden also voiced this concern.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for this as well? Benjamin112 ☎ 07:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 28 March 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.

Infobox Casualty Numbers

The following discussion 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.

---

An ongoing discussion has been happening regarding the casualty numbers in the infobox. We agreed that we would have 2 sets of numbers. 1.) self-reported losses and 2.) A third-party’s reported losses.

Are we still fine with that strategy and if so, since NATO released updated numbers on Russian deaths, should we now remove the U.S. as the third-party source for the Russian column? KD0710 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Conceptually I think that makes perfect sense, however, in practice I'm not sure how relevant it is that Russia reported 500 deaths 3 weeks ago. I'd also add I think the Donetsk PR numbers kind of clutter the symmetry, and decrease legibility. I'd also say that I don't quite understand their numbers: are they referring to only their soldiers or to Russia/Donetsk PR/Luhansk soldiers? Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I still support that strategy KD0710. I would leave both the NATO estimate and the US estimate for now since those are two different sources. The US stated a day or two ago that Russian losses were 10 percent of their overall strength at the start of the invasion, while today's estimate by NATO would be double that. Also, in retrospect while looking at the previous instance in which NATO and the US published estimates concurrently at the end of the first week of the war, NATO published a figure similar to Ukrainian claims, while the US published figures that were half that. Plus, the BBC or AP I think noted today that, compared to NATO's estimates, US figures tend to be "conservative" and with "low-confidence". So lets wait and see what is the next US estimate, I expect it to be in the next few days, they tend to give an intelligence update weekly. And then we go from there. As for the removal of the Russian claim of their own losses because it was made three weeks ago, we would then have to remove the Ukrainian claim as well since it was made almost two weeks ago. So no, I would not do this, at least not yet. Finally, regarding the numbers by the DPR, they are weekly updated, so they are relatively up-to-date, and as stated in the sources they refer to DPR soldiers only, while in the infobox we have clearly marked the losses are that of the DPR. EkoGraf (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

We are trying to capture too much detail in the infobox, when it is meant to be a summary per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. None of these figures are accurate. Presenting them in the infobox is suggesting they are. We should just be saying "Reports vary - see section". Cinderella157 (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I was bold earlier and removed the US numbers, though my change was reverted. My reasoning is three-fold. Firstly, the US numbers are, quite frankly, older than the NATO numbers. Secondly, both the NATO and US numbers are 3rd party, and serve the same purpose in the infobox. Thirdly, the infobox is crowded and we need to trim it as much as possible in order to keep it readable-- having both the US and NATO numbers just adds too much, in my opinion. I understand wanting to compare the NATO and US estimates as being different, but that can be done in the casualties section, while leaving the infobox a little leaner for usability and readability purposes. I agree the strategy of self reported + 3rd party is useful, due to information campaigns, but I disagree with self reported + ALL 3rd party estimates. Just one please. Total of 3 numbers-- one from Russia, one from Ukraine, one from an outside observer. That's all we need. Fieari (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE it is meant to be a summary and WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

As noted above, NATO and US estimates vary widely with the US making estimates that are less than NATO's by half, while NATO estimates are more in line with Ukraine's. Hence its needed for the difference to be seen. I have added a newer US estimate that is only a day older from NATO's where they said just over 10 percent of the original 150,000 Russian troops have been either killed or wounded, so 15,000 compared to NATO's 30,000-40,000. EkoGraf (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

If we can't give a simple summary in the infobox (rather than reporting multiple ranges from multiple sources) it shouldn't be in the infobox. We should say something like "See Casualty section". Cinderella157 (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The US estimates were wrong. The source listed says that Russia's "combat power" at 85-90% of its pre-invasion level, but combat power is different from man power and is meant to convey both personal and equipment. So to arrive at the current numbers of 15-22.5k KIA/WIA listed in the infobox someone just multiplied 150,000 by .10 and .15 to create the range which is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. So I just deleted the US Estimates. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 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.

Hypersonic misslile

The following discussion 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.

---

Russia launched a hypersonic missile into ukriane is anyone going to post a link or talk about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We need an RS for this claim to be added. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are the links to it

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/moscows-claim-firing-hypersonic-missiles-hype-experts-say-rcna20925

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/22/hypersonic-missiles-why-would-russia-use-the-kinzhal-in-ukraine.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pentagon-demurs-biden-confirms-russia-fired-hypersonic-missile/story?id=83587994

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/your-world-on-claims-russia-has-hypersonic-weapons

https://www.axios.com/biden-russia-fired-hypersonic-missile-ukraine-9a4d0513-5d17-43d2-9a10-222ea3f58150.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/21/dod-official-russia-hypersonic-missile-00018872

https://www.space.com/russia-uses-hypersonic-missile-ukraine-war

https://www.npr.org/live-updates/russia-invades-ukraine-2022-03-19

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-confirms-russia-used-hypersonic-missile-in-ukraine-2022-3

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/europe/biden-russia-hypersonic-missiles-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html Persesus (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

These are all of the sources I can cite for the hyper sonic missile Persesus (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Good enough to make a case, now why is this significant? Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s the first time that it’s been used in combat or just add it to the timeline Persesus (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That would make it more relevant to the article about the missile. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be the first time (twice) that a hypersonic cruise missile has been used in real combat, not just in testing. 152.207.223.108 (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If included, it would need to be written into the article in a way that it is relevant and not just a random factoid (as was previously done). Perhaps somewhere in the timeline. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm unaware if this has been done, but it could potentially be lumped together with the use of thermobaric weaponry as a general note regarding newer or more advanced equipment used in this conflict. Augend (drop a line) 17:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: this would have to have some degree of discussion surrounding the significance of this equipment. I confess a lack of expertise in this field, so consider this but a suggestion. Augend (drop a line) 17:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

thermobaric weaponry is not new, they were used in Vietnam. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a case of no good place to add here per WP:NOTEVERYTHING? Can we call this closed? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 28 March 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.

Belligerents

We have listed Donetsk and Luhansk as belligerents. Neither of these Ukrainian territories have any legal status and are only recognised by Russia, which remains the sole belligerent. The way we have it lends credence to a Russian unilateral declaration lacking any international recognition (except perhaps Belarus). It is proposed that Donetsk and Luhansk are deleted as belligerents and we leave Ukraine intact as Ukraine until such time as there is international recognition otherwise. Ex nihil ^(talk) 10:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

We do have a footnote explaining their status, which is a good thing. On balance, I think that's a better compromise than not mentioning them at all. The ultimate problem here, of course, is this desire to squeeze a complex situation into a simplistic infobox! Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

In a war, listed belligerents are not always exclusively countries, but entities or groups as well (legal or illegal). Like for example in Syria we have listed the Free Syrian Army and the Islamic State. As said by Bondegezou, there is an explanatory footnote regarding their status, which is better than removing them for whatever reason. EkoGraf (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Strongly disagree An extensive conversation has been ongoing regarding the current list of belligerents. The only changes if any would be to add newly entered parties should there be any. Additionally, I agree with EkoGraf that there belligerents need not be recognized countries to be included per precedence.KD0710 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of their legal status, if WP:RSs would describe them in a way that they are belligerents, then they should be included. The converse also applies. Is there any doubt? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Supporting countries for Ukraine Although i do realise the support from Ukraine-friendly countries, e.g. EU, NATO etc. might be lacking in the opinion of Ukraine, doesn't the material and financial support for the Ukrainian government qualify for at least a mention in the belligerents tab? We mention countries as supporting parties in conflict for doing less (see Second Lybian Civil War for example). I do hope we can include the countries that support Ukraine with military goods here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A460:301E:1:99C9:846E:8CE8:87CB (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I am of the same opinion. It is a bit odd to overlook the large military support provided to Ukraine, in other cases lesser support has been considered. Dariodemh (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

20,000 foreign fighters

This needs a better source in the infobox. Using Chinese-controlled news outlets as a reliable source is not a good idea. 92.40.193.116 (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The source is SCMP which is a Hong Kong based privately owned news source. It is not state media. Editorial consensus holds that it is a reputable news source. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The local effects of the Hong Kong national security law, the 2021 Hong Kong electoral changes and more broadly, the gradually tightening crush against freedom of speech, human rights and democracy in Hong Kong make that 2020 discussion rather out of date. While SCMP may not be Chinese-state-controlled, chances of increasing self-censorship are likely. An updated assessment is needed. Boud (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Article Image

Can someone with experience in maps correct this (or state why it is consistent?): c:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#Inconsistent_with_source. Habitator terrae (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I followed the link to the TP at WP Commons. There may be issues with WP:RS and WP:VER for sourcing of detail on the map affecting our ability to use it here per WP:P&G. Some other minds might consider the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources and Neutrality

I find the article to be very biased and not written from a neutral tone at all. Which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Also about the sources. How could one make an edit with reliable sources if these reliable sources are all pro-Western biased ones? I think its quite impossible to be a neutral one with an article such as this. Unless we drastically change how we add information or do an exception to this article. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Because western nations have not introduced laws forbidding factual reporting. Nor have they closed down any home-based media outlets over it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by laws forbidding factual reporting? And are laws the only thing to matter in reporting? What about donations and ties to the government whether indirectly or directly? There is no Zero bias source of course. Especially in times of war as propaganda tends to ramp up. One shouldn't take a side and instead take information from all side to reach a conclusion. In Wikipedia we should be reporting on both. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ths kind [[67]]. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Also see the section above-titled Activity of Russian authorities against Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how a law being signed and general censorship against Wikipedia and information makes it justified to only have one point of view or biased writing. Yet somehow Novaya Gazeta. A Russian magazine critiquing The government and its censorship,is still allowed to exist in Russia and is used as Reliable source in Wikipedia. How does this make sense?

Also shouldn't western forced closures of Russian media be in the article? If we go by the same sourcing and writing on this article on 2003 then we'd have the 2003 Iraq invasion war article being justified with WMD's with no other point of views. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Novaya Gazeta is complying with the censorship laws [[68]]. As to the rest, this is being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

so much for "still allowed to exist": [69] (Google Translate) Smurftrooper sup? 13:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is massively biased in favor of Ukraine. The whole propaganda section is propaganda itself, because by omitting any mention of Ukrainian propaganda efforts, it implies there have been none. Also no mention of western propaganda efforts. So it's propaganda, which is as far from unbiased and encyclopedic as it is possible to get. Then there's the war crimes section, where it's solely focusing on alleged Russian war crimes, while the alleged Ukrainian war crimes are given no attention at all. Also the map showing which countries "support Ukraine" is biased because it's not entirely factual. In some of those cases the "support" was limited to "We hope Russia will not invade Ukraine" and somehow that got translated to the same level as countries that provided actual aid to Ukraine. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This article is primarily based on news sources. News sources are permitted and even expected to editorialise. That there might be several news articles expressing the same opinions in editorial language, it not permission or licence for us to write in WP voice in the same editorial language. WP:NEWSORG would guide us:

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

I think we are loosing sight of policy that would guide us on using news sources and particularly "opinion" and whether the opinion is reliable and how it should be attributed. I don't think we are following WP:NEWSORG closely enough. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I would rather we waited, I have raised wp:notnews before here. But we also can't have WP:FALSEBALANCE, by giving equal weight to RS and outright state propaganda. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you mean by I would rather we waited except that we shouldn't be reporting this blow-by-blow? I would agree then on the basis of wp:notnews. I agree that we shouldn't fall to a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Balance is not equal. My concern is that we are reporting editorial opinions and editorial language in a WP voice indiscriminately and without applying the discernment per WP:NEWSORG. WP should not appear to be partisan but a neutral observer. Essentially, the "facts" should be presented neutrally and without judgement in a WP voice - they will then speak for themselves. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

We should not really even have the article, as it can't be maintained in an encyclopedic way whilst the war is ongoing. But we can't really attribute every opinion or state it as opinion, not when the builk of RS say something is true. Which is why we attribute all claims of loss (for example), so can we see some examples of where we state something as fact that is only a limited media opinion? Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

When everybody thinks it is true doesn't mean it is true (nor is it false). There is a distinction between opinion and fact. We can be more circumspect and less editorial in the language that we use in a WP voice and not take on the mantle of being partisan. I could, of course, have said this without the language I would advise against and it would convey the same message? Cinderella157 (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Re adding leadership section

A few weeks ago I added a leadership section to cover the leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy, which has clearly been a major factor in this conflict but has been missing from this article. It was questioned in the talk page for being NPOV and subsequently removed to be discussed. However, there wasn't much discussion on it, and it keeps on being archived from the talk page. In the discussions, editors didn't have major revert worthy problems with the section. So if discussing it here isn't going to improve it, I'll add it back onto the page so that editors can improve it in situ. It is a hard issue to strike the right note, and I have failed to do so with because RS are generally highly damning of Putin and Praising of Zelenskyy. However I note that:

a) Wikipeida isn't perfect, and the content being imperfect means it should be improved, not removed.

b) NPOV reflects reliable sources, and reliable sources sounding biased isn't grounds to remove content.

So please, if you have a problem with the section, I implore you to edit and improve it.Mozzie (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A link to the section might be helpful, please. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Here you go 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Leadership_of_Putin_and_Zelenskyy Mozzie (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• The section was deleted: 04:38, 26 March 2022‎ User:My very best wishes ([[User talk:|talkMy very best wishes]]) (contribs‎ 368,468 bytes −4,868‎ while Putin and Zelensky deserve mentioning somewhere, this section is WP:SYN as written (cited sources do not do a comparative analysis of two leaders)

I will reinstate it. WP:SYNTH Explicitly states that "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources." I think it is a bit of a stretch to say this is SYNTH. It is pretty clear to observers/from RS that Putin's leadership has been bad, and the Zelenskyy's has been good (which RS use to explain why Russia failed despite its theoretical strength.) If there is a concern that comparative analysis is SYNTH, then that can be solved by removing a few words. Removing the entire section is overkill. I will do this when I reinstate the text. After all, the comparison is not so important. If the text belongs somewhere else in the article, please feel free to move and integrate it elsewhere. Once again this isn't cause to delete the whole section. If you have any other issues, once again, please feel free to edit the content, but again, deleting it outright is overkill.Mozzie (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverted. Too much editorialising. Apart from that, I don't know what this is saying that isn't being said elsewhere? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The following was posted to my talk page: I noticed that you deleted the leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy section on 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, however, I have reinstated it. Please see the talk page. If you think there is too much editorialising, please, please edit and improve the section instead of deleting it outright.Mozzie (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Cinderella157 (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Mozzie, you don't have a consensus to reinstate this after my revert and this open discussion. That's not how WP:BRD works. I suggest you self-revert unless somebody else beats you to it. And WP:SYNTH is pretty clear that combining sources to reach a conclusion is a no no. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I do not care too much about it after looking at the recent news. Christo Grozev just said that Shoigu, Gerasimov and others are already in a bunker, as they suppose to be prior to a nuclear attack: [70]. That's why Shoigu and Gerasimov disappeared from public space some time ago. It does not mean they will bomb Kyiv; that could be just in case. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  The leadership section is an OR made combining various sources, which is what WP:SYN prevents us from doing, and it reads like and editorial on a newspaper rather than the entry in an encyclopedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with about the overarching synth/editorialisation concerns. Given that the section has been removed multiple times (there's a similar talk page thread to this one that's somewhere in the archives, where I also raised my concerns) per WP:ONUS, a version should be agreed upon on the talk before it's reinstated. I'm personally sceptical of the need for such a section, but I'm open to discussing the specific text. Jr8825 • Talk 18:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think that content could be placed to pages Putin and Zelenskyy, unless it is already there. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

The following discussion 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.

---

I think a wikilink to Denazification should be included in this article upon its first mention. Not to justify Putin's claims, but to give the reader some context. Thank you. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The article Denazification is about Germany and Austria, not about getting rid of Nazis in general. (Taken straight from a hidden comment next to the first mention.) Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep. One can appreciate the thought and the intent but a link is not appropriate now and probably never will be. Any attempt would just be OR anyway as there is no body of writing on Putin's notion of

denazification sufficient to justify even a new article on the topic. QoB certainly might write on that topic and perhaps some folks have but as Pab states not linkable. Perhaps ten or twenty years from now there may be a body of writing on whatever it is that people think Putin means and there might even be a WP article on that topic. But not at this time. Cheers. Wikidgood (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor Stalwart reworked that edit and reference here [71] to try to deal with ambiguous reading of this term. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the edit now links "denazify" to Denazification#Term usage in other countries. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 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.

Public opinion in Russia and the United States

The following discussion 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.

---

A section with this name has been template tagged twice in the current version of this article in its final sections titled "Public opinion in Russia and the United States". It has been reverted and re-added 3-4 times over the last two days. If it is a duplicate section from another Wikipedia article, then is it needed in duplicated form here in this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I can summarize it in the sister article so it won't be a duplicate. Sister article is about the international community (governments) and it didn't mention the reaction of ordinary people in Russia or around the world (such as protests) so I think that this section place is here — in the main article. I can delete that section from the sister article or summarize it if possible. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The sister article is Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and is about the reactions of governments, non-governmental organizations and individuals. It has also been summarized for some time in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine# Propaganda, so another section titled "Public opinion in Russia and the United States" seems to me to be superfluous and overly detailed for the main article. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

While I remember it, to address a point that was previously brought up (it has nothing to do with propaganda), the first line of the section (in the current state), seems to indicate the effects of propagandist influences on some of the poll results, hence why it was previously removed bar a few phrases that were added to the propaganda section. Benjamin112 ☎ 23:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The version in the sister article can be more comprehensive, but here, in the main article, information should be summarized (in one's own words) as best as possible. I am not against including a short paragraph or two in the main article, as long as the existing copyvio/close paraphrasing issues in both versions are properly addressed. Benjamin112 ☎ 21:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? I see that the section doesn't exist - ie it remains removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the resolution was a brief mention in the Propaganda section and only keeping the content in question (in its entirety) in the sister article. Benjamin112 ☎ 06:47, 30 March 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2022 (2)

Requesting an addition to the location of the ongoing conflict as spillover into Russia has been confirmed as of April 1, 2022. 75.135.85.107 (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you find confirmation from Ukraine or otherwise an independent third-party source that has verified this Russian claim? Just reporting/repeating this particular claim won't be considered. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Its odd that Russia would (in effect) say it cannot defend its own cities. But we I think could include this with "Russia has claimed". Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There appear to be multiple international news sources confirming this as an extension of the Kharkiv military front. Adding to Kharkiv military front section as documented by BBC and AlJazeera. It seems to be 2 helicopters from Ukraine attacking a fuel depot in Belgorod. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine has now officially denied it. It's strange both that Russia would claim it and Ukraine would deny it. Maybe Ukraine didn't do it, could be a false flag attack or something to buoy domestic support for the war. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Here is the Fox News version of the false flag situation here: [72]. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Latest from President Zelensky is that he has declined to comment on whether he ordered an attack on a Russian fuel depot, lots of articles for example Would suggest we include Russia’s claims and Ukraine’s various responses Ilenart626 (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Marked this request as answered after discussion of the same request just above. >>> Extorc.talk(); 09:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

edit request #2

The following discussion 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.

---

Outside of Ukraine, there was spillover into Millerovo

shouldn't we also mention something about the Belgorod missile strike? is it too insignificant?

Great Mercian (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC) (sorry about initial IP, I didn't realise I was logged out, I can assure that was my comment)

Has it been confirmed by an RS as a Ukrainian attack? Last I heard Ukraine alluded to it as a false flag attack. KD0710 (talk) 23:54, 2 April 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.

Third question at the frequently asked questions

The following discussion 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.

---

On the top of this talk page there's a template including frequently asked questions. However, we jump from the second question to the fourth one. This is a minor issue but it would be good if someone could fix it, I don't understand the template so I can't do it myself. Super Ψ Dro 17:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 19:08, 3 April 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.

• FTR, don't do this. Renumbering the FAQs makes nonsense of discussions that refer to them. EEng 01:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Equipment losses

So first it's changed from numbers of each type of equipment destroyed to total number overall destroyed(which I didn't agree with, every modern battle on Wikipedia shows this) and now the equipment numbers were removed completely? Why? This is an extremely important part of this invasion that people need to understand. 67.60.116.128 (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

See previous discussion above, consensus established. EkoGraf (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

4.1M to 4.2M

On 2022 Refugee Crisis they have changed it to 4.2M so i think we should change it. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 01:00 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Testcases

With so many edit requests here, there should probably be a testcases subpage that will allow anyone to edit. Since the article is extended confirmed protected, information may not be readily available. But however, this is a highly searched topic. However, there are just too many edit requests. Why not create a testcases page as a subpage of the talk page? Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 17:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what that would do. EEng 17:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Then try it out, you'll never know the answer until you've seen it yourself Great Mercian (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There aren't that many edit requests that can't be handled. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

China's

It's not very neutral to write that China is "using the conflict to increase anti American propaganda". Yes, some bloggers and media are, but the official Chinese government (=China) stance is still neutral and abstaining; meaning that that this is passing verdict on a governments policy based on the voice of subjects of that country - something not practised the other way around (e.g. you'd newer say "America" said something, just because Fox news did) Yinwang888 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

In pther words, please provide some reliable sources, not just personal opinions and perspectives. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 03:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

2022 open letter from Nobel laureates in support of Ukraine

The 2022 open letter from Nobel laureates in support of Ukraine was recently put into main space. Should the full text be posted? Thriley (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that it belongs on this article ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with EngineeringEditor: not on this article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Title

2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia might also work, but I wonder what makes one name the best one? Jishiboka1 (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Please specify a change you want made to the article. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 03:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2022 (2)

The following discussion 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.

---

Your article says the invasion happened on the 24th of February, it happened on the 22nd. 2604:3D08:917F:98D0:E9DE:4DDA:4B28:CB8B (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The lede says 24th the article says "Escalation (21–23 February 2022)[edit]

Putin's address to the nation on 21 February (English subtitles available)

On 21 February, Putin announced that the Russian government would recognise the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics. The same evening, Putin directed that Russian troops be deployed into Donbas, in what Russia referred to as a "peacekeeping mission". The 21 February intervention in Donbas was condemned by several members of the UN Security Council; none voiced support. On 22 February, video footages shot in the early morning shown Russian armed forces and tanks moving in the Donbas region. The Federation Council unanimously authorised the use of military force outside Russia.

" Wikidgood (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I see your point and probably the lede should take the suggested edit. However, I am still kind of new on this page and have not been recently active on WP so, even though I have confirmed privileges as a 16-year W'pedian I am treading very very lightly on the main article. I think it wold be wise to await consensus or someone willing to stick their neck out. Funny, I thought of this as a war that began on 2/24 until you brought this up and it looks like you may be right that the edit should be made. There are lots of people on this page who will know the appropriate way to proceed so I am sure it will be done right. Thank you for pointing that out., Wikidgood (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edit by Wikidgood changing date. This is inconsistent with the source cited in the article. This is an issue discussed several time. WP:RS give the date as 24 February. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You added date. There was no date, just month. I did not "change" the date I broadened it and added a better opening sentence that was not a barren choppy sentence. Also, it is well known that there were Russian military operations on Ukrainian soil long before February 2022. Please provide link to "several" discussions which explain your reversion. If there have been "several" discussions then clearly it is a contentious issue and worthy of better explanation than you are providing here. Please also provide reference to what "RS" you mean just saying "RS" does not meet the protocol, thanks.Wikidgood (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

RS say it stated on the 24th, as such so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Which RS are you referring to. I quoted the article which indicated border was crossed prior. The first ref in the article also seems to concede that there is no hard line as it pontificates on what is and what is not an invasion. There are thousands of articles of course indicating also that GRU Russian military meddled in Donbass and Kharkiv prior to 2022 anyway so all I did was word it in such a manner as to be correct. Everyone is acting as if I did what the guy asked which is not the case. I did not change the date to Feb 22 or Feb 23. I made the lede agnostic to reflect was was actually said in the article. As yet no one has provided a specific RS link in this disucssion there is just the preumption. Just saying "RS says" does not constitute a citation. Most people on WP are not actually reading the citations. They just assume whatever they think is the case and assert "RS" says ..such and such. But the information indicates there was indeed Russian military activity prior to the 24th. Again, I did not change the lede to say that that was the case. I merely stated "late February". Which, as it stands, is consistent with the text opf the WP article and the first link. I would feel better about my fellow Wikipedians if people would just post the specific citation rather than just toss about the acronym "RS". It would probably be a little embarassing to me personally. But I would rather accept the embarassment of being corrected with clear convincing preponderance of RS's that authoritatively pin the exact date of Feb 24th as definitely marking the beginning of the war than my current belief. WHich is that group think and preference for status quo has brought WP to the point that characterizing this as a "massive invasion in late February" brings up so much resistance from people who (a) don't even provide one citation to any of these "RS" they refer to (b) seem to have not even read the edit and reversion (c) don't seem to understand that it is factually correct that a MAJOR invasion occurred in LATE FEBRUARY (d) that there are plenty of RS indicating that elements of invasion did occur prior thereto both (i) possibly a day or two earlier and (ii) throughout the previous eight years. By framing the matter as "a major invasion" I managed to provide a better reader experience and also to maintain faithfulness to the facts irrespective of whether or not it is the case that there was zero Russian military presence prior to Feb 24th. Which you know is absurd, there was almost definitely all kinds of military action prior to 2/24/22. So really there is a group pile on here to maintain an utter fiction, multiple fictions, one that there was no warfare being waged prior to this magic date people are fixated on and secondly that somehow my edit was objectionable when in fact it maintained a suitable agnosticism on the 22/23/24 issue and also was consistent with the cited article, the body of the WP article and the plain and obvious fact, reflected in thousands of RS, that there was indeed war going on long before that date. Hence, the term "a major invasion", which is the important thing about the edit: we are talking here about a major escalation in the war that has been going on for at least eight years.I would rather let one of you editors embarass me a bit with some real citations that support your support of the revert than have to think that WP is at a point that it wants to be right and it wants to pretend to know everything. Frankly, I don't think the lede is well served by presenting this date whether it is the 22nd the 23rd or the 24th. We can't really know everything and even if you produce a TIME or Newsweek writer who says there was peace on February 23rd up until midnight and then on the 24th there was war, nothing useful has been accomplished. So far the only referenced RS indicates that there was war going on on the 23rd or the 22nd so please prove me wrong with actual citations not the two letter acronym, thank you. Wikidgood (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

All then ones we use. That say it, but here is one [[73]] and another [[74]]. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

These links do not appear to establish February 24th as a trip wire. I have not parsed every line but they don't seem to in any way to address the issue, ie., they do not support the contention that 2/24 marked commencement. Do you have a paragraph or line in mind? They establish yes there is a war. That is not the issue. Also, upon further review, the sole citation to the first sentence, the poorly written short choppy introductory sentence, is a February 23, 2024 article which quotes several experts who state that invasion had already occurred. I am really shocked that such a diligent, active editor as Cinderalla actually wrote that my edit was somehow not consistent with the citation. That is flatly incorrect. The article cited actually SUPPORTS removal of the February 24th date. This should be obvious given that the article discusses the invasion as something in process. It is a Feb 23rd article. Your links don't appear to support it either. I am reminded of when one of the leading Ph D's on a topic was on WP on a topic in which I have a lot of background and that expert left very fed up. I was shaking my head thinking, she doesn't understand Wikipedia, how unfortunate. And I myself have stepped back for years. But here now a very important WP page is presenting incumbent editors who are saying black is white and white is black. Did anyone actually read the cited article? Now - it is fully possible that there are dozens of articles which, unlike these two provided above, do in fact make out a case that 2/22/2022 is reliably understood as the D-Day so to speak. Fine. But please put.that.in.the.citations.in.the.article. Don't just wave your hands and say "well we all seem to think the 24th was The Big Day and we vaguely recall reading it somewhere in RS's...and so we are just going to insist on reverting this edit that just says "late February". Put up or ...well this might be easily resolved if you actually produce real RS that says what you claim it says. But Cinderalla is a very experienced editor on this page and can do better than claim that the February 23rd article about the ongoing invasion supports the contention that the invasion occurred on February 24th. It does not. It cannot. A February 23rd article can not be used as a citation to support the contention that some event occurred on February 24th. Similarly, the links you are providing seem to amount to nothing more than hand waving. I don't see any mention of Feb 24th in those links. Prove up with a paragraph. Or wait and later I will confirm that these so called citations are utterly useless in support of the supposed point you are trying to make. At this point, I think this is mostly a case of "BITE THE NEW GUY ON THIS PAGE". Because you guys are making ridiculous arguments. Wikidgood (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your first link is just a March 20th article about current peace talks and shelling and all I get at this point, on a new OS, is this:

You need to register to keep reading

It’s still free to read - this is not a paywall

We’re committed to keeping our quality reporting open. By registering and providing us with insight into your preferences, you’re helping us to engage with ...where is your text. You are the one supporting a revert of "late February 2022" and claiming Feb 24th. The obligation is on you to support it with a verifiable link. I do have a Guardian access account but not right at the moment and this article does not appear to bear upon the topic. Is there WP:GOODFAITH these days? Wikidgood (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The first source "Authorities in Chernihiv estimate that about 400 people have died since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February, with civilians living without electricity, gas or water.". Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

SO if that is what the Guardian article says that needs to be the citation. The current citation indicates that the invasion may have begun earlier. Hence, the agnosticism I introduced on my edit. And the reverter apparently did not even read the citation., I have heard that Feb 24 date all this time all along too, but I no longer accept it. WP is not about truth it is about recording secondary sources so you are free to have that in there but if no one bothers to put an actual citation in the article to support the conclusion the revert cannot stand. Your move, gang. Wikidgood (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The current version of the start date of the invasion as related in the main article in the section on "Declaration of military operation" is that Putin declared his intention for a 'special military operation' on Feb 24, and then the Invasion section in the main article indicates that the Russian invasion took place soon thereafter and on the same day. Multiple citations are listed both for the Declaration of military operations and for the start date for the start of the Russian invasion, both with reliable sources for Feb 24. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It has been raised at least on these four occasions Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8#Date Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1#Date edit Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1#Date invasion started not the 24th Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8#The invasion began on 2-22-2022. There are several sources cited in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Declaration of military operations in reference to 24 February as the start date. "Massive", which was also removed, tends to MOS:EDITORIAL. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Closing this as  Not done. Most sources state the 24th as the start of the invasion. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 19:02, 3 April 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

The following discussion 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.

---

1. Under the section 6.4 Other Legal Proceedings, add Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland to the countries which have opened domestic investigations of alleged Russian war crimes. Source for Slovakia and Switzerland: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/what-are-war-crimes-russia-ukraine/ Source for Spain: https://www.voanews.com/a/judgement-day-european-nations-start-probing-alleged-russian-war-crimes-in-ukraine/6476762.html

2. I also suggest to instead of "the Baltic states" write the countries' names, i.e. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. It improves readability and makes it much easier for the reader to understand as not all know what countries "the Baltic states" are.

/2022-03-30 31.209.52.211 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. DrPepperG (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Adding all the Baltic states to the list was adding too many, instead opted for a link to what the Baltic states are. DrPepperG (talk) 02:06, 30 March 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.

2nd paragraph fails RS,NPV by using "Revolution of Dignity" as opposed to 2022 RS preference for "Euromaidan [protests/revolution/blank]"

tl;;dr: Paragraph 2 the article links to Revolution of Dignity. At this time, the general usage is "Euromaidan" except for opinions which seek to emphasize the positive aspects. But this was really quite a messy affair lots of people were hurt even killed so we should think carefully about maintaining WP:NPV.

A long time ago there was a move to the linked page "Revolution of Dignity" but that was when the media was gung ho about the ouster of Yanukovich. Since then, things have changed and "Revolution of Dignity" is no longer generally used it has been eclipsed by "Euromaidan". The original move of the respective link showed a lot of statistics showing many more hits of RofD at that time but this does not appear to be any longer the case.

Calling Euromaidan is nice and inspiring, got that, however it is not consistent with NPOV and creates the appearance that English WP is cheering on the Euromaidan project by already inserting the phrase into the second paragraph "Revolution of Dignity". So far I have not found other language wikipedia's to be doing this. Euromaidan is the current term.

This is puzzling as a supposedly NPOV approach because if you look at the contrarians including all the wildly popular Kremlinist apologists they characterize 2014 as a "Nazi coup", which is kind of ridiculous and based solely the fact that some far-right nationalists contributed the final push to reject compromise and run Yanukovish out. But more moderate contrarians contend that the US State Department role was much larger than, well, all these so-cal;led RS that we cite on WP. These people characterize 2014 as a US-led regime change operation.

There are obviously famous phone call remarks by Nuland which do lend some potential credence to that line of thinking. So it seems that we are (A) buying into a group of "RS" media sources which are to some degree all joined at the hip anyway, reflecting more or less the Atlantic Council viewpoint, and (B) abandoning true Wikipedia style nuetrality in favor of a highly complimentary pronoun, selected by the very promoters of Euromaidan, despite a range of more nuetral ways to characterize this 2014 social event.

And there are certainly writers in places like India, Asia, Africa and S American, in English and other languages, who vigorously oppose the main stream narrative. I don't like most of those writers! But they are there. We are deeming NY Times opinion, WSJ opinion, TIME, Newsweek, The Guardian, etc as "reliable" when they are all reflecting a common editorial opinion and we are dismissing their critiques as if they were on the level of QAnon. I understand the reasoning but I don't think we should go so far as to seem to be actively promoting the 2014 Maidan revolution byu calling it "the Revolution of Dignity". That seems more like a marketing term. We should be clinically detached as far as possible so I would suggest consideration of a more nuetral way of characterizing the Maidan revolution. Just a suggestion and I would not be surprised if these questions were discussed with regard to the article of that title but I don't think the discussion, if it really occurred, reached a satisfactory conclusion. Just as I would not be happy if the article was entitled "2014 US-led Coup d'Etat"

RELIABLE SOURCES

RS for my proposed edit is I think no a matter of proving or disproving any point of fact so much as demonstrating that RS are in fact not calling it Revolution of Dignity. So here we go:

Wilson Center calls it Euromaidan https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/the-significance-euromaidan-for-ukraine-and-europeWikidgood (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge calls it Euromaidan https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/slavic-review/article/social-media-and-euromaidan-a-review-essay/D4AF4BDCBE35D03421456EA26CA7F528

Anton Shekhovtsov calls it "the victorious Maidan revolution" https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/2014/05/09/south-eastern-ukraine-extremism-and-the-anti-maidan/

Reading through Brittanica, it seems they are reluctant to name the event at all, describing the "protests" and the exit of Yanukovich as a stream of events not characterized as one delimited 'revolution'. A search on brittanica + Revolution of Dignity actually returned "Maidan" although they seldom even call it that in the articles I read. https://www.google.com/search?q=Revolution+of+dignity+britannica&ei=gQZEYuWJFdadkPIP2t2wuAQ&ved=0ahUKEwilzozip-32AhXWDkQIHdouDEcQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=Revolution+of+dignity+britannica&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BwgAEEcQsAM6BAgAEEc6BQgAEIAEOggIABAWEAoQHjoFCAAQhgM6BQghEKABSgQIQRgASgQIRhgAUOUYWIlRYJ5WaAJwA3gAgAG_AYgBvQ-SAQQwLjExmAEAoAEByAEIwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz

'Ukraine Crisis Media center' itself pro-Ua, responding to Mearschiemer, uses "'Euromaidan'" not "Revolution of Dignity" https://uacrisis.org/en/9283-reply-john-mearsheimer-putin-realist

New Yorker, paragraph five: Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/the-new-doves-on-ukraine

German WP: English WP seems to be not following the example of others including this European WP http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Euromaidan Note that EP English has no such page "Euromaidan" only "Revolution of Dignity".

Old RM discussion at Revolution of Dignity page on en.wp is either outdated or flawed, here is why

TL;DR: Contrary to flawed and/or outdated statistics used in the old RM discussion, Euromaidan appears to generate 3x the number of hits on google when Ukraine is also a search term, as of March 29, 2022! My preliminary empirical searches do not conform at all to the ones cited on the old RM at the Revolution of Dignity page. There are two explanations which come to mind: (1) usage has changed over the years and "Revolution of Dignity" has fallen out of general usage or, (2) the searches on the original RM were flawed because returns for "Revolution of Dignity" included a lot of noise, ie., hits, perhaps far down in the rankings, which included utterly unrelated returns. To test this hypothesis, I ran searches on google on the following four search terms:

             Revolution of Dignity
             Euromaidan
             Revolution of Dignity Ukraine
             Euromaidan Ukraine

The returns without "Ukraine" confirmed the earlier results on the RM, giving many more hits to RoD. However, when adding "Ukraine", obviously limiting the return to items directly related to Ukraine, the results were the exact opposite. To avoid error I am simply pasting the results here:

SEARCH TERMS: Revolution of Dignity Ukraine RETURN: About 5,990,000 results (0.65 seconds) Revolution of Dignity Ukraine Feb 18, 2014 – Feb 23, 2014 vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv SEARCH TERM: Euromaidan Ukraine RETURN:about 18,800,000 results (0.56 seconds) Euromaidan Nov 21, 2013 – Feb 22, 20

SCOPE ISSUE

The concluding summary of the earlier RM at the other page admitted that there was a scope issue and I will revisit that. This page we are on is discussing the 2022 war and places it in context of the ongoing war since 2014. It describes that war as beginning after "the Revolution of Dignity". Obviously, if these events can be legitimately characterized as ending on Feb 22 and/or 23rd, the difference of one day, even if authenticated, is hardly significant in this context. More to the point, the question is: should wiki voice prefer the lesser-used term for any reason? If there are reasons in the affirmative, do these outweigh NPOV concerns? Isn't it the case that characterizing the event as a "Revolution of Dignity" puts a highly positive spin on events which resulted in an eight year war, the current invasion, and involved loss of over a hundred lives? This would be fine on a blog, a FB page, my friends' house, my friends' blog, an editorial. Yes, there is dignity to be had despite the costs. But it seems that sacrificing WP:NPV is a bridge too far in promoting the positive aspects of the 2014 ouster of the Kremlin-leaning Yanukovich apparatus. WP is not here to promote revolution it is here to present what the reliable sources state and therefore should stick to the usage which now predominates on a 3:1 ratio. OK so that is my WP:DeadHorse whipping session concluded.

SPLIT THE BABY: ACTION TAKEN

Since the protests and the revolution are two things, English WP has wisely created separate entities. It would be confusing to change "Revolution of Dignity" and due to inertia WP:SNOW hence it seems the best thing to do is follow the convention I noticed on a related page and simply put the self-named revolution's designation in quotes, which indicate that it is a popular usage, a newer coinage in the language, which did indeed arise at the time of the events. This also neatly accomodates the millions of Donbass and Crimea Ukrainians who are anti-Maidan and to this day blame the 2014 revolution for today's woes. (I don't, but many do, and so, for the sake of WP:NPV I have whipped this poor bloody horse to shreds.

Comments

The Revolution of Dignity follows from and/or is an event within Euromaiden or at least, that is how the two articles are scoped. Hence, Euromaiden is not directly comparable to the Revolution of Dignity as a title. The alternative name for the Revolution of Dignity is the Maiden Revolution. Any comparison of usage to determine WP:COMMONNAME should be made against these terms. Yes, "Revolution of Dignity" does appear to have a POV issue. However, WP:POVNAME at WP:AT specifically deals with this: ... the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use. Talk:Revolution of Dignity#Requested move 16 November 2021 found the evidence for "Revolution of Dignity" was conclusively WP:COMMONNAME. If "Revolution of Dignity" is the WP name for the WP article also known as the "Maiden Revolution" then that is the name we use here. If you disagree with the title for the "Revolution of Dignity", then the place to address that is at that article's talk page - not here. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Edit conflit. I'm confused as to the purpose of this horse flogging.

I agree with Cindarella157. As he pointed out there's a long discussion page that has consensus for the usage of Revolution of Dignity, and it seems like that talk page, not this one, would be the correct location for this discussion. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Cinderalla157 on some points; there is indeed an alternative name for the Revolution of Dignity is the Maidan Revolution. (The correct spelling I believe, BTW). I am puzzled that there is therefore resistance to using that.

It seems that we also agree there is a POV issue with using the name designated by the victor. Given that there are two alternatives, it seems logical that WP:NPOV would prevail and some of the are therefore moot. Are we committed to NPOV or not?

I understand that you don't like the quotes - millions of Donbass and Crimea Ukrainians would disagree but I think we have a blind spot to their sensitivities here in the English speaking world. I realize Wikipedia does not correct for general error in "RS" which is one reason I write primarily elsewhere. <sigh>

But we can still strive for the ideal of NPV. Proposed: then why not call it the Maidan revolution, for purposes of this article, which would resolve the POV issue. The information given in green type face is inapposite because it does not reflect the fact that there are, in this case, two alternatives available.

The reference to the RM is (A) It appears that the comment overlooks the flaw I discovered in the data crunching on prior RM.I believe that it is simply not the case that "Revolution of Dignity" is in such wide use as here purported. Certainly the google analytics that omit the "Ukraine" delimiter are flawed, you can run the tests yourself and verify.

(B) Aside from the methodological flaw which taints the RM on the EN.WP page move, it is also not necessarily binding as a WP-wide requirement. Page titling and discussion are separate and distinct matters. German WP disagrees. It redirects "Dignity" search to "Maidan". We are biasing in favor of the Rupert Murdoch US media conglomerates, something a lot of writers are saying, and Wikipedia is deeply vulnerable to an uncritical embrace of whatever 51% of our most accessible "RS" media state. But DW, WION, France24 present a different, European perspective which, sadly, is often lacking on WP.

(Sadly, I do recognize that may not be easily corrected - these are structural problems with Wikipedia.I have not entirely given up hope though that committment to a true NPOV approach might prevail, but one of the reasons I don't edit much recently is that there seems to be a resignation that truth is not an ideal, we on WP are only trying to provide a true picture of whatever errors are propagated in secondary sources.)

So, "Revolution of Dignity" does not appear to be a "WP" name it is an English WP name. It might be interesting to see how the French, Italian, Spanish and Slavic nations treat this issue. The simple fact that another page on English WP uses the POV-loaded title does not necessarily mandate that should be the case on all pages particularly in view of the fact that POV issues are even more fraughted than they were at that time. If further review indicates that the RM cited was based upon the erroneous mathematics cited above, it seems that WP:NPOV has been abandonded at least on this point. That would be a shame since it is right there in the lede.

As it stands, we do not have the neutral "Maidan Revolution" which is easily available to us, we are going with a clearly loaded term that implies "boosterism" for the whole Maidan revolutionary project which many critics attribute to the US State Department, Victoria Nuland and inappropriate intervention on the part of the US. Cf. the now-legendary Nuland phone call.That's not NPOV.

I have personally donated and generated hundreds of dollars for Ukraine and I supported Maidan since the 2014 Wikipedia war on the "Russia Invaded Ukraine" page but frankly I find it disappointing that the trend on this page is opting for throwing out the NPOV baby with the bathwater, for no better reason than the people on the related-page RM voted that way. There are other grounds to believe that nuetrality is going down the drain on US/UK/Australia/NZ Wikipedia. That was a good thing in 2014 when we had to push back against paid trolls from the Kremlin and maybe in February 2022. But now that there is a decisive victory of the Zelenskiy perspective in the information space, we here on WP have become part of the problem of uncritically echo'ing the same old "RS" we are used to. Here we have an opportunity to step towards genuine nuetrality, and it is being squandered. Wikidgood (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikidgood, the fundamental issue is that this is not the page on which you should be flogging this horse (to use your own words). Please take it to Talk:Revolution of Dignity and make an RM. WP:POVNAME states: ... the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name ... [emphasis added] In this, MOS:CAPS applies and probably hasn't been considered. But we aren't going to change it here. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

==== Point One: This most certainly is the page to raise THIS issue Here is why ====You are incorrect in your assertion that (1) this issue cannot or should not be raised with regard to the POV in the lede and (2) that "the fundamental" is which page to discuss the matter. However, it is easy to arrive at the conclusion that you have jumped to because you probably are overlooking the point I make herein below.

I am not contending that the name of that page should be changed, even though it probably should., I am more concerned about something you probably know full well but have not thought through in this instance. To wit, there are many sites around the world that take the content of WP and either just replicate it or cite it as authority. Thus, I consider WP pretty important and well worth enduring wiki-lawyering and suggestions of whipping a dead horse. Because WP accuracy does matter. So it is far more important that THIS page be correct. Many people will search and arrive at THIS page. Fewer people will search and arrive at THAT page. I rest my case on this point.

==== Point Two====

You are not acknowledging that there is in this case a suitable alternative, ie., Maidan revolution.

====Point Three ====

New information. I checked. The RM you cite is the one I checked. It is based upon entirely erroneous method and conclusion. That much I already asserted, although you don't address that, resting on the contention that this issue can only be brought up as an RM on that page, which I utterly reject as per my point One above. However this is really a blockbuster: I checked the closer argument on the RM, or the top post which I believe is the closer. They are utterly and completely misrepresenting the matter. As follows:

The claim that it is dispositive that they have "RS" which they support with a link to a Google scholar search on "Revolution of Dignity Ukraine". Good that they included "Ukraine" on that particular post. HOWEVER they did not run a control test on "Maidan Ukraine" or "Maidan Revolution Ukraine".

Would you care to take a wild guess what happens when you actually do run BOTH tests. Well here is the spoiler:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Revolution+of+Dignity%22+Ukraine&oq=

About 4,670 results (0.03 sec)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Euromaidan%22+Ukraine&oq=

About 11,500 results (0.02 sec)

So the RM was apparently based on the erroneous presumption that just because there was "a lot of" English language writing online that used the cheerful phrase "Revolution of Dignity" that constituted a finding that its lovely sense of promise and optimism was OK to supplant a more detached and nuetral proper name such as "Maidan".

==== Point Four ====

I did NOT delete "Revolution of Dignity" anyway. I added "Maidan protests and..." to provide a bit of balance. And really the proper way to present this would be to include mention that Yanukovich was ousted if you think it might be possible that the cause of the war had something to do with the ouster of a pro-Russian asset. That is more important than the bare fact of some unspecified revolution. As I stated elsewhere Putin could care less if the former Warsaw Pact nations have revolutions, he only cares whether the outcome is a friendly or not. So the reader coming in cold, maybe because they are young, or don't follow the news, or at some future date forgot all this, that reader is entitled to have an informative lede which contextualizes the war as the response to the removal of Yanukovich. That is more important perhaps than rendering NPOV. The simple fact that the earlier war was "after" Euromaidan is not what counts. WHat counts is that it was "after" the ouster of a pro-Kremlin government. That explains the "why" rather than just a dry recital of the bare timeline fact. History writing should inform the reader of the relevant points not the bare bones timeline.

==== Point Five ====

Being friendly to newcomers, I am not accusing anyone of "biting", exactly, but it is hard to resist a sense that one "owns" a WP page. It seems that a few highly active individuals who get in on the ground floor of a page quickly form a sort of clique and try to block newcomers and set up people who are new to the page as if they are bad editors. I am not saying you are doing that but that is often a problem on WP. It is a temptation you need to guard against once you really learn the ins and outs of Wikilawyering and a particular issues page. I quit editing on a page once and received an email that I thought was a hoax but was from a NY Times writer who wrote about the page. I missed a chance to vent why I quit, which was that one high credential person with no background in WP, education or communications thought the WP page was his personal property. So be kind not to get too wrapped up in jargon and acronyms and reference to debates you remember from weeks ago which are buried in half a dozen archives and are not searchable. And recognize that there are uses for quotations which are not properly characterized as "scare quotes" as you put in your edit comment. There is no intention to "scare" people about the Maidan protest. I did not say call them riots. I did not bring up the shootings, the extremism. None of that. Just, suggesting we go with the irenic term "Maidan" and to insert that term. And ultimately that we contextualize with reference to the ouster of the incumbent. That is not a "scare" tactic and you know full well that there are valid uses of quotes. Sometimes that is proper to indicate scepticism but in other instances it denotes that a coinage or novel term is at bar. Kindly do not amp up your opinion by mischaracterizing. No one is using scare tactics. I await your link to the prior discussion thank you in advance. Wikidgood (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• As others have pointed out, this talk page isn't the correct place for this discussion, which should be held at Talk:Revolution of Dignity. It's also worth noting that an RM would need to show that "Revolution of Dignity" isn't the most commonly used name, as widespread usage trumps neutrality concerns. A Google ngrams result (which aggregates published books, not news sources) looks to support the current title. Jr8825 • Talk 12:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Jr8825. Actually I answered that objection above. This Talkpage is the correct place for discussion of how the corresponding page construcrts its' lede. The reason I detail above is as follows: this page will receive far more search hits. Thus, it will have more influence. The specific context of the usage in the lede is completely different than an article about the 2014 revolution. I did not delete "Revolution of Dignity" I contextualized it and put out inquiries in how to more fully contextualize it with respect to the ouster of a Kremlin-friendly government. The issue is what context should the reader be presented with when reading a basic introduction to the 2022 war. I proposed including a tripartite reference to 1- the Maidan protests,3- the "Revolution of Dignity" and 3-the ouster of Yanukovich.

  I did not perform an edit to include (3) because, you know, someone is going to revert just to revert. That is just human nature. The main point is that the lede is purporting to provide context and just stating the Revolution of Dignity, without a context of the protests and the ouster of the Kremlin-friendly, does nothing to inform the reader except to present a POV from the first paragraph that is basically All Things Ukraine=Good, dignity and All Things Russian = Against Dignity. There is a POV problem, there is a good alternative, but everyone seems to be demanding to stick with the marketing program of calling the 2014 revolution a "Revolution of Dignity" despite much commentary that it involved improper US meddling and violent extemists. The State Department planners and the righties on the ground in Ua would themselves recognize that the packaging of all this as being about "Dignity" is just a play to Western liberals and they would have a good laugh. And at the end of the day, Wikipedia tends to simply reflect group conformism with a strong preferance to the dominant media in the language of each project - a problem that can only be corrected by rigorously seeking out a higher level of NPOV adherence than is generally practiced. So, I am going to have a beer and see if the links materialize and later see what other WP in other languages have done on this.

  Looks like I will never ever live down the "dead horse" remark, so here is why: WP is a very important element of the information war so yes I will appear to "whip the horse" because I strongly believe that a rigorous WP:NPOV will actually prevent a lot of the shooting and bombing which people resort to when they can't arrive at a common understanding of what is and what is not truth. And yes, I know that WP is not necessarily about truth, per se. But let's not jump on every bandwagon that we can justify just by flashing the "RS" badge regarding every assertion. Most so-called "RS" are biased as we all well know. Thanks again. Wikidgood (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  (・_・ヾ Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Expulsion of diplomats

A dozen of countries expelled Russian diplomats in the weeks after the invasion. FYI: in the Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine I added Expulsion of diplomats section with a table. Shall we add a subsection with some brief summary in the "Sanctions and ramifications" of this article? --Mindaur (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I think technically they said they did it because the diplomats were actually intelligence operatives, not because they were protesting the invasion. So it might be WP:OR to put that in to this page's "Sanctions and ramifications" section. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• It looks like this is considered a little too tangential to go in here. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Battlefield Management?

The following discussion 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.

---

There are stories circulating that the morale of the Russian Armed Forces is low, that mutinies have broken out in several Russian units, that the Russian withdrawal in northern Ukraine is chaotic, with Russian military vehicles being abandoned and Russian troops looting along the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean the problem with a lot of stuff like this is like you said they're stories and reports, where for us to say something we really need a Reliable Source to say it in its own words first. So it may well be true, but unless the BBC, for instance, flat out says "Russian troops are in chaos in the north, looting and abandoning vehicles," then it's very difficult to write about here on wiki. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source, like an reliable new source that couvers the evidence stated, also remeber to sign your comments with 4 tildes (these things ~) — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 23:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC) — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 23:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not enough for us to go on? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Syrian mercenaries as belligerents for Russia?

I'm a bit confused as to whether this counts as a separate belligerent on Russia's side or simply as a subset of Russian forces, but Syrian mercenaries are being deployed in Donbas. [75]

Cynthia-Coriníon (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't tend to list mercenary forces. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a separate belligerent. A sub-unit of Russian forces, should be included in Order of battle article if confirmed. EkoGraf (talk) 11:57, 2 April 202

New article on Chornobayivka

I've just created a new article, Battle of Chornobayivka. The events that happened there are notable, Ukraine claims to have attacked the Russian forces at the Chornobayivka aerodrome a total of 12 times, which has made the town very famous in Ukraine. The town has also been heard about in foreign-language sources. However, clearly, what happened there was not a "battle", so I would appreciate it if anyone here started a RM on the page with some ideas for a better title they could have in mind. Super Ψ Dro 21:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Air Force command center airstrike

Hello. Can someone please take a look at Ukrainian Air Force command center airstrike and propose a merge to an appropriate article? I don't think this deserves a page, but I don't know how to propose a merge. Please take a look. Thank you, Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC) ottom}}

Proofreading: Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

The following discussion 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.

---

Change "By 20 March, Russian military appeared to be waging a rapid invasion to achieve its apparent primary goal of the seizure of Kyiv, along with the occupation of Eastern Ukraine and the displacement of the Ukrainian government." to "By 20 March, the Russian military appeared to be waging a rapid invasion to achieve its apparent primary goal of the seizure of Kyiv, along with the occupation of Eastern Ukraine and the displacement of the Ukrainian government."

"To justify an invasion, Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism, invoking the history of collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine during World War II,[41][140] and echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the "true" victims of Nazi Germany." to "To justify an invasion, Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism, invoking the history of collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine during World War II,[41][140] and echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory that casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the "true" victims of Nazi Germany."

"The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution which condemned it and demanded a full withdrawal." to "The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that condemned it and demanded a full withdrawal.

"Former Soviet nuclear weapons in Ukraine were removed to Russia and dismantled." to "Former Soviet nuclear weapons in Ukraine were moved to Russia and dismantled. "During a two-month period which became known as the Orange Revolution, large peaceful protests successfully challenged the outcome." to "During a two-month period that became known as the Orange Revolution, large peaceful protests successfully challenged the outcome."

"Ukrainian media reported a sharp increase in artillery shelling by the Russian-led militants in Donbas as attempts to provoke the Ukrainian army." to "Ukrainian media reported a sharp increase in artillery shelling by the Russian-led militants in Donbas as an attempt to provoke the Ukrainian army."

"On 22 February, video footages shot in the early morning shown Russian armed forces and tanks moving in the Donbas region." to " On 22 February, video footage shot in the early morning showed Russian armed forces and tanks moving in the Donbas region."

"Chinese military attackers are also alleged to have coducted a massive cyberwarfare programme on the eve of the invasion, including on nuclear infrastructure, pointing to advance Chinese knowledge." to "Chinese military attackers are also alleged to have conducted a massive cyberwarfare programme on the eve of the invasion, including on nuclear infrastructure, pointing to advance Chinese knowledge.

"In his pre-invasion speech, Putin said there were no plans to occupy Ukrainian territory and that he supported the right of the peoples of Ukraine to self-determination." to "In his pre-invasion speech, Putin said there were no plans to occupy Ukrainian territory and that he supported the right of the people of Ukraine to self-determination"

"Russian forces quickly became stalled while approaching Kyiv due to several factors, including the disparity in morale and performance between Ukrainian and Russian forces, the Ukrainian use of sophisticated man portable weapons provided by Western allies, poor Russian logistics and equipment performance, the failure of the Russian Air Force to achieve air superiority, and Russian military attrition during their siege of major cities." to "Russian forces quickly became stalled while approaching Kyiv due to several factors, including the disparity in morale and performance between Ukrainian and Russian forces, the Ukrainian use of sophisticated man-portable weapons provided by Western allies, poor Russian logistics and equipment performance, the failure of the Russian Air Force to achieve air superiority, and Russian military attrition during their siege of major cities.

"Amid the heightened Russian shelling of Kharkiv on 31 March 2022, Russia reported a helicopter strike against a oil supply depot approximately 25 miles north of the border in Belgorod and accused Ukraine of the attack." to "Amid the heightened Russian shelling of Kharkiv on 31 March 2022, Russia reported a helicopter strike against an oil supply depot approximately 25 miles north of the border in Belgorod and accused Ukraine of the attack.

" On 6 March, the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reported 88 Russian aircraft had been destroyed since the war began" to " On 6 March, the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reported that 88 Russian aircraft had been destroyed since the war began"

"EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that the EU intended to supply Ukraine with fighter jets. Bulgaria, Poland, and Slovakia had MiG-29s, and Slovakia also had Su-25s, aircraft which Ukraine already flew and which could be transferred without pilot training" to "EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that the EU intended to supply Ukraine with fighter jets. Bulgaria, Poland, and Slovakia had MiG-29s, and Slovakia also had Su-25s, aircraft that Ukraine already flew and which could be transferred without pilot training"

"At least 53 instances of crimes against Ukrainian cultural heritage have been reported, including a local history museum in the egion of Kyiv region, a theatre in Mariupol, and a Holocaust memorial in Kharkiv." to "At least 53 instances of crimes against Ukrainian cultural heritage have been reported, including a local history museum in the region of Kyiv region, a theatre in Mariupol, and a Holocaust memorial in Kharkiv."

"On 14 March, a OTR-21 Tochka missile hit the city of Donetsk, allegedly killing 23 local civilians. Russia and the DPR claimed that the missile was launched by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and accused Ukraine of committing war crimes; the Ukrainian government denied this accusation, claiming the missile was launched by the Russian Armed Forces as part of a false flag operation." to "On 14 March, an OTR-21 Tochka missile hit the city of Donetsk, allegedly killing 23 local civilians. Russia and the DPR claimed that the missile was launched by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and accused Ukraine of committing war crimes; the Ukrainian government denied this accusation, claiming the missile was launched by the Russian Armed Forces as part of a false flag operation."

"Domestic universal jurisdiction criminal proceedings investigating potential war crimes committed by Russian forces in Ukraine have been opened in countries including: Lithuania, Estonia, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland" to "Domestic universal jurisdiction criminal proceedings investigating potential war crimes committed by Russian forces in Ukraine have been opened in countries including Lithuania, Estonia, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland"

I know that these things are nowhere near the most important things that need to be done, but thought I would help out! DTLT (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done, except for the changes from "which" to "that"; IMO it sounds better using "which". >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 19:20, 3 April 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.

Mass execiution

We can't use this

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1510168073831165956.html

But have any RS picked up on this? Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It's unclear what changes you want made to the article — are you saying that there is and unreliable source found in article? If so, please perma-link to the text. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of primary map

See /FAQ Q4.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is an inconsistency between the primary map on the page and the more detailed map. I believe the primary map is inaccurate in that it doesn’t give a totally accurate picture of the extent of the Russian advance in north-east Ukraine around the area where the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian borders intersect. Russian forces have captured the towns of Shostka and Krovolets along with several other towns in the area pushing west towards Chernihiv and Kyiv. The map previously showed Russian troops in control of this area but then suddenly it was changed to show Ukrainian troops back in control, the map now appears or show that the Ukrainians have pushed the Russians right back to the Russian border which is simply untrue. Fully willing to acknowledge that I’m no expert on this and many people are much more knowledgable and clued in so very open to discussion but I think we owe it to our fellow Wikipedia users to give an accurate a picture as possible of the current situation especially given the critical importance of the subject matter. Thanks and God bless. 185.225.245.137 (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we continue to report equipment losses in the infobox?

The proposal is to remove the equipment losses from the infobox in consideration of the following reasons:

• Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the details in an infobox (with few exception) should summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored ... Equipment losses are not discussed in the body of the article. They do not fall to an acknowledged exception broadly construed.
• The reports of losses give individual reports from different sources. The losses are not reported in summary form per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.
• Having asked above and as far as I can see, equipment losses are not so "significant" that they are reported elsewhere in other articles related to and arising from the invasion. There is no evidence from usage in other articles on the invasion that this is a useful or significant metric.
• I believe that readers give particular credibility to figures given in infoboxes. The reports we have vary widely and are not particularly credible for the most part. We are not meeting the social contract we have with our readers.
• Infoboxes lack the capacity of prose to capture nuance.
• Ukraine aircraft losses appear reasonably credible since they are base on an analysis of several sources. However, it lacks a comparative counterpoint of similar reliability for Russian aircraft losses. It would suggest there are no Russian aircraft losses. It lacks balance.
• Template:Infobox military conflict would advise: Where equipment losses are reported, this should be confined to major or significant types of equipment broadly categorized such as: tanks, guns (artillery pieces), aircraft, destroyers etc. While tanks, trucks, mounted equipment and other heavy gear are a summary, not all equipment so broadly defined is significant, in accordance with documentation guidance. Given the rate at which such equipment appears to be being exchanged, it is questionable if any such equipment should be considered "significant".

What is news-worthy is not necessary article-worthy per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There appear to be good reasons why these equipment losses are not infobox-worthy. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have notified this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Not really, as its all a tad trivial (in terms of being trivia). Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• I support removing all equipment losses from the infobox for several of the reasons given above, in particular the first and last bullet points. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support removing equipment losses. I think equipment losses are relevant, but the sources aren't great. I could be persuaded to keep them if just the numbers from a 3rd party source like Oryx were included, but Oryx's inclusion has proven controversial in the past. But Russia and Ukraine are clearly inflating numbers so I'm not really sure what the reader gets from seeing in the infobox that Russia claims 4,300 vehicles destroyed, other than the false impression that Russia's destroyed 4,300 combat vehicles. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support removing equipment losses from infobox. But keeping independent/3rd party estimates like by the US regarding Ukraine's aircraft losses somewhere else in the main body of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support removing equipment losses for now; the reasoning given by the nominator is very solid. Furthermore, I'll take this opportunity to point out that "vehicles and other military equipment" is an absolutely meaningless descriptor at least for me, as "other military equipment" could mean anything from a soldier's individual firearm to an artillery pieces. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I support removing equipment losses. I would support keeping total numbers of manned aircraft and/or major naval vessels as these are major sources of missiles. KD0710 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The Economist just published Oryx's new numbers which as per some other thread's conensus means that Oryx can then be used, so I updated Equipment losses with Oryx's number via The Economist. I would say that Oryx does solve a number of these problems, they break down equipment in to type ie: "x tanks, y amoured vehicles, z aircraft", they include for both sides they tend on the conservative range ie they only count a loss if they have conclusive video/photographic evidence and their numbers aren't extravagant exaggerations. Also re: lack of balance to aircraft losses, I found Oryx fixed-wing aircraft losses quoted by Newsweek article for both sides, while this doesn't mirror the US estimates for both it at least gets an aircraft estimate down for Russia. So I added these also to both sides. I would say that it looks half decent now:

(For Russia) Acc. to ind. researchers (30 March):[20][21] 71+ fixed-wing aircraft, 153+ tanks, 312+ amoured vehicles

(For Ukraine) Acc. to ind. researchers (30 March):[20][21] 25+ fixed-wing aircraft, 26+ tanks, 57+ amoured vehicles

I think alternatively we could axe the Russian and Ukrainian estimates as being not particularly useful both due to likely exaggeration and "vehicles and other military equipment" being meaningless, which would dramatically cut down on space, then keep the independent estimates as well as US estimates, keep the drop down and call it a day. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the US source cited by the BBC (as used in the infobox for Ukranian fighter losses) the Oryx page is described as a blog. Blogs are not a WP:RS for facts such as these. That the Economist cites Oryx as its primary source does not legitimise the Oryx page. Regardless, a series of random factoids in the infobox lack context. There is no context provided within this article or any other as far as I can tell. Why are these figures important to report here? How is this consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree necessarily, but I guess I think an independent 3rd party source for equipment losses is more relevant than Russia claiming its destroyed 5,300 Ukrainian vehicles, or Ukraine claiming three weeks ago that they've lost 1,200 soldiers. For that matter as time moves on I'm more partial to Slatersteven's argument that it's all WP:RECENTISM and that Wiki isn't a newspaper. How is any of it consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE for that matter it's just as consistent as personnel losses which are meaningless in a vacuum, or Ukrainian and Russian reported losses. I guess what I'm saying is that it's all random factoids, it's like during the Vietnam war when the US posted inflated Vietnamese casualty numbers as if that were the metric the war would be decided by.

As for how it describes it self WP:RS states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." It's considered an expert on open source reporting of battle field losses, and is published by a slew of reliable independent publications such as The Economist, Business Insider, News Week, Forbes etc. Beyond that taking "indpendent analysts" or "researchers" or whatever in the BBC as being A ok, seems a bit of wishful thinking, ie that it's not Oryx or some similar group. We want an independent source, so we look for independent source, because not knowing the actual source of the information then gives it plausible deniability for including what you have termed to be a blog: if the Economist said "independent analysts" instead of "Oryx" with the same info from Oryx there'd be no issue ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think that's probably also the case with other estimates such as US and NATO estimates with a bit of wishful thinking as to how accurate the estimates are. Keep the map, put heavy under losses, and that peace seems unlikely and we'll have conveyed about as much as we can confidently say, whilst giving a good summary of the current situation. But if we're going to be posting numbers I think it would be better if they were at least somewhat objective in their reporting, and without an obvious bias leading to unbelievably high/low figures. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you per casualties. Casualties in the infobox fail for much the same reasons as my OP for this section. Two wrongs (casualties and losses) don't make a right. There is, however, a casualty section in this article where nuance can be dealt with. IMHO, the best course for casualties would to say in the infobox "Reports vary - see section XX" (or similar) or to omit the parameter from the infobox since it is an optional parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think at this point, considering how allied NATO/US have become with Ukraine, that they could no longer be really considered as a 3rd party source at this time. Especially considering that it seems at this point they are aligning a lot with Ukrainian estimates, while independent analysts still point out they are very likely overblown. If we are removing NATO/US estimates, we should at least leave the self-admitted casualty losses, which are at least a confirmed minimum, while providing an expanded link to the other higher estimates as suggested by Cinderella157. EkoGraf (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Ukraine striking Russian territory

If news reports are to be believed, the Ukrainian military has begun performing strikes outside of Ukraine and inside Russian territory. Obviously, these strikes and any futures of the same kind would constitute a part of this same conflict - should we perhaps update our diagrams of the conflict here to be able to include incidents on Russian soil near the border? 82.15.196.46 (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think so yes. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are talking about changing the main image of the article, then you should make a request at on Commons file. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There appear to be multiple international news sources confirming this as an extension of the Kharkiv military front. Adding to Kharkiv military front section as documented by BBC and AlJazeera. It seems to be 2 helicopters from Ukraine attacking a fuel depot in Belgorod. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It also appears Ukraine has denied it [[76]]. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek is also reporting that it might be a false flag operation here: [77]. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSWEEK: they should not be used for this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Here is the Fox News version of the false flag situation here: [78]. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I hardly think Fox News is a more reliable source. Regardless, does whether it is a false flag or not actually impact whether this is an extension of the conflict? (Would a strike by a state on itself to mislead in an ongoing conflict be considered a part of that conflict?) BlackholeWA (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like both versions of the report are now included. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know but if Ukraine actually did attack, Russia will do something back and it won't be pretty. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You miss the point. Russia is already doing something, and has been for a month, and it's already not pretty. This new event (whether Ukraine actually did it, or Russia did it to itself) will just give Russia a new excuse for what they've been doing anyway, and will continue to do anyway, regardless. EEng 02:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

US confirms [79]. And even if they didn't, we already had another Ukrainian attack at Belgorod a week ago [80]. So I think its safe to say there has been a spillover and to add it to the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Kreminna

As Ukraine reported it, on 11 March 2022, a Russian tank shelled a nursing home in Kreminna and killed 56 people. 15 survivors would have been basically deported to a Russian-held locality, Svatove [81] [82]. This event is one of the deadliest single attacks on civilians that have occurred in the war, being only surpassed by the Mariupol theatre airstrike. I think it could have a page, but I am not sure of its notability. Not many sources after the initial report have been published about the event, so I would like to hear the opinion of some users. Super Ψ Dro 07:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can cite to independent, reliable sources, this fact could be inserted into this article.

This fact is too narrow to deserve its own, separate page. Pechmerle (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Perchmerle, this event, though very serious, should be included on this page not as a separate event with its own page. This event is part and parcel to the ongoing conflict and really is not a standalone event. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

South Ossetia has been involved in the conflict since the 26th, no mention of this. Ukraine did not control any of the Chernobyl exclusion zone outside of the power plant until today, yet the map shows this occurring two days before this with no source indicating this. Yeastie (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We need RS saying it, none have been produced. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Em-m? Yeastie, SO case has own whole paragraph in article with 6 sources and respective discussion on this talk page. Alex Spade (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

South Ossetia

The following discussion 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.

---

South Ossetia (as state) and its military forces do not take action in this war. There is some misunderstandings and loss in translations of SO-President's words and in usages of White-Red-Yellow flags.

1. They can be common Russian citizens, SO-born Russian citizens, and SO-born SO-citizens on Russian service (Russia allows foreigners to be enlisted) from 4th military base of 58th Army[83][84] deployed in SO, or from other units of 58th Army deployed in Russian North Ossetia. It is not uncommon for ethnocentric units (especially from the Caucasian region) to use ethnic flags unofficially. WRY flag is ethnographic flag for Ossetian, it is used both in SO and NO. So these are Russian troops.
2. They can be SO volunteers. So these are volunteer forces, not official state military forces.

Alex Spade (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Or not, which is why we say what RS say, so what do RS say about this? Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

RS? Alex Spade (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Short for Reliable Source with the WP:RS shortcut link. --N8_wilson 12:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Known sources are based on citing of SO president and interpretations of his words. He said about military personnel from SO indeed, but he didn't specify state of their service.

His press service and some sources (for example, mentioned by me in article and in p.1 of my comment on 10:01) specify that he said about Ossetians on Russian military service .

I did not find reliable sources specifying that he had said about Ossetians from Armed Forces of South Ossetia. Alex Spade (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. If South Ossetia the state is not participating, what are these articles talking about?

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/26/georgias-breakaway-region-sends-troops-to-ukraine-a77094

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/georgian-breakaway-region-says-it-sent-troops-to-ukraine-to-help-protect-russia/

Aren't these articles pretty directly stating that they're taking part? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Both sources do not say anything about Armed Forces of South Ossetia. South Ossetians ("our guys" in words of SO president)(representatives of ethnos, not state) are taking part indeed. But they are from the Russian forces (they are South Ossetians with Russian citizenship or on Russian service), not from the SO forces. Alex Spade (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

For similar example, see Nepali Gurkha, which are recruited for both Nepali Army and other armies. Alex Spade (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Alex Spades own statements do not refute what the souces provided say, he has yet to provide any link to back up his claims. As such South Ossetia should be added back to the pro-Russian side of the belligerents in the infobox. See here for an article from yesterday quoting the South Ossetian president directly on the issue. [85]XavierGreen (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have give two sources (lets repeat them) [86][87] (both of them are in the begging of this topic and in the respective section of article) with explanation of involvement of South Ossetians (representatives of ethnos, not state) as troopers from Russian Armed Forces, not from Armed Forces of South Ossetia. Your source says the same thing clearly: these are Russian men and SO (service)men on Russian service, these are the Russian Armed Forces, not Armed Forces of South Ossetia - see quotes "Russia’s 4th military base..., including local contractors...", "Russian troops, as well as South Ossetian servicemen", and "I [Bibilov] am not the one who gave the order to the 4th military base, because it is the Russian army...". Alex Spade (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your source in template cites same old/initial words of SO president or links to TMT article before they were clarified, and which had discussed on this topic already, there is nothing new about Armed Forces of South Ossetia. The real new in this news is that South Ossetia has officially applied(*) for membership to the Russian Federation - that is the other quesion, not about involvement of military forces. Alex Spade (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
(*) SO has not applied, it has just plan to apply after possible referendum in some near future[88]. Alex Spade (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Alex Spade. I think the reason that this is a bit odd/difficult to understand is because South Ossetia is population 50k, so they don't have an army or anything like that, they have a handful of troops, who for the sake of convenience were integrated in to the Russian Army, and who are thus commanded by the Russian army. So yes, South Ossetian troops are going to Ukraine but it wasn't South Ossetia that decided to send them, it was Moscow. In this way it's not radically different than the Syrians, there are many Syrians going to fight in Ukraine, but they are going as part of the Russian army, not Syrian army (if such a thing still exists). Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I can understand, that Ru/SO sources are questionable or difficult to understanding (because they are writing in Russian). But civil.ge (in English) site mentioned by XavierGreen says the same. This report is similar to RBC report, that one is similar to JAM report. There is also good article about the Ru-SO military deal, signed in 2017. Alex Spade (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is there a consensus here that South Ossetia is not acting as a "state"? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 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.

Draft:Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (Ukraine)

I recently created a draft for the Ukrainian Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the draft, I think it could actually be published already. The topic is notable and if someone tries to delete the article through AfD other editors will defintively come and expand it. By the way, if we are to have an article on the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, we probably should have a page on the Supreme Commander-in-Chief itself. Super Ψ Dro 17:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of publishing it, but thought I would wait in case someone wanted to improve enough to get to 1500 characters so it can be featured on Did You Know. Thriley (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Abkhazia’s de-facto government officially provides military assistance to Russia in the invasion and should be listed under belligerents (similar to Belarus). The announcement was made by the de-facto Ministry of Defense.

Source: https://twitter.com/abkhaziap/status/1507365245362319368 Vancho (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The nature of the support is undefined. There is a clear consensus here that equipment supply is not included in the infobox. Without further clarification of the nature of the support and a better source than a tweet, we probably cannnot use this at all. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

For the present Abkhazia is ready to provide mil.support [89], if RF will ask for help. Currently there are not rel.sources, that Abkhazia provides it in reality. Alex Spade (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomenclature problems in related articles

There is a serious need for a concerted effort to control the spread of frivolous sub-articles on this subject. For instance, we know have articles for Battle of Slavutych and Battle of Chernobyl even though these events involved totally trivial levels of violence. The amount of fighting was not enough to warrant the battle format. Is there a constituency here that can reach consensus on this issue?Sredmash (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see this as a "serious need". Let the chips fall where they may, and in the fullness of time you can nominate some of these articles for deletion or merging. No hurry. EEng 12:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. For that matter, sieges use the battle template, and do some riots. I give you

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Siege_of_Vicksburg

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street

kencf0618 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Clear anti Ukrainian bias in the "Casualties and humanitarian impact" section.

The text in that section has a clearly biased emphasis on Ukrainian reported numbers not being trustworthy, but little on the Russian numbers being un-trustworthy! It relies far to much on a claim that Ukraine and "Western media" are spreading "misinformation" , but that Russia was only “probably” lying about their loses. It clearly downplays the Russian state's un-trustworthiness and the wildly false claims they have been making about Ukrainian loses (e.g their claims they have destroyed more TB-2 drones than Ukraine has or that they have wiped out Ukraine's airforce when they have not)!

It should be fixed to have a NPOV! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.116.104.165 (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The text at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Casualties is clearly saying that neither Ukrainian nor Russian casualty figures are particularly reliable and this information is sourced. There is no POV issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We also say Russias are not, thus there is no Bias. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue may be the level of emphasis on Ukrainian claims being dubious compared to Russian:

Ukrainian estimates tended to be high ; Ukraine's government was engaged in a misinformation campaign ; Ukraine also tended to be quieter about its own military fatalities ; Ukrainian claims of Russian fatalities were possibly including the injured as well ; Analysts warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as fact

compared against

Russian estimates of their own losses tended to be low ; Russia was "probably" downplaying its own casualties ; Russia wanted to downplay its losses.

The text refers to Ukrainian statements as "misinformation" and "warns about accepting [them] as fact", but by contrast only suggests that Russia is "downplay[ing]" the gravity of their situation. It does not come off as neutral. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Which seem to be semi quotes, and are attributed statements. This is what we have to do, reflect on what the sources are saying. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Balance is not equal. There is a fairly clear perception that Russian under-reporting and that Ukrainian figures are accurate. The statements address the imbalance in perceptions - neither of the belligerent's reports can be taken at face value. Cinderella157 (talk)

Agree with Cinderella157 and Slatersteven. No bias, presented both sides are engaging in possible overplaying or downplaying of losses, and cited to neutral 3rd party sources. EkoGraf (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

But it is clearly biased in how it is phrased! Fix it! 193.116.104.165 (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia orders the deletion of this page

The Russian government is threatening to fine Wikipedia if it doesn't remove content that contradicts its narrative about the war in Ukraine.

Communications regulator Roskomnadzor announced on Thursday that it had asked the online encyclopedia to remove a page containing "unreliable socially significant materials, as well as other prohibited information" about its operations in Ukraine, according to an English translation. It accused the site of intentionally misinforming Russian users.

Are Russians able to get any real news about what's going in Ukraine? It said it could fine Wikipedia up to 4 million rubles, or nearly $47,000, for failing to remove those materials, which are illegal under Russian law.

Russia enacted legislation last month that criminalizes war reporting that doesn't echo the Kremlin's version of events — including by calling it a war. The law has forced most of Russia's remaining independent news outlets to close and many journalists to leave the country for fear of facing up to 15 years in prison.

Wikipedia, please make a public statement on this. And include this old Ukrainian proverb:

ɟʅǝsɹnoʎ ǝsɐɥɔ oɓ ʻʇɐɹɔoʇnɐ uɐᴉssnꓤ

2601:647:5800:3AB0:E17A:D7E8:2C41:1760 (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@2601:647:5800:3AB0:E17A:D7E8:2C41:176 2409:4042:2016:DC16:0:0:145B:E8AD (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

An anynomous IP is would not pass wp:rs. Please provide a reliable source. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

On 1 March, Roskomnadzor demanded that ru.Wikipedia comply with Russia's narrative about the "special security operation," with a threat of blocking. Now they are demanding that en.Wikipedia must remove "unreliable socially significant materials, as well as other prohibited information" from this article or face a 4 million ruble (US$47,000) fine. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

So not THIS page, but the Rusisan language one. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The NPR article links to the en.Wikipedia page. The 2nd warning letter from Roskomnadzor just says Wikipedia. It does not specify language. The foundation's response mentions the English-language version for its 11 million page views and implies that it views the 99+ versions collectively. Other sources (e.g. Newsweek) read this differently. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia reserves the right to fine any organisation operating in their territory. Not like the west didnt ban RT but continue to allow their propaganda services but okay. BritishToff (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The NPR article links to the en.Wikipedia page - this is just interpretation by NPR, which is strange for me. RKN does not define specific page or pages in press-release about possible 4 mln fine. Ru-Wiki supposes, that RKN is talking about ru:Вторжение России на Украину (2022) - it is the only page about RU-UA conflict, which is or was in RKN official registers of prohibited information (see ru:ВП:ЗАПРЕТ). Alex Spade (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Currently 1+5 articles about RU-UA conflict were/are in RKN official registers of prohibited information, but all of them are from Ru-wiki only. Alex Spade (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Content to this effect has already been added to the article. To the OP request, this is not the place to address correspondence to the Wikimedia Foundation. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

References

• Sounds like we're doing something right. EEng 12:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. FourTildes 208.125.143.178 (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Roskomnadzor "orders" Wikipedia to censor itself

This should be added to the censorship section, I don't have the privilege (yet): https://www.reuters.com/technology/russia-threatens-fine-wikipedia-if-it-doesnt-delete-false-information-2022-04-05/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Børnyard (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this not already being discussed above? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Please rember to sign your comments with 4 tildes. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 00:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Like people who don't know to sign know what a tilde is. EEng 19:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

In case you don't know what a tilde is, they are these ~~ — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 20:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

1. Under the section 6.4 Other Legal Proceedings, add France, Norway and Ukraine to the countries which have opened domestic investigations of alleged Russian war crimes. Source for France: https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/2022/03/16/france-opens-war-crime-investigation-into-death-of-fox-news-cameraman/ Source for Norway (in Norwegian): https://www.politiforum.no/krigen-i-ukraina-kripos-kristin-kvigne/kripos-bidrar-med-etterforskning-av-krigsforbrytelser-i-ukraina/224244 Source for Ukraine: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220323-ukraine-prosecutor-probes-war-crimes-in-fog-of-war

2. I previously suggested, and now do it again, to instead of "the Baltic states" write the countries, i.e. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The editor replied "Adding all the Baltic states to the list was adding too many". I find that an absurd argument. Three more countries are now added, and the list should include all countries, instead of unofficial geopolitical terms to group some of them together.

/2022-04-01 31.209.52.211 (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I have changed "Baltic States" to Lithuania and Estonia, since only these two were referred to in the cited sources. I have also edited to "countries including". An exhaustive list would fall to WP:NOTEVERYTHING here and is best covered more comprehensively at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine‎. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

On official denials we seem to be leaving out a piece of the story

CURRENT VERSION: The United States and others accused Russia of planning to attack or invade Ukraine, which Russian officials repeatedly denied as late as 23 February 2022.[48] Sorry I don't have RS at the tip of my fingers, but it seems like this sentence does not do full justice to the recent post facto denials by a Russian spokesperson that Russia invaded Ukraine. Long after 2/23/22 and in fact long after 2/24/22. Maybe that is not notable in the view of some folks but it seems to warrant consideration. Thank you. Wikidgood (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The article has two preface sections which cover the lead up to the declaration of the invasion and the invasion itself. Putin's preference was to call it a "special military operation" which is documented with citations in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is there any action required here? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox error on refugee dates

Sorry, for some reason that I don't understand, I can't find the article infobox to edit it. There is an error in the "4.1 million+ refugees and 6.5 million internally displaced persons" line towards the bottom, under "Acc. to the UN (21 March)" , actually only the displaced persons figure is from 21 March - the 4.1 million+ refugees is actually 2nd April, and because the source is a daily updated UNHCR figure, the link will always be up to date, even when our text isn't. Since I don't believe the displaced figure has gone up significantly, it might be better to list all UNHCR figures as 'current date'. Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

How many actual deaths are there in Ukrainian soldiers?

I have to know how many died because I don’t see the information updated on how many are actually dead by Ukraine or the United States. 2600:1700:4750:25F0:5C25:4DE:D2DB:CDB9 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Well as there is no way of knowing we can't tell you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Last update by Ukraine was March 12th (1,300 dead) and US March 9th (2,000-4,000 dead). When a new update is provided we will added. But for now, they have been quiet in this regard. EkoGraf (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That (however) is only claimed dead, not actaul dead. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup, so it should be taken as a bare confirmed minimum at best. EkoGraf (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

In the background part, may we please state the specific objectives of Russia/Putin in numbered bullet points?

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72072/what-exactly-are-the-stated-objectives-of-the-2022-russian-invasion-of-ukraine

In the post, the sources include

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67885 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60785754 https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/20/politics/russia-ukraine-negotiations-us-nato/index.html

Thewriter006 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of the other sections, like the Prelude, do already state some of the more prominent general objectives (or demands) in context. Alternatively, this could probably go into the "file for later" folder, especially given the fog of war and other factors that contribute to the article's near-constant state of flux. Some of the comments in that Stack Exchange thread also raise relevant concerns on why it might be difficult to explicitly state the specific objectives, including this one: Do you mean the declared objectives (what Russia said) or the likely objectives (that is what they really want to achieve) or the current objectives (adjusted with the account for the developing military and political situations)?. And just for good measure, per the exact wording of the request, a numbered list might imply some order of priority/importance for which it would be hard to establish consensus, so maybe an unordered list, if any, will do. Benjamin112 ☎ 06:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe but let's bear in mind that the nature of the demands both explicit and implicit has been changing. For instance, when Putin claimed that there was a need to prevent "genocide" that seems to imply a demand of "no genocide" against ethnic Russians, which is IMO such an increase from "stop persecuting Donbass/ethnic Russians". Ideally then any such statement of objectives would include the date the assertion was made, which will be readily available iff WP:RS is being complied with. Another consideration would be to qualify any such stated objective, eg., prevention of alleged genocide risk. Well this is one prickly porcupine of a bear, to mix metaphors...Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Wikidgood (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• To summarise the comments. We are already capturing the main points and the subject is also a moving feast. We might revisit things further down the track. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is outdated at "Strength"

• I can remember hearing and reading on the news that Russia also got something like 20'000 additional soldiers from Syria to join the war.
• And Armenia has sent some number of their Su-30 fighters (along with pilots) to join the war on Russias side.
• And something in the range of 2000 soldiers have been sent from the russian occupation forces in northern Georgia. Recently something like 300 of them were reported to have deserted. This shouldn't really count separately from the russian military, but since the infobox already lists the other puppet states separately, why not this one too?

GMRE (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, IMHO we should only be reporting the initial strengths and noting that in the infobox. Firstly, both sides have incurred losses but there is no way to accurately estimate these. We know that both sides have received volunteers but we certainly cannot be certain that such reports are complete. We also know that Russia is presently relieving some of its forces with fresh troops that may not add to the number of troops on the ground (peak strength) but would certainly add to the total committed. We do not know with certainty the full extent that Russia has reinforced its initial force (besides a couple of reports such as the Wagner Group) but it would be naïve to assume this is the full extent of their reinforcements. A simple number reported in an infobox cannot capture such nuance. Adding piecemeal updates implies to our readers we know with some confidence the current strengths with confidence when in fact we really have no idea. This stuff is best left to prose and probably the best place for this is the Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Linking to Russian emigration following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine

Can someone please add a link on this page?

Here is a way:

…A second refugee crisis created by the invasion and by the Russian government's crackdown has been the flight of more than 200,000 Russian political refugees, the largest….

This sentence is in the “refugees” section.

2600:1012:B02A:FDC:41B:2ED9:ECD6:B7F9 (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any sources describe it as a "second refugee crisis". I support adding mention of the emigration article somewhere, but I just wouldn't do it that way. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Well that sentence is in the article already, I just added the link. I think “emigres” is better than “refugees”, agree. I can’t edit this s***, I am but a lowly IP. 2600:1012:B02A:FDC:41B:2ED9:ECD6:B7F9 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Map update comment

The following discussion 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.

---

The map infobox hasn't been updated for a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twa0726 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 April 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.

4.2M to 4.3M

The article 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis changed 4.2M to 4.3M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:186:4500:83A0:506D:E47C:AEBE:E996 (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done in the lead and the infobox. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 12:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, since the .1 is only 2% of the total, we should just say "at least 4M" and stop fussing with it until it gets to, say, 4.5M. EEng 14:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Map Image Bug

There seems to be a bug with the images using the map when someone updated the image with a blank one of different dimensions. The way that it can be fixed is just to submit an edit of any kind of change on the pages that are affected. I've managed to fix as much as I can but there are some pages that I don't have access to edit on, so I'm letting everyone know, in order for this to be fixed as soon as possible. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we be hyperlinking presidential offices?

There's been some back and forth over whether the offices of President of Russia and President of Ukraine should be hyperlinked in the lead. In my opinion, these hyperlinks are unnecessary because they're not critical to understanding the article and it goes against MOS:SEAOFBLUE because they're too close to the Putin and Zelenskyy hyperlinks. It's simpler to just call Putin the "Russian president" on first reference and Zelenskyy the "Ukranian president" on first reference. Bluerules (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it's a bit excessive. I don't see these links being necessary for understanding -- not everything that can be linked should be. — Czello 21:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Also agree, as it just confuses the reader and draws attention from the actual text — or genuinely helpful links _{that secretly leaves people going through rabbit holes for hours😈} — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 22:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It confuses the reader? How exactly? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

When I stated "it confuses the reader", I meant the execessive linking may just inundate the reader and thus the reader just may choose to ignore all hyperlinked words, defeating the purpose (which is that the linked article will "... help readers understand the article more fully" — see MOS:LINKEXAMPLES) — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 02:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"A bit excessive"? Really? I could point to 16 links that I find excessive. Why these offices I particular? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If you say there are other excessive links, the solution clearly isn't to have more than we need. — Czello 22:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged — exactly. The whole point of hyperlinking is that the reader will either preview it or click on it so that they can better understand the article more extensively. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 02:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

In the interests of allowing the reader to better understand the article more extensively, wikilinks to relevant terms are useful. For example the President of Russia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Not really, when we have a whole bunch of extremely distracting blue links around it, which decreases the likeliness of anybody clicking on them. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Putin is president of many things in Russia: Judo Association, Bareback Riding Club etc. But it's as President of Russia that we are primarily interested in him I this article. It's notable and relevant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be evident to readers that Putin is Russia's head of state without hyperlinking it. He would not be relevant to the article if he was only the president of an athletic club. He should be identified as the Russian president, but that doesn't need to be hyperlinked to identify him as such. I'm sure there are other hyperlinks that could be removed, but these stand out to me because they're right next to other hyperlinks and the wording can be trimmed. Bluerules (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be evident to readers that Russia is a large country in Asia that doesn't need to be hyperlinked to identify it as such. Yet it is hyperlinked. It should be evident to readers that Putin is Putin and so doesn't need to be hyperlinked to identify him as such. Yet he is hyperlinked. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be evident to readers that Russia is a large country in Asia ... - It shouldn't be as Russia (west of the Urals) is in Europe, it's capital city, Moscow, is in Europe, and the overwhelming majority of Russians live in Europe and are European. Perhaps that link is necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia and Putin are central components of this article. It's understandable why readers would want to know more about them. The generic office of the Russian president is not. It's not important what the Russian president is, it's important who the Russian president is. Bluerules (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The links to "president" were right next to the names of the two incumbents which were also linked. The primary interest will be about the two men and that link. If further information about the office is desired, it can be followed from the incumbent's page. Not everything that can be linked should be linked. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes - the primary interest will be about the two men. But not because they are good at basket weaving or bare-back horse riding. No. They are only of interest because of the high office of state that they hold. One hyperlink to each office is relevant, notable and not excessive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We are patently referring to the two men as the presidents (ie the leaders) of their two countries. However, if for some obscure reason a reader perceived that they were the heads of their two countries basket weaving bare-back riding guilds the links to the individuals would quickly dispel this. The link to the office is substantially less relevant than the link to the man and, in a see of blue, it is excessive. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Colleagues, what all of the above amounts to is a difference of opinion on style. There is no policy dispute. There is no SeaofBlue as the two links are comma separated. What we have here is just a case of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Using commas does not avoid SEAOFBLUE - the page itself says even if two connected geographic units are comma separated, the larger unit should not be hyperlinked. "I just don't like it" is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and there have been several reasons given for why we oppose hyperlinking the presidential offices. We have a consensus against these hyperlinks and we follow the consensus. Bluerules (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. And also, @Laurel Lodged: please remember that having shortcuts to parts of articles/essays/pages does not mean that it's a community guidline/policy, or vetted through the community — see WP:CONLEVEL. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 20:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We do not have a consensus, we have a difference of opinion. The seaofblue argument might carry more weight if it was not in an article that has Pacific sized links. One more scarcely matters. It contains useful information in an unobtrusive way. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus when a general agreement is reached. That is a policy. The general agreement is these offices should not be hyperlinked. It doesn't matter how many hyperlinks are already in the article, putting them too close to each other creates SEAOFBLUE. If we have too many hyperlinks, the solution is to remove the ones that aren't necessary, not add more.

The hyperlinks for the presidential offices are obtrusive because they're too close to the Putin and Zelenskyy hyperlinks and make the wording more awkward. I do not see how this information is useful because as I mentioned above, the offices aren't critical to understanding the article. Who holds these offices (Putin and Zelenskyy) is the important information. Bluerules (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

What about [this] as a creative compromise? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

My main focus is on the lead, not the body, but I disagree with that edit because it creates a piping issue. Readers are going to assume that hyperlink leads to Putin's article, not the President of Russia article. And we shouldn't be replacing Putin hyperlinks with President of Russia hyperlinks because the former is more important to the article. Bluerules (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Putin echoing antisemitic conspiracy theory"

What? I am very confused by the Times article and the Guardian article cited in particular. The Guardian article is talking about the antisemitic cabal conspiracy, which seems quite nonsequitur? I can understand there is a problem in Russia, but I'm not sure this is relevant? Not defending Putin, but there might be another reason that Russia uses the memories of WW2 than antisemitic tropes when making war propaganda? Namely the fact that Slavs were the #2 or #3 target of ethnic violence and persecution by the Nazis (Jewish people being the #1 victim of violence)?

I'm not opposed to these articles being cited in themselves, but is there a more nuanced position that can be included than simply saying "Russia is the real Nazi"? 24.44.73.34 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

There might well be, but if RS make a claim we can say so. But we do not say they are the real Nazi's what we do is report what RS has said about the claims (And directly link this to the invasion). Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Admittedly a hyperbolic statement to say that this article calls Russia the real nazis, so I apologise. But I had said that because to say Putin is "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany." seems far fetched to me. I think it would be justifiable to say if Putin were dismissing or even denying the suffering of Jewish people in WW2 but to my knowledge he didn't do that so it's very out of place to me. There are definitely groups, including in Russia that do that but from what I know no mainstream politician says that. The Guardian article makes a strong assertion but doesn't really elaborate on how Putin is doing that.

That said, I know it's WP:RS so I am not calling for its removal but I'm hoping there can be an alternate perspective from another RS to be more balanced. Part of WP:NPOV is: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". I am not aware of other articles analyzing this aspect of Putin's rhetoric during the invasion but (see my next response below for citations) there has been alot of nuance on this issue in the past, as its a very complex topic. So it would be consistent with Wikipedia policy to have all that's available and relevant from RS.

@Mzajac Fair point about Russian propaganda, but it doesn't really explain how Putin is an antisemite, it just says he is. I think that is a problem. It implies that because Putin is anti-Zelensky that Putin has a problem with all Jewish people, this seems quite disingenious to me. Of course if Putin had said that or anything resembling it you would see no objection from me with regards to it being included in this article - however not even The Guardian article says Putin outright said such things, it's just extrapolating that because he is a Christian nationalist therefore he is complicit in propagating an antisemitic conspiracy. However, a few examples from the past would show that there is a more nuanced reality than that, see:. Of course there is also this on the contrary:. So it's a mixed bag, I think that any article talking about this subject should reflect that. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s not a non-sequitur, but maybe can be clarified. It is all part of the fallacious, indiscriminate, and even contradictory way Russian propaganda uses the memory of WWII, accusations of “fascism,” and conspiracy theory in its propaganda. Part of it is an extension of official Soviet antisemitism. There’s more in Putinism. —Michael Z. 18:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, could you clarify which part of "Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism, invoking the history of collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine during World War II, and echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany" is nonsequitur? Do you have any suggestions to improve it? I spent a long time rejigging this sentence so that it's coherent and reflects the sources. I'm keen to hear others' feedback/thoughts, as I personally think the sentence now does a very good job of accurately & succinctly summarising the sources cited. I appreciate it's a complex sentence, but it's hard to expand on as there are space constraints and I think the preceding sections on Putin's portrayal of Ukraine as a threat to Russia provide the necessary context. I'm also mindful that further fleshing this sentence out could result in too much emphasis on antisemitism, leading to undue weight issues. Regarding the Guardian article, the author is Jason Stanley, a well-known academic who specialises in fascism. Jr8825 • Talk 20:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

How about simply removing the word "antisemitic" from the sentence? That would weaken the implication that Putin himself is an antisemite, while retaining most of the relevant information. Or do the sources clearly try to imply that Putin is an antisemite? (I haven't read them.) Ornilnas (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ornilnas: the language of the sources is clear that antisemitism is linked:

• "By claiming that the aim of the invasion is to “denazify” Ukraine, Putin appeals to the myths of contemporary eastern European antisemitism" [90]
• "The Putin regime has once again consciously sought to instrumentalize Russian and Ukrainian antisemitism for its own purposes" [91]

The flipside is that while there's an antisemitic tone aimed for Russian consumption (i.e. Ukraine is a threat to Russia as it's a Nazi regime that wants to genocide Russians; Zelenskyy, its Jewish president, and other global Jews seek to mask Ukraine's Nazism – and historic Nazism, e.g. the Holocaust – by presenting themselves as the only victims, at the expense of Slavs), there's also an attempt to utilise/leverage accusations Ukraine in order to prove its Nazi nature [92]. It's a case of Russia accusing others of what Russia itself is doing (similar to the accusations of indiscriminate fire on civilians). Jr8825 • Talk 10:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The sources do indeed seem to imply that Putin is playing on domestic antisemitism, although they're a little unclear on the specifics (so much so that they left me a little confused). To me, it looks a little opinionated; perhaps some qualifier, such as "has been described as", could be used? Ornilnas (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Mobilizing antisemitism in politics and war is antisemitic. Putin’s abusive and insincere accusations of Nazism and genocide are an offence to the memory of Holocaust victims, Holocaust distortion, and arguably antisemitic. Putin’s favourite and oft-praised “historian,” Russian fascist philosopher Ivan Ilyin, was antisemitic. I don’t think there’s any need to censor quotations from RS’s about Putin’s antisemitism because we can’t find a direct quotation of him saying “I hate Jews.” More: [93][94][95][96][97][98][99]. —Michael Z. 21:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jr8825, I meant this part in particular "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany". I hope my previous responses help to show my position adequately - the problem to me of course is that it makes strong assertions but does so more by extrapolation than solid fact. So I say it's nonsequitur because it makes a strong statement but with little direct backing in fact. Obviously this is a complex problem in Russia, especially due to the history of the country. There's definitely a problem but (see above sources in previous response) there is alot of layers to it. So I think this problem could easily be solved by also including an alternate perspective on the topic from another RS. As I said earlier, not sure if there's been more WP:RS analyses on this rhetoric of his during the invasion, but I think that it should be included if and when it is found. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with IP Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven, User:Mzajac, User:Jr8825, Do you have any additional comments? If not, I will have to consider this a consensus. Thank you! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For what? Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For removing the sentence "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany" Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. The sentence is well sourced and should stay. I'm open to suggestions for improvement. Jr8825 • Talk 17:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Jr8825. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn’t that be Stalinist propaganda with nazis running the country and should we include the azov battalion as a combatant Persesus (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Am I right about that? Persesus (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Azov Battalion is a part of the Ukrainian National Guard. They are not listed because it’s redundant. You can find them on the page about the order of battle, though. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

They are also mentioned in the section of this article being discussed. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I also found the sentence "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany", fairly extraordinary and puzzling on first reading. The sentence is meant to be registering what he said on the eve of the invasion, not itemising all of Putin's or Putinism's faults. Also Soviet deaths in "The Great Patriotic War" (ie WWII) numbered somewhere between 20-27 million - so - if 'body count' is the main measure of who was the real-est, (if not the "truest") victim, USSR is light years ahead of anyone else. That isn't a 'conspiracy theory', it's historical fact. There are many complicating factors of course - some of the Soviet victims were Jewish, disproportionately large numbers were Ukrainian or other non-Russians, and the Soviet Union was extremely careless and wasteful in the use of its own manpower, but still, human death during WWII in the USSR was enormous and the war fought on both sides with indescribable brutality. People in Eastern Europe tend to remember that and are often grieved that the rest of the world generally doesn't.

Now, having read the Jason Stanley source, which says: "The dominant version of antisemitism alive in parts of eastern Europe today is that Jews employ the Holocaust to seize the victimhood narrative from the “real” victims of the Nazis, who are Russian Christians (or other non-Jewish eastern Europeans). The claim makes a little more sense, but it isn't a sense that our text conveys very well. The preamble speaking of "seizing the victimhood narrative" and the use of quotes on "true" victims conveys the supposed 'fakeness' that takes the claims into conspiracy theory territory. The second source, Snyder adds to this interpretation slightly: Putin is"appealing to a certain tradition in antisemitism, which tries to flip around who are the victims and who are the perpetrator But Snyder continues "as I say, I think his main purpose here is just to pervert these terms and to confuse us … “He’s not really referring to any true history. He’s just taking advantage of the fact that there are strong emotions around these concepts.”

I think therefore that I have 3 concerns. Firstly that out text isn't a very complete or comprehensible account of the two sources used. Secondly the sources are as much - or even more - about this strain of Orthodox Christian Nationalism or Putinism as they are about the pre-invasion speech. Thirdly I question Jason Stanley and Snyder's authority to speak in Wiki-Voice. Stanley is mainly a philosopher, Snyder is certainly an expert on modern Russia, but even he is saying that Putin's language is mainly designed to confuse rather than stating antisemitism as the main factor. So IMO even if this claim were made clearer, it should be attributed, there simply isn't agreement that Putin's speech contained any anti-semetism AFAIK, even if Putinism or Russian Orthodox nationalism generally does.

A plausible alternative explanation which I have read from several authorities recently as to the root of Putin's "denazification" claim is that in Eastern Europe, and Russia particularly, the Nazis are despised because of what they did to USSR, rather than for what they did to groups such as the Jews. We in the West automatically respond "how can the Ukrainians be Nazis, their President is a Jew? Such a thought would barely occur to a Russian, especially a Nationalist one according to this viewpoint. There, Nazis are people who wished to destroy Russia, not people who tried to eliminate Jews. Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Has there or is there going to be an outcome from this discussion? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157 Not likely any time soon unfortunately. I can understand though, a recent and ongoing war is a very contentious issue but it'll take awhile for calm discussion from everyone. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately very snowed under IRL at the moment, so haven't been able to give a full response to Pincrete's points above. From glancing at your points, Pincrete I agree the wording can appear rather confusing. I'm glad you felt it made a bit more sense after reading the two sources, but your concern about whether it does a good enough job of accurately conveying their nuances remain. I do think the current sentence does a decent job of reflecting the sources' general sense, particularly given the tiny amount of space that's used to do this within a complex sentence (which also serves to ensure undue weight isn't given to this relatively specific issue). To address your concerns the wording needs to be made clearer and sources' points more clear – a longer exposition (probably a sentence of its own) is probably required, which would allow for attribution and greater qualification. I think your point about the contextual appropriateness is insightful. Right now this text is under the prelude section in "Russian accusations and demands", and while it does thematically link in, you're right to point out that the paragraph which contains it has an unclear scope and appears to be focused on a specific speech (the product of having many hands crafting the same small section of text). I'm wondering if a better location for the antisemitism point might be in the background section under "Euromaidan, Revolution of Dignity, and the War in Donbas", where there's also a discussion of Russian nationalism – the problem is that it's already a particularly long section (the longest in the article according to the section sizes box at the top of this talk page), and the antisemitism relates closely to Putin's rhetoric (which isn't currently discussed in the background section, so would require an expansion/rewrite). I can see two main options: move the point to the background section (the most difficult option, I think, but it might connect related ideas more neatly together), or rewrite the start of the current paragraph so its focus is more clearly on Putin's rhetoric over a longer period in the run-up to the invasion, combined with a possible rewrite to make the point about antisemitism more clear. I'd be glad to hear any suggestions you have either way, or other alternatives. Jr8825 • Talk 00:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Very well put thank you Pincrete. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Remove foreign volunteers from Ukrainian strength in infobox

The infobox presently states: Strength estimates are as of the start of the invasion. The only estimates for strength we have with any confidence is the stating position. There have been losses to both sides, the Russians have also received reinforcements and are presently relieving their forces. We can have no confidence that various subsequent reports are comprehensive and lead to accurate estimate of the present position. The Ukrainian foreign volunteers have been subsequent to the start of the invasion and should be remove from the infobox since they don't represent part of the starting strength. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Overall a very good article, but it really needs to be broken into more sub-articles

The following discussion 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.

---

It's just too big. Thoughts?

Chesapeake77 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

See "Bulking down" section above. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:23, 9 April 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.

Belligerents

The following discussion 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.

---

Shouldn't the US, UK, Sweden and other NATO members who aided Ukraine with Military equipment also be showcased? Xtreme o7 (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No, because that doesn't make them belligerent. Belligerents would have direct involvement in the war. — Czello 12:06, 8 April 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.

About linking Russia, Ukraine, and invasion

I have added the links, as well as the invisible messages, to include links to Russia, Ukraine, and invasion. I do not understand what is so difficult with letting these encyclopedically relevant words to stay linked. As the opening lede sentence was reworded, I decided to move the "Invasion" link to the second paragraph, where "the invasion" is first mentioned. There are no WP:SEAOFBLUE violations now. Per MOS:OL countries should generally not be linked, but because the gist of the entire article is about these two nations, I'm glad people accepted the note, as it would be completely baffling to remove them. As for linking invasion, I still strongly stand by linking it, again with the same logic as the previous links: the word is by far the most relevant word of the entire article, and not linking it is an enormous encyclopedic fail in my eyes, as we disregard providing readers with relevant content. It doesn't matter if some deny the military operation as being an invasion, as it is internationally regarded as being one. Is there ANY other article in all of Wikipedia where "invasion" is more worthy of being linked than here? Wretchskull (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't link those words. The whole point of linking words is for people to "[establish] relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully" (WP:UL) Most links just compete for the viewers attention.

• "Per MOS:OL countries should generally not be linked, but because the gist of the entire article is about these two nations..." The entire article is about those countries...
• "As with invasion... [it's] providing readers with relevant content'' No, it's not, a 2015 study found that most links aren't even clicked on, and if they do, it's very rarely. It's not about a word's "worthiness" of being linked, it's if they're going to help the reader understsnd the article.

— I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 03:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@I'ma editor2022: I still stand by what I commented.

• "The entire article is about those countries..." - Indeed, they are obviously relevant and therefore should be linked.
• "a 2015 study..." No. I've already read the study, and it is about ALL links, and NOT about every scenario; and, as you stated, most links are not clicked, but with very good exceptions. It would be dumb to link general words in an unrelated article, as they are borderline disruptive to the reader and people rarely click them. But if it's relevant, it would be foolish not to. In fact, the pageviews of invasion skyrocketed when I added the link (and yes, I made sure these weren't the views corresponding with the late-February view-boom following the invasion), though it was continuously removed due to (at least what I perceive) lack of understanding about linking. Wretchskull (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• "In fact, the pageviews of invasion skyrocketed when I added the link" Actually, it did not. I looked at your editing activity on this page (with this tool), and if there was any correspondence with the page viewership of the page Invasion (seen here), and there was almost none. Since 24th of February, page viewerships of the page Invasion has gone down and only went up on the 26th, right after you apparently add those links (but that difference was only around ~300 views and quickly went back down). Even when you added the links back, the page views stayed around the same, so I'm not sure what you mean "skyroocketed". Also, it may be helpful to (preferably permalink) link the data and source used?
• The 2015 study was about all links, but also mentioned specifically about links on Wikipedia on page 1 of the PDF. And, as I believe is stated from the study, links upon links and links only distracts the readers attention, so the reader rarely clicks on those. The article has A LOT of links, which I believe no more links should be added as it is VERY distracting for literally anyone reading it.
• "Per MOS:OL, countries should GENERALLY not be linked, but because they are the focal point of the article, they should be." Please read the section you linked to. The guidline you linked to states "What generally should not be linked...[are] names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar." Reaaders will obviously be familiar with those countries, so i don't understand why you think they should be linked to when the guidline you stated says otherwise. Explain? — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 19:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  There's unfortunately nothing fruitful in this conversation as it seems like a back and forth argument. I'll try to wrap this up and clear my point of view. I'm honestly not sure about exact figures when I added the link, and I could very well be mistaken. Regardless, even if no one clicks the links, many (I see myself and others around me using Wikipedia doing so) still hover their mouse over them and get explanations of the subject from the target article's lede more often than clicking them. I know this is just anecdotal, but it is logical considering that the opening sentences give a good idea of what the linked thing is. As for countries, again, read the guideline: that generic words, like countries, should GENERALLY not be linked. There is a reason why it doesn't say that they should "never" be linked. "Generally" by its very definition permits leniency, and this article is an excellent example of why the three words should be linked; they're RELEVANT, and I highly doubt they disrupt reading. The article is entirely about Russia, Ukraine and an invasion, so of course they should be linked, as they are the focal point of the article. It's the same reason we always link the artists of a song or composition or painting; they're relevant to the subject. We cannot attest that something shouldn't be done if it clearly supplements readers with valuable encyclopedic info, and even if the guideline was much more rigid as to ban linking countries completely, then the guideline is simply wrong and it should be revised. Wretchskull (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  You have a valid point, as it seems like as long as it's not linked twice in the article it's not a problem. However, you probably shouldn't keep relinking them to the article, as it seems like editors will keep reverting the edits, and it's not very important anyways. And also forgive me if seems like I was WP:LAWYERING. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Wretchskull: did you search the talk page archives before starting this discussion? In case you missed them, this was discussed twice previously, most recently here. I remain opposed to linking "invasion" for the same reasons I gave in the previous discussions, but accept it's a relatively minor issue. Jr8825 • Talk 23:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• As noted, this is the third such recent discussion on this. I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard requesting an intervention that will hopefully put this to bed once and for all. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  AN isn't the right venue for this kind of thing. Given that there's no real disruption, an WP:RfC is the only suitable mechanism I can think of, but it would be a bit much starting a community discussion over a handful of wikilinks. The best option is probably to just let sleeping dogs lie – yes, the last discussion's outcome has been largely overridden, but we can continue the discussion here if editors are particularly bothered, or try to resolve it by editing. It's only when things become disruptive/end in deliberate edit warring that external intervention is really necessary. Jr8825 • Talk 09:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's been weeks and no one has removed the links. I think the dust has thankfully settled. Also, yeah, RfC is not necessary. Wretchskull (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Actually the 'invasion' wikilink has been removed on multiple occasions. I for one removed it after the most recent discussion as there appeared to be a tentative numerical majority in favour of scrapping it, but someone has since put it back. As long as it's not in the very first lead sentence I can live with it. Jr8825 • Talk 09:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  An RfC seems sensible. For reasons given previously, I don't think we should be linking to "invasion". Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

More war crimes to be added

While exploring the liberated towns north of Kyiv, the Ukrainian army discovered a site of mass murder. At least 300 civilians had been killed, many with their hands tied up and bodies left littering the streets. GMRE (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been recently updated and expanded. All editors are welcome to help further improving that text. Once it's relatively stable and uncontroversial, or even before, I think we should re-write this article's section "6.3 War crimes", which basically hasn't been updated since the second week of March. Unfortunately there's lot of content that we should add there, as the reading of the new lead section makes clear. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the specific sub-article for detail of war crimes. This article should therefore summarise rather than duplicate War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That went through multiple sub-pages and got to the article Bucha massacre, which is about the exact thing I reported. GMRE (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

See also War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Mass killings of civilians in Bucha which has a hat note to the main article. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The new lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to be enough stable and established, and I'm wondering how to proceed in order to update the section "War Crimes" on this article. Basically I see two options (surely there are more): 1. Simply copy and paste the lead and replace the whole section here, adding a note on the talk page of the source article that copying has occurred; 2. Retaining the "Attributed to Russian authorities and forces/Attributed to Ukrainian authorities and forces structure", and adjust the contents accordingly. I slightly favour the second option, and if unopposed I intend to do so. Note that in both cases most of the contents now on (which unfortunately suffer from WP:MINORASPECT, given the scale of the war crimes) will be deleted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666, the option of essentially copying the lead from the main article sounds like an excellent course. Given that we have a main article for the subject, what is written here should only be a summary and we have a reasonable summary to hand in the lead. Moreover it is already pretty well all attributed to sources. With a little cross tweaking I think that all of the content here under "legal proceedings" could be written into War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and then, into the lead there with only minor changes. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Proposal to amend legal procedings/war crimes section using lead from War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Please see above suggestion by Gitz6666. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I've just added an updated section on War crimes. Please note the ongoing discussion on on how to account for the Bucha massacre in the lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

War crimes OTR-21 Tochka

I suggest together with the positions of Ukraine and Russia on the incident with OTR-21 Tochka in Donetsk to add the opinion of the OSINT group of investigators Conflict Intelligence Team in the section "War crimes Attributed to Ukrainian authorities and forces" source https://nv.ua/ukraine/events/voyna-v-ukraine-tochku-u-po-okkupirovannomu-donecku-zapustila-rf-soobshchaet-cit-poslednie-novosti-50225296.html https://twitter.com/CITeam_ru/status/1503720028293799944 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rurk777 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should be the right place for this - there is a subsection there, "Missile attack and shelling in Donetsk". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we continue to report casualties in the infobox

The proposal is to replace reports from multiple sources with a statement: "Reports vary widely: see X section" or "See X section".

The infobox presently reports ranges from multiple sources at various dates and the ranges vary widely. The proposal is made for the following reasons:

1. The reports vary so widely over different dates that they cannot be meaningfully summarised into a simple range.
2. There is nuance to the figures that cannot be captured in an infobox in respect to the reliability of sources. There is a section in the article that tabulates the multiple ranges and provides prose that captures the nuance.
3. Reports in an infobox are viewed credibly by our readers but we cannot give a credible figure or range. These figures in the infobox lack the appropriate and necessary nuance. This is a disservice to our readers.
4. Per Template:Infobox military conflict, this is an optional parameter.
5. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, detail presented in the infobox should be a "summary" of key information. Reporting multiple sources (as done) without necessary context fails the guidance.

For these reasons, I belive the proposal to be the prudent course most consistent with guidance.

I am notifying this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Yeah, the current information in the infobox is not really interpretable beyond "different sides claim wildly different numbers". This is made worse by the fact that the numbers are from different dates: how is the reader to interpret the US numbers for Russia and Ukraine, if they are separated by multiple weeks of fighting of unknown (to the reader) intensity? Replacing with a link to a section would also be aligned with the instructions for the result argument, which advises against speculation and tells to link to a section where the result is not a simple case of "X victory" or "Inconclusive". I'd be fine with listing different claims once the casualty figures start to calm down. Ljleppan (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I generally agree with the above - the situation is too complicated to easily summarize, which is the basic purpose of the box. It probably won't be for some time after the war is over that we can get a relatively accurate picture of the casualty figures for both sides. Until then, it's best to just point readers to the casualty section, where the competing claims can be discussed in context. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• No, let's wait till it's over and we have some kin of authoratative numbers. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with everyone above that we should take this out of the infobox. It's too complicated to squeeze into an infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Leave the belligerent's self-admitted military casualty figures and the UN's confirmed civilian casualty figures since they are the very bare confirmed minimum. For everything else, link to the casualties section due (as stated) other casualty estimate variations which can be seen in the table in that section. EkoGraf (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – Be careful on interpreting responses, due to the fact that the section title ("Should we continue to report...") and the top question in the OP ("The proposal is to replace reports from multiple sources...") are at loggerheads, so that a no to the title question is the same as a yes to the proposal. Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Take it out. Given that the {{Infobox military conflict}} usage instructions remind us that:

  Information in the infobox should not be "controversial". Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article or leave the parameter blank rather than make an unsubstantiated or doubtful claim.

we should leave it out. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Warcrimes in butsja

There should be topics about the horrible warcrimes done by russian military against the civilian, city by city. 185.135.135.32 (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is already an article, that goes into much more depth about war crimes during the invasion than this one does. BSMRD (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about Bucha, which seems to be the common English spelling of the Kiyv suburb. Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Genocide perpetrated by Russia in Ukraine

The article makes several mentions of the false accusations of Ukrainian genocide against Russians, but it makes no mention of the Russian genocide of Ukrainians. There are now multiple RS claiming "warning signs" of Russian genocide of Ukranians, as well as several Ukrainian officials accusing Russia of genocide.

https://theconversation.com/is-russia-committing-genocide-in-ukraine-a-human-rights-expert-looks-at-the-warning-signs-180017 https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-germany-accuses-russia-of-war-crimes-over-bucha-deaths-live-updates/a-61343522 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/2/russia-ukraine-war-kyiv-region-retaken-liveblog

I can add more if required. Unsigned: 16:11, 3 April 2022‎ Genlef

Genocide is already mentioned in the "International Criminal Court" and "International Court of Justice" sections, plus it has been included in several sections of the War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. Ilenart626 (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I disagree that it adheres to the Neutral tone guideline. Nowhere does it say that Russia might be perpetrating genocide, just it makes one mention of gathering evidence of genocide perpetrated by "all sides" given that there are two mentions of the false allegations, I do not think this is a balanced and fair assessment. If anything, we have more evidence of genocide perpetrated by Russians than Ukrainians at this point, so I believe that should be reflected. User:genleftalk 8:49, April 4 2022 (UTC)

I have read the three sources. One claims the potential for genocide. The other two report claims of genocide by the Ukrainian president and the Mayor of Kyiv. Of these, one quotes the Polish President: "[such acts] must be called acts of genocide and be dealt with as such" (in respect to the Bucha killings). We have the article, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, for detail of allegations. This article must therefore summarise rather than duplicate that article. Presently here we say: "that evidence was being collected of alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed by individuals of all sides during the invasion". The three sources are a little thin on why Russian actions might rise to the level of genocide as opposed to what are more clearly war crimes. We might report the Polish president here but I will leave that to see what others think. Having said that, I can see that there is likely to be more reaction to recent reports that will likely change what this article has to say. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new around this parts, but I would like to ask why the use of these expressions, since in other wars this expression has little use, and besides that, the propaganda that you are including is ours, western propaganda, is it so credible or is there any reason behind???

The reason for this question is that when I read the ICC advertisement, what I see is that they only mention Africa and the following mention.

"UN Security Council Referral

The UN Security Council (UNSC) may refer alleged atrocity crimes committed in any country to the ICC Prosecutor by passing a resolution authorized by the UN Charter.

• In March 2005, the UNSC referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan, to the ICC.
• In February 2011, the UNSC referred the situation in Libya to the ICC.

If a permanent member of the UNSC vetoes a resolution to refer a situation to the ICC, the Court cannot gain jurisdiction. The permanent members of the UNSC are China, France, Russia, United States of America, and United Kingdom.

In May 2014, Russia and China vetoed the referral of Syria to the ICC." https://how-the-icc-works.aba-icc.org/ [100]

is there a particular reason or is it just propaganda like theirs???

I would like to know if I can open a discussion about "propaganda", I think that everyone here is aware that the West does propaganda, or not??? Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

2017 warrning

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/is-russia-planning-a-major-land-war-against-ukraine/ The Russian-occupied north of Ukraine, corresponding to Kyiv, Sumy, and Chernihiv provinces, would be transformed into an agricultural hinterland stripped of industry and armed forces. The “excess population” would be deported to Russia’s Far East. Mikhail Khazin Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a missing T in the beginning of the refugees section

"he war has caused the largest refugee and humanitarian crisis within Europe since the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s;" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.204.27 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Resolved. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Genocidal article by RIA

The following discussion 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.

---

There is an article published by state-controlled RIA Novosti on 3 April 2022 that openly advocates repressions against all Ukranians who "silently" support "nazis" by equating them to the latter. It's titled as «What should Russia do with Ukraine?». I'm speechless. I think Wikipedia should document this. At least as a part of justification of the war or propaganda of hatred and violence promotion toward civilians.

…a significant part of the popular mass, which are passive Nazis, accomplices of Nazism, is also guilty… War criminals and active Nazis must be punished approximately and demonstratively. Total purification should be carried out.…

— [101]

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It actually already has its own article at What Russia should do with Ukraine. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Collaboration with Russia during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

The article Collaboration with Russia during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was recently created. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents (New thread on: WAGNER/CHECHENS

The following discussion 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.

---

OK so at what point does the Wagner Group,or at least the Chechens/Kadrovites, warrant inclusion? These are actually two separate issues as the nature of these forces is different and distinct AFAIK. Specifically, the Wagner forces could be analogized to, say, Blackwater as it may or may not be mentioned on other WP conflict articles - privately funded with unknown precise relationship to the command structure. Whereas it seems that the Chechens are more readily regarded as a distinct quasi-state actor, or, at least, a belligerent from a separate state entity. (Whether or not one regards Chechnya as truly independent of Moscow is not relevant considering that Belarus is hardly more independent.) My inclination would be to include them but I will certainly yield to consensus. Wikidgood (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Kadyrovites are a branch of the National Guard of Russia and thus they are not separate from Russia and they have already been included in Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as part of Russia's regular forces. Chechnya is also internationally recognized as one of 21 republics of Russia (excluding Crimea). As for the Wagner Group, that question was already discussed three times previously (check archived discussions), and each time the consensus was not to include them as separate from Russia since they are a subcontractor (mercenary unit) that is under direct Russian command and is listed as such as well at the Order of battle. Also, Blackwater or any of the dozens of other private military contractors were never listed as separate entities from the US in the Iraq War, since they acted mostly under the command and direction of the US DoD (per their contracts) and we only listed the overall strength number of contractors involved in the war. So the only thing I would support is adding the strength number of the Wagner Group to the infobox (1,000) since the currently included Russian number of 175,000-190,000 refers only to their regular forces (which Wagner is not). EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. I wonder though if the role of Chechen detachment is different and more salient than the other 20 republics of the RF. If so, it seems that should be indicated some way. If the RF detachments draw from all 21 then obviously it would not matter one way or another. Wikidgood (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Only in an historical context of the war in Chechnia, I would say. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 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.

No source for this "four theatres" of battle construct

CURRENT VERSION: " Four major war theatres developed: the Kyiv offensive, the Northeastern Ukraine offensive, the Eastern Ukraine offensive, and the Southern Ukraine offensive. " Sounds like synthesis/original research. I have spent hundreds of hours listening to the commentaries and reading articles but must have missed this one. If there is an RS for that hypothesis let's have it. The article then goes on to list specific sites of attack, without speculatively framing it as "x number of theatres", and then seems to suggest that it is actually a fifth theatre given the attacks in the west. I think the article is better off without injecting a theoretics without RS. Wikidgood (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Adapt language in lead section to be consistent with Invasion section description of military battle fronts and not war theaters. Keep lead consistent with main article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm also a bit concerned about this, but the sources are a unclear at this time. I suggested a related merge, but it looks unlikely to succeed. Jr8825 • Talk 14:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep all 4 Now that the theatres have settled into stalemate, I think that we can be reasonably happy with them as they stand. I thought that the Kyiv and the Northwestern theatres would merge which would in turn warrant the creation of a merged entity; since that now seems unlikely, I think that the status quo should prevail. There is a minimum level of OR which makes them more readable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  The minimum level of acceptable OR is no original research. If there's no reliable source for it, it gets removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with Mr rnddude: Delete

  And I add my own Delete

  But rather than a mere numerical tally,

  I don't even buy that there are four definable or even discernible "theatres". Is that in the Russian war plan? Is that construct advanced by even one single "analyst", anywhere?

  Are there not five, or three, or six "theaters"?

  What exactly constitutes a "theater of warfare"?

  Is there even a WP article on that or even a Wiktionary entry?

  Who first ever used the term "theater of war"?

  OK so I am a bit rusty on WP so I am taking it slow but this looks like unsubstantiated OR. Please advise, and thank you to everyone who is weighing in whether or not we agree on this technical matter. Wikidgood (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Answering my own question voia WP: On War, Carl von Clausewitz defines the term Kriegstheater (translating the older, 17th-century Latin term theatrum belli) as one that: Denotes properly such a portion of the space over which war prevails as has its boundaries protected, and thus possesses a kind of independence. This protection may consist of fortresses, or important natural obstacles presented by the country, or even in its being separated by a considerable distance from the rest of the space embraced in the war." But mapping the entire Ukraine war going on now onto four discrete "theaters", not five, not three seems like pure speculation with no RS. Aside from the OR issue it does not seem to be appropriate. OK so that is my two cents I await the wise consideration of my colleagues, thank you. Wikidgood (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  The references in the lead section to "theaters" was changed over by me early this morning to "military invasion fronts" in order to be consistent with the Invasion sections of this article. Suggesting that this be applied to all parts of this article, that all instances of "theatre" be changed over to 'military invasion front' throughout the article for consistency with the Invasion sections of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  The Institute for the Study of War has a source for the statement. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Now that the theatres have settled into stalemate, I think that we can be reasonably happy with them as they stand."

  Dude, what have you been smoking? And seriously, i came to this article to see if it had any information i was unaware of and what do i find? This article is a JOKE. A BAD JOKE even. There ARE NO UKRAINIAN "counteroffensives"! There is certainly no stalemate. Ukraines "offensives" were some minor skirmish attacks and probes that for the most part barely even inconvenienced the russians.

  Russia is currently finishing taking Mariupol, while the troops that acted as diversion against Kiev(truly, 40k troops manage to tie down 120k for weeks upon weeks, that was a damn masterpiece of strategy) are mostly reorganising for next phase. To my knowledge, the Russians have not actually stopped completely moving forward for even a single day. Why do you think Ukraine has spent the last weeks begging for more military hardware?

  Oh yeah, russians says they've destroyed the majority of it, and events on the ground support that, how strange. Once Mariupol is captured, we're probably going to see one huge or several large encirclements and then eventually, late this month or more likely May or June, the complete destruction or surrender of Ukrainian troops in the east and south. Russia has been 100% in control of the war after the first 2 weeks. Talking about stalemate when it moves exactly as slow or fast as the Russians move it, is just laughable. And the map? "Ukrainian advances"?

  That makes it sound like Ukraine is actually FIGHTING their way forward, which is a completely lunatic fantasy. Also, the map does not show Russian troop presence at all in several places where they are, which is just puzzling as i can certainly recall seeing those shown in common massmedia.

  The only real question is how far will Russia push, Donbass region is obvious, but after that the question becomes extremely difficult. If you want halfway to real news, don't look at regular massmedia, CIA's infowar is so bloody obvious anyone with a brain should see how they're doing the exact same thing as aginst Iraq, Libya and Syria, just on a bigger scale, but apparently lots of people cannot think for themselves.

  Yeah yeah, wikipedia is supposed to be based on available sources and all that, yeah great, but what happens when 99% of those sources LIE? Because if there's one thing i can criticize about Russia, it's that their information warfare SUCKS. It barely exists. While CIA is accounted as having 13000 journalists on their payroll already in the 1970s when Stockwell went whistleblower on their crap. DW75 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is pure semantics. There is no practical difference between "theatre" and "front" in this war. In WW2, a theatre had many fronts. Not so here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• This appears to have been resolved by edit? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

"According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, regarding Russian military losses, Ukraine's government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims, while Russia was downplaying its own casualties." - This sentence makes a rather bold claim and appears to reference a specific source, but lacks a link to that source. Requesting either removal or addition of the correct source. 47.215.130.236 (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like that claim is backed up by this source. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Tag it by {{citation needed}} AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

No need for the tag. Source/citation is already there, right after the sentence that follows the one quoted by 47.215.130.236, because the citation is a reference for both sentences. EkoGraf (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

having on an ongoing war on the wiki

I personally don't think the wiki can be objective and accurate while the war is at this stage, and there is misinformation on both sides as a matter of course. You are all welcome to continue though. I personally think that it would take a year to be objective. CantingCrew (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but others clearly do not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Fog of war is a real issue, but what's the alternative? Not have this page? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

For now no, why not? Its not as if no one is ware of it. So we could wait till it is over. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We always document ongoing events of this magnitude (and less) or importance. We have WP:ATTRIBUTION policy, as mentioned below. Also, when Russia threatens to fine Wikipedia if it doesn't remove some details about the war, it's good to remember we're WP:NOTCENSORED. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the reason for our attribution policy. Sometimes not everything can be reliably sourced, but if the topic is clearly notable then the article should stay, and sources which may not be very accurate should be attributed so that the reader can make their own judgement. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 15:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Act of aggression/War of aggression

Although I personally didn't agree at the time, there's been a discussion and a consensus on qualifying the war in the lead section as a "war of aggression", here. I see that the text has changed and now we are calling it an "act of aggression". However, the sources we quote call it a "war of aggression". Act of aggression and war of aggression are not the same thing, and claiming that the invasion is a war of aggression is a much stronger and possibly contentious claim than saying that it is an act of aggression (which is obvious and not-controversial). A war of aggression is a crime, and many reliable sources have argued that indeed this is a crime under current international law (see Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). The choice of embracing this judgement with wikivoice is debatable, but apparently this is the choice we have made. So what shall we do now? Should we re-open the previous discussion on act/war of aggression or rather go back to war of aggression? In any case we cannot leave things as they are now: there's a mismatch between the text ("act of a.") and sources ("war of a."). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm now modifying the text restoring "war of aggression". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. In the first place, this article is not about the war (Russo-Ukrainian War), it is about the invasion. Second of all, you are confusing a critical matter. War of aggression is a generalised term, which only takes on a specific meaning in the context of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314. What I presume you are thinking of is the crime of aggression, which is a legal term in international law. However, we cannot in the Wikivoice claim that Russia is guilty of the crime of aggression until a court has actually determined as such. What the sources cited (the UN resolution and the CFR source) say is that Russia's invasion constitutes 'aggression'. Neither mention 'war of aggression', and again this article isn't about the war. The 'Lawfare' source is an opinion piece and doesn't belong in the lead at all. We can certainly say that Russia's invasion is viewed by the international community as an 'act of aggression', citing the UN resolution, but not that it is guilty of the 'crime of aggression'. RGloucester — ☎ 21:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

On this I agree entirely. Note however that we are now supporting the text with the following quotation: "Russia's invasion of Ukraine constitutes the crime of aggression under international law" [102]. I remember we had discussions on this, and they are reflected in the text of Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which boldly claims with full-fledged wikivoice: "Because it violates the UN Charter, and is more than a minor border incursion, Russia's military intervention in Ukraine also qualifies as a crime of aggression under Article 8bis(1) of the Rome Statute". I've tried to argue that this is far from obvious, but I've been told that I was engaging in a piece of Original Research, that the distinction between aggression as an act (unlawful under the UN Charter) and aggression as crime ("war of aggression" stricto sensu) is nowhere to be seen, and that we already had a sufficient body of scholarly literature on the point that invasion of Ukraine qualfies as a war of aggression. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem is that some people cannot distinguish between the various cases presented by RS for how this invasion may constitute the crime of aggression as defined by international law, and the actual process of being 'convicted' of the crime of aggression. It is obvious that the international community views the invasion as an act of aggression, which can be seen in United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1. However, again, the 'crime of aggression' is exactly that, a 'crime'. No one, whether an individual or a state, is guilty of any crime until a court of law makes such a determination. The international court of public opinion is not a substitute for the ICC, ICJ, or any other international legal body. In any case, I think we must state that the international community views the invasion as 'aggression', in line with the UN resolution. We must not, however, put the cart before the horse. RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, I agree. A distinct but concurring consideration is substantive: in the case of the crime of aggression the violation of the UN Charter needs to be "manifest"; the invasion of Ukraine may well be a case of manifest violation, but it's up for debate and I doubt our policies and sources allow us to take a clear stance on the matter. Anyway, a few weeks ago I wasn't able to express my point clearly enough, I guess, there were other more urgent things to attend to, and my comments were perceived as digressive, at odds with WP:NOTAFORUM. Now I think we can address the wording of the section Crime of aggression more carefully and thoughtfully. In the next few days I will open a thread on the talk page of Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine linking to this discussion. As for this article, "Internationally considered to be an agression" is fine with me. I see, however, that @Ornilnas thinks differently. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

My main objection was calling it an "aggression" while linking to Crime of aggression. Linking to Act of aggression would be less objectionable. I also think calling it "an aggression" is somewhat awkward (what differentiates that from "an act of aggression"?), but I see that the UN source uses that language. Ornilnas (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Calling it an act or war of aggression seems fine to me, but I believe it's inappropriate to state that it's intlly./broadly considered a "crime" of aggression in wikivoice until this is established/proven by a court of law. In the body we can explain this is the legal opinion of multiple experts, but there's a distinction/need for caution when describing something as factually illegal (according to whom etc.). Jr8825 • Talk 00:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• I am unsure that nay one is not a war of Aggression, and thing act of aggression is better, after all we do still call it a war. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

President Lukashenko's blunder

Early on in the war, the Belarus president let slip that president Putin intended to invade Moldova after he had conquered Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/world/europe/ukraine-moldova-russia-invasion.html, another source that mentions the Belarusian president's accidental disclosure of plans to invade Moldova next. 208.125.143.178 (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

References

map

The colorblind-friendly map, besides being more legible, is closer to the situation reported at Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map, so I swapped it out here and on the main article. Maybe that will buy us a little stability? (Though with Russia fining WP for covering the war, I doubt any stability will last long.) Where it differs from the detailed map is the area around Shostka, Romny and Sumy, and also W of the Dnieper, where things have changed dramatically in the past few days, so hopefully that's just a lag in updating. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Can't you just change the original map, because the colorblind one is a bit of an eyesore if I'm being honest. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the colorblind map is horrible on the eyes, can we use the original one please? Ybinstok (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We could, but that map's illegible to the colorblind. Accessibility trumps aesthetics on WP, especially given how arbitrary aesthetics are. (I personally don't find anything difficult about the colorblind version, even if it looks a bit cartoonish; perhaps that's due to a difference in our monitors?

Also, the other map is in a state of chronic edit-warring, and is either unstable or blocked and thus out of date. That really needs to be fixed there, but until someone takes charge, it's not a good map to use. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No it isn't it's updated based on reliable sources, and both are now up to date, also you could've just added blue arrows to the original. Plus, you didn't need to change it on the other pages, as per the talk section above. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I needed to change it on the other pages because they didn't display correctly with the other map. That's strange, and I don't know what was wrong, but they display correctly with the colorblind map. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The colorblind version is much more WP:ACCESSIBLE. Wretchskull (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It's still an eyesore, you could just fix the original instead, also the colorblind one has no protection, it'll just devolve into an edit war again. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It's an eyesore, so we should make the original an eyesore instead? — kwami (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the colors on the original were fine, but you can change the arrow colors instead, if you know how to do that. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I was planning on doing that, actually, but the coding is a mess, and I figured with all the edit-warring going on it wouldn't be worth it. — kwami (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You could submit a request for that to happen, because the edit wars are due to people changing the map because of unreliable sources, also if you change the maps back from the colorblind ones for the battle pages they'll work again. In fact you didn't need to change them at all, just make a minor edit and it'll be fixed. Just like I did with the battle of Kharkiv. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Another color scheme is being proposed here: Commons:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukrainee.png, with one discussion about it here: Commons:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#New_map_version. Maybe you'd like to respond? — kwami (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As someone who Is colorblind I do much prefer this color scheme and the other alternative, compared to the original Dinosar199 (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Rail war in Belarus draft article

I recently started a draft for Rail war in Belarus (2022). Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2022

Could somebody put a space in between the reference before the sentence, "The Pentagon confirmed on 6 April that the Russian army left Chernihiv Oblast, while Sumy Oblast remained contested." in this subsection? 71.178.48.58 (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2022 (2)

Remove all the bulkskip andre replace Witherspoon trutt. 128.0.20.79 (talk) 06:58, 12 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. BSMRD (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Archive #8

Is there a reason why new archives have stopped being generated? Archive 6 was around 130k bytes, Archive 7 was 367k bytes, and Archive 8 is already 739k bytes and still growing. Previous archives seemed to get to around 100-130 separate sections before a new one was generated while Archive 8 is at 263. Does a new archive need to be generated manually and just no one has done it? From what I reckon, we should probably be around archive 12-13 by now (if we're standardizing archive length in some way), but I have no idea the correct way to actually do that sort of splitting.... Jeancey (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The archive page size is set to 800K by intention. The old default archive size of (IIRC) 150K -- set eons ago -- serves no one, and no purpose, by fragmenting recurring issues over 50 teensy archive pages. If you want to review the history of discussions of maps of the war, for example, it's great to be able to just search map on a single page and get everything for a couple of months, instead having to jump from page to page. Everything's fine and no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. EEng 19:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries. My comment was mainly spawned by the large disparity between the current archive and the previous ones. I figured it was a mistake rather than intentional. Nevermind then! Jeancey (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record, if you edit the top of the article, buried somewhere among all the banners and stuff you'll find the parameters controlling archiving. EEng 21:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Bring the old map back!

Please take this discussion to c:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#Voting_on_two_color_schemes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These colo/urs are awful! They're distasteful and disgusting. Please change the map. Also some of the information on map is wrong, especially on Donbass. 37.30.44.145 (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Map Color Yo whoever is changing the map colors, stop. The original colors look fine, the last 2 edits have been garbage Jdgarri3 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC) @Jdgarri3: the proper location to discuss the map is commons:File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. I'll note that accessibility is generally an important value around here, so unless there is a compelling reason to use a non-colorblind-friendly map, a colorblind-friendly one should be used. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Not able to correctly read or see map Why has the maps colors changed to this? Before, thought it was a little bit difficult as the former colors merged with city names, now I can’t actually read the map anymore and it hurts to even look at it. This isn’t a colorblind friendly map, please change this. Foxterria (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Map is useless for color-blind people

The following discussion 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.

---

I have the most common form of color deficiency (green-weak), which afflicts something like 10 percent of men in the world. The map in the main box is utterly useless, using two colors that look identical to me.Acsenray (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely needs to be fixed. I'll copy-paste your comment on commons:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg EvergreenFir (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Acsenray and EvergreenFir, there is a colorblind-friendly map here. I definitely think it would be wise to establish consensus so that the map can be changed, although it needs to be updated. Wretchskull (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I've created a request on the talk page to see if there is consensus for the change. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The two maps seem to show the situation North of Kyiv as being drastically different - probably needs some serious source checking to determine which one is actually reliable to the current state of the conflict. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There is the one map of Kiev in the Northern front section, and where is the second map of Kiev. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I think switching to a blue/yellow scheme would be best, for WP:NPOV reasons. Are those colours suitable for colour-blind people? BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree 73.126.133.15 (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Even for people with tritanopia. But why blue and yellow? What shade of blue are you suggesting that can be distinguished from the bodies of water? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and for reference, here's a side-by-side comparison of the current map and the proposed recoloring. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Current map

Proposed recoloring (map may be outdated)

Mainly to avoid the use of red and green, as they suggest "bad" and "good". However, you have a good point about the issue with using blue. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The alternative map looks better. >>> Extorc.talk(); 08:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

We should ensure the map has legends for accessibility. I'm looking through MOS:COLOR, and it seems it has some tips on maps and charts:

"Additional tools can be used to help produce graphical charts and color schemes for maps and the like. These tools are not accurate means to review contrast accessibility, but they can be helpful for specific tasks."

"Color Brewer 2.0 provides safe color schemes for maps and detailed explanations."

"Light qualitative color scheme provides a set of nine colors that work for color-blind users and with black text labels (among other palettes)."

It also has some links to webtools that simulate colourblindness. I'd suggest investigating possibilities with these tools before making a decision.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If we do change to a colourblind friendly palette, can we choose one that is easier on the eyes in general? The spoiled milk bright yellow and slightly sickening off-red (that together like blood in custard) on the currently proposed version sort of makes me want to vomit. The current, "warmer" version looks nicer, but if it needs to be colourblind friendly I am sure we can find a palette with more agreeable hues. BlackholeWA (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Colourblind perception of colours is a matter of contrast (a bit like distinctions in a greyscale). I think the issue is that "warmer" colours lack the contrast that can be perceived. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Orange and green version is a lot nicer. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:04, 8 April 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

Could you make the Ukraine map have the blue arrows again when showing Ukraine counter-offensive, it made it a lot easier to see the movements on the map compared to the yellow lines being used now. 24.190.30.6 (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See discussion above regarding the colorblind accessible map. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Good idea IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Official sources are sometimes better than news sources

Sometimes news articles are linked rather than official sources. For example, the "pig lard" story is official information and Indonesian news sources are not really necessary.

https://twitter.com/ng_ukraine/status/1497924614865002497

I am sure there are other examples, which more diligent people than me will be able to provide. Ianis G. Vasilev ( talk ) 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Russians who have left Russia

This is an important dimension of the war, recently covered in the Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/31/russian-activists-exile-putin-protests/

In the linked source (if you click on “record numbers”): https://www.rferl.org/a/russians-flee-fearing-war-fallout/31752961.html it says estimates are 200,000 Russians have emigrated, who may become critics in exile, facilitate a brain drain, etc.

None of this is in the article, and it should be. 2600:1012:B000:3193:CC7A:E648:667:8B8E (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an important subject. It is enough for a full article in my opinion. I just started a draft: Russian migration following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft looks good so far! But remember to add archive links when citing a website. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@I'ma editor2022: There is usually no need to proactively archive sources and add them to references. External links added to Wikipedia are generally automatically archived within 24 hours, per WP:PLRT, and when external links break, archives can normally be automatically found and replaced using User:InternetArchiveBot.

So, while it's nice to do if you want to be thorough, there's usually no harm in not doing it. Melmann 14:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that, as I didn't know that before! — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Can someone add a link to that page in the “refugee” section, below the Ukraine link? 2600:1012:B06D:6661:1461:9057:11BE:236A (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Konotop is in Sumy

Under 'Northeastern front', the info on Konotop makes it look like it's in Chernihiv Oblast, but it's actually in Sumy Oblast. I can't move the text as it would mean read the references, but if someone would do that it would be great. – Tintazul ^msg 08:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Change arrangement on fronts merging Northeastern offensive into other two?

We currently use arrangement of four main fronts for this war: Kyiv/Northern, Northeastern, Eastern, and Southern. I raised on Northeastern offensive talk page a question whether it should be merged into Kyiv and Eastern offensives: Talk:Northeastern Ukraine offensive#Merge Northeastern offensive into Kyiv and Eastern offensives?.--Staberinde (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Kramatorsk train station airstrike

I recently created an article for the Kramatorsk train station airstrike. Thriley (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Article is here: Kramatorsk railway bombing. Thriley (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this airstrike on the animated map of the invasion? The animated map has not been updated for 2-3 weeks. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

Hello fellows, I suggest we change the opening sentence to match the article name as follows

"The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an ongoing military conflict that began on 24 February 2022."

Your comments are welcome! Thank you Duck Dawny (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Support I think this is a good change, the current opening sentence is very short and awkward, and (as you point out) doesn't include the title. Toadspike (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm content with both the current and proposed versions, although I prefer the current (non-bolded) sentence as it's less clunky and repetitious (try saying "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an ongoing military conflict that began on 24 February 2022", and then compare that to the current version). The only real advantage of the proposal is that it fits in a bold title, but this is less important than natural phrasing. Jr8825 • Talk 16:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  could "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February. Internationally considered an act of aggression..." work? it sounds fairly natural, but I could see how it's still a bit clunky.

  – DirkJandeGeer щи 16:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons brought up by Jr8825. I don't think the opening sentence is great either, but I think this proposal would be a step down from what is already there. We don't need to have the bold title on every page. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Consistency between articles is important. Unless there are particular aspects of this conflict that make certain phrasings impractical, the article should look similar to those of other (ongoing) military conflicts. Both User:Duck_Dawny's and User:DirkJandeGeer's proposals look fine. Ornilnas (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed my support, as E points out that the invasion's current name is probably a temporary one. Ornilnas (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Support - Please. The current opening sentence doesn't actually explain the article topic; it reads like it could be a random historical fact. The suggested sentence or something similar is more appropriate per MOS:FIRST. I did make an attempt to change within the current structure to at least make the invasion itself the subject of the sentence, but this was changed back. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jr8825 above. — Czello 11:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support The first sentence must follow standard set by other articles. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Don't make stuff up. If you're going to claim a 'must', cite policy. MOS favours using the article title in the lead, but it is not obligatory. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose For some reason people have the idea that articles are required to open by robotically barfing out their titles. They don't -- see MOS:FIRST. This event doesn't even have an agreed-upon formal name yet (like World War II or Crimean War), much less one that should be featured in bold. Just leave it be. EEng 01:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  They don't have to open by barfing their titles, but the subject of the article should be the subject of the first sentence, which should ideally then describe what the article topic is. The current first sentence has "Russia" as its subject rather than its invasion, and is a statement of fact rather than a description of the topic. Although the current first sentence may implicitly convey the article topic, it does not actually describe it, it just makes a statement and then leaves the user to intuit that this is to be understood as a description of the topic of the article they have started reading. This is a bad way to structure a lead. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  There's no one on earth right now who will have trouble so intuiting, especially given the article's title. We just don't have to repeat it. EEng 10:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's not about whether somebody would reasonably get the intent, it's about good writing. If the article started with "Ukraine Russia big soldier clash attack boom", then most people would still probably understand what that was referring to, but it still wouldn't be an appropriate opening sentence for the article. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Great strawman. The title of the article is 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine. There's nothing for the reader to intuit. EEng 21:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that the first sentence is understandable is not an argument against writing it better, is what I am saying... BlackholeWA (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  First you said the reader "is left to intuit" something. Now that it's been pointed out that there's nothing for the reader to intuit, you're switching to a vague statement that better is better. No one's going to be against making something better. But what's being proposed isn't better. EEng 02:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per EEng. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support DirkJandeGeer's version ("The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February..."). I think, leaving aside the bolding issue, it reads the best of all the alternatives. Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Duck Dawny's version, as it is a simple and neutral start. The internationally considered an act of aggression part is very clearly laid out in para 4 of the lead. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

The following discussion 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.

---

Moved from Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 5

—CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 19:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello from Korea! I have an update on sanctions against Russia announced by the Korea. Can we please add this new information to section 6.1 Sanctions? I hops this information can reach those suffering from war disinformation campaign before Putin bans wikipedia... ㅜㅠ

On March 1st South Korea announced it would stop all transactions with 7 main Russian banks and their affiliates, restrict the purchase of Russian treasury bonds, and agreed to "immediately implement" and join any further economics sanctions imposed against Russia by the European Union. 222.99.95.163 (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

An open edit request doesn't belong to the Archives. Please, consider responding to this request. Or if this request is inappropriate for this article, move this request to the talk page of an appropriate article. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 19:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've added the information to the South Korea section under Reactions. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 04:26, 12 April 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.

RfC: Should the invasion have its own sidebar/campaignbox?

The following discussion 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.

---

The invasion and some of the many articles surrounding it are currently part of Template:Campaignbox Russo-Ukrainian War. As far as I can tell only engagement-related articles seem to mostly use the Russo-Ukrainian war caimpaignbox, while most of the more political-societal and media-focused articles do not, and are not linked in it. Due to the large number (28 "See also" articles and 17 "Main articles") of articles surrounding 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine I'm wondering: Should the invasion have its own sidebar/campaignbox? Phiarc (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. The current crisis has little to do with most of the historical material in the Russo-Ukrainian war box, and there's a lot of material to cover, too much to shoehorn into that box.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. I would suggest the Template:Campaignbox Russo-Ukrainian War include only the "Prelude" and "Crimea annexation" section links (since there are only half a dozen events regarding those periods), and two general links for the Donbass war and the 2022 invasion. While the Donbass war and the 2022 invasion should have their own infoboxes that would include all of the individual battles. Or, if people won't separate, at the very least follow this format Template:Campaignbox War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). EkoGraf (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. There are enough subsidiary article specific to the invasion to warrant this. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know if this is against some WP guideline or not, but I created a rough version of Template:Sidebar 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine while this RfC is running, perhaps consider it a discussion aid or something like that. Contrast with Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has 36 categories I'm thinking the sidebar should be more focused, e.g. instead of containing every battle article, just the offensives. It would not be useful to simply duplicate the navbox, but vertically. Navbox for completeness, sidebar for overview, basically. Phiarc (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've divided and replaced the articles listed under 2022 invasion with a separate campaignbox. Viewsridge (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that what you have done is quite what we are intending (certainly not me). It would be a separate campaign box that only included those links subsequent to or directly preceding the invasion. There would also be a two-way link between it and the main box for the Russo-Ukrainian War. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It was reverted fairly quickly (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACampaignbox_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&type=revision&diff=1079445056&oldid=1079439359). In any case I agree that we should first establish what the goal is and then do that and not run off immediately changing dozens of articles. Phiarc (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, following EkoGraf's proposal – I agree, the present state of this box is absolutely unwieldy. EkoGraf's proposal is the most elegant solution to this problem. Have one 'generalised' campaignbox for the whole war, and two sub-boxes, one for the war in Donbas and one for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Crimea doesn't need its own box. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree because the main campaignbox is getting too laggy/crowded, so I would suggest a solution similar to that employed in Template:Campaignbox War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), which is a collection of campaignboxes for separate campaigns that are all embedded into the same campaignbox. This way we can separate the Invasion of the Crimea, the Donbass War, and the 2022 Invasion from each other. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Moving forward This discussion has gone stale but it appears to me that there is a consensus for this article to have its own campaign box, if not how exactly this would look. I would suggest that someone with a draft just be bold and put it in. My only observation is that we probably don't need an image and certainly not the map again. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157 - I've made one at User:Dunutubble/drafttemplate6. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

OK Dunutubble, a good start. I would see that the campaign box for here would contain (and duplicate) everything in the Russo-Ukrainian War campaign bow that is in that section headed 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any other thoughts? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 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.

Image of killed civilian

The following discussion 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.

---

@Hcoder3104 removed this image because Disturbing image, @Super Dromaeosaurus reverted because WP:NOTCENSORED. another reason must be given for the removal of this image. I'm not sure that the image increases our understanding of the invasion, but my main concern here is with source and privacy. The image has been uploaded on Facebook by the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs without providing information about the photographer, the subject and the context (they claim it's Kyinka or Pavlinka near Chernihiv). We should remove contentious material about living or recently dead people that is poorly sourced as per WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BDP, and we should be extra cautious in case of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE: the image could be a fake and, if it is genuine, publishing it might show lack of respect for the deceased and his loved ones. The image is not indispensable for the article and I suggest we remove it. P.S. the image is now also in Russian war crimes and in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove I don't see that its inclusion is IAW WP:IMGCONTENT and that it particularly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article's subject matter. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Much like most other article space images, this image is a window into viscerally understanding the meaning of the text next to it. If you find the image disturbing, that's good because war is disturbing, and this image serves to convey that reality. Not to mention that Wikipedia:Content disclaimer applies. I also don't agree with the privacy argument. The subject is not readily identifiable from the image as they are lying face down; thus there are no privacy concerns from where I'm standing. We regularly feature images of identifiable people who aren't public figures, for example, see human, so this argument does not hold water for me. Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs is a reliable primary source in this case, so I do not see the concern that this is fake. I obviously understand that Ukraine is engaging in a propaganda war, but there is every indication that civilians are indeed being killed, so this image fits what we know from corroborating reports.
  In summary, in my estimation the image serves an encyclopedic purpose in demonstrating the reality of the war which this article covers. Melmann 08:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs is a reliable primary source"... are you basing this on anything other than that you personally support Ukraine in this conflict and therefore believe with utmost faith and sincerity that Ukraine could not possibly be producing propaganda that works in their favor and to the detriment of their enemy? หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove poorly sourced, we know very little information about this photo Ilenart626 (talk)
• Keep - Why should we devoid the horrors of war in an article related to a war? Per Melmann. There are more images and videos related to the war circulating around the internet that are far more disturbing than the image shown (i.e. people burnt to crisps / brains, guts, everything). Giving readers a taste of the reality of war invokes a stronger perception and concept regarding the importance of avoiding one in a pretty raw fashion. The image doesn't show or hint the actual identity of the person killed, that's another reason. PenangLion (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Wasn't this already answered with FAQ #1? It was also discussed here. Beyond that the new course of the war has increasingly been defined by attacks on civilian targets, such being the case from an informational standpoint the image is just as important if not more important than the image of burnt out Russian tanks in Bucha. This is what the war looks like. I'm not saying that we make this in to a gore thread, but Russia is currently carpet bombing Mariupol, which has mass graves and dead bodies in the street, this is the war. It's worth noting that pages about similar conflicts such as the First Chechen War also feature graphic images, the First Chechen War page having an image of civilians in a mass grave, and dead civilians in the back of a truck. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep. The photo is not 'disturbing' (as for example this from an identical reality to that of the indiscriminate mass bombing of another country we see now with Ukraine. It is moderate, objective, an obvious reality of what war does, without making viewers nauseous by exposing them to a brutal goriness few of us can watch without feeling unhinged.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment My !vote to remove (above) was not because the image was too confrontational but that it did not increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter (per WP:IMGCONTENT). If anything, an image sufficient to increase the readers understanding would be more confrontational. If the present image doesn't do what it should, it should be removed or replaced with one that does (IAW policy). Cinderella157 (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - Ditto Melmann. Recall photos on World War Two, the Korean War, the Rape of Nanking and so forth; so long as it is relevant, factual, and relatively informational, I'm fine with keeping. Obviously balanced writing is necessary, and gorification ought to be avoided, but I find no issue with this specific photo. Augend (drop a line) 17:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove - content from a self-published source that's currently involved in an information war. A similar image verified and published by an independent source would be much more inline with WP standards. Aside: the acceptable nature of the content shouldn't be used as an argument to override or sidestep sourcing and privacy concerns. --N8_wilson 22:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep because this definitely "increase[s] readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". That was already decided in previous discussions (link by Alcibiades979). There is no copyright issues if I understand correctly or anything problematic per policy with this image. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Images of the exteriors of shelled apartment buildings are commonplace. Cinderella157 argues that this particular photo does not "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter", but I disagree. This photo of the interior of an apartment where someone was killed at home significantly increased my own understanding, and when I see exterior views of blasted apartment buildings in the future, I will have a much better understanding what the people who lived in those buildings suffered, and the horrors that could be seen inside those shattered apartments if a photographer entered those devastated places. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 20y 22 (UTC)
• Keep (unless better alternative found) - As far as I'm concerned, the focus of this RfC is not about it being disturbing (though the edit war was about that), it's about whether the source is reliable. However, I see no reason to even suspect that the source has fabricated the image in any way, as there seems to be no need to do so. Suspecting this image as fabricated seems akin to suspecting the US of faking the moon landing-- it's literally easier to get the real thing than to fake it. Lack of photographer credit means little during war time, and the source is an official source even if it uses facebook. I do see the arguments made above that a better representational image might be found elsewhere, (which might be even more disturbing that this one) and I would support replacing this image with such an image if found and sourced... but I also have no objections to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs' facebook page being a source. Fieari (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question This image appears in the section "War crimes:Attributed to Russian authorities and forces". How does this image of a dead man contribute to our understanding of war crimes attributed to the Russians? There is nothing that would indicate this death actually results from a war crime? On the otherhand, deliberately targeting a well marked hospital is pretty clearly a war crime. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah. I think this is where I fall. I agree the image could be suitable for placement in the article at an appropriate part of the prose, but it's unclear how it relates to "war crimes by Russian authorities". Unless someone can clearly explain how this image depicts a war crime, its placement doesn't seem relevant in that section. The particular contents of the image (i.e. whether it contains a body) doesn't seem too relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Laws of war generally distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets. The target of the attack must be a legitimate military target, and the damage to civilians must be proportional to the military objective that the attack attempts to achieve. Although I am under no illusion that a bunch of volunteer editors can meaningfully adjudicate whether a war crime has occurred based on one image, if we just take it on face value, we have an image shared by a legitimate government source accusing the Russian military of killing this civilian, with the image showing a civilian who appears to have been killed by military action while in a civilian residence, which is unlikely to be a legitimate military target. Further to this, we know from WP:RS reporting that scenarios similar to what this image purports to represent are indeed occurring.
  Of course, there could be further context we are not privy to, such as this civilian opening fire on Russian troops, or providing material support to the Ukrainian military, which could make them a legitimate target, but the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest that this image depicts a war crime against the civilian population of Ukraine. Melmann 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Bodies of some of the hundreds of Vietnamese villagers who were killed by U.S. soldiers during the My Lai Massacre. This is a compelling image

Civilian deaths are an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of war - being just too close to a legitimate target in the wrong place at the wrong time. The image of itself does not rise to depicting a war crime rather than an unfortunate event. I am not judging the act but the efficacy of the image to depict what it is supposedly intended to do per image policy. There are probably more confronting images that better support an understanding of the subject section. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC) See an example of a compelling image. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Borderline Keep I feel that WP:NOTCENSORED gets unfair weight in these discussions, being used in the sense that the content should be included because not doing so would be censorship. We should really pay more attention to WP:OM, and in particular WP:GRATUITOUS. As this policy says "Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship." and goes on to say (my bold) "According to the Wikimedia Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment'; that is, we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." There is a point at which images become too gratuitous, and I feel that this image is probably somewhere around that limit.Mozzie (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would tend to disagree that this image is offensive to an average reader. Obviously, the level of offence is highly cultural, but this image could have easily been a still from any number of police procedural dramas or action films, readily shown during the daytime in most Anglophone countries. The only meaningful difference between this and the procedural drama example is that we know for a fact that this image is real, while images from those dramas we know to be staged. This image does not show gratuitous violence, beyond from what is required to demonstrate the encyclopedic point in question. There are no internal organs strewn about, the victim is not beheaded, there isn't even a meaningful amount of blood on display. If anything, this is the mildest photo that can convincingly demonstrate the reality of death of civilian population of Ukraine. I understand your point, and I do agree to a point. I would not support ISIS beheading videos being the first thing the reader lands on when reading the page ISIS, but in this case, I think we are a long way off from getting the balance wrong.
  I can understand how a reader might find the image distressing, but the topic of civilian death in a war is highly distressing on its own, and this image demonstrates the reality of it without displaying needlessly unmerited violence. Melmann 12:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep I remember switching on the News after school as a four year-old during the Vietnam War. Images such as this (viewer discretion!) were common. No one had to tell me war was Disturbing while putting their own spin on "the facts" - a picture is worth a thousand words. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep It is an article on a war, some disturbing images are expected, as the war is itself a disturbing event. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Per reasons given above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 23:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question Can anybody tell me how this image is clearly about war crimes? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree. Single incidence civilian deaths with no supporting evidence can't be automatically attributed as war crimes. Also any claim in that direction would need to verify three things: that the assailant was a combatant (in legal terms) and that the victim was a non-combatant, and that the attack by a combatant against a non-combatant was intentional. All of these things are extremely difficult to verify. All may not be as it seems, especially in a situation where it is alleged there is a widespread resistance movement within the civilian population. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove I have seen much worse in relation even to this war, and the person actually looks quite peaceful and 'undamaged', but the relatively acceptable nature of the content shouldn't be used as an argument to override or sidestep sourcing and privacy concerns., nor that we actually have no idea what the picture depicts and whether it does or does not illustrate anything specific about this war, nor about war crimes. It reitetrates the obvious, that people die in war, and violent death never looks pretty. Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Statistics. In terms of opinions for consensus purposes only there appear to be 12 Keeps and 4 Deletes, which is at about 3-to-1. Wikipedia policy is generally to be against censorship, and consensus should decide if the image is useful to the article as a whole on its own merits. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I would make it 5 to remove. However, those arguments are being made mainly on the source of the image and policy - whether the image is adequate to support the accompanying text. They are not being made for reasons of censoring. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Remove I have no issue of citing materials from verified social media accounts of government agencies or reputed individuals. My issue is the appeal to sensation instead of providing substantial context to the alleged war crimes committed by Russian troops. It's fair that we employ much stricter criteria when deciding what we should include in such article with high traffic because of the ongoing military campaign. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:42, 5 April 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.

The Ukraine support is totally missing here. Why?

Misinformation 82.77.10.112 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but we have WP:NPOV. This is a encyclopedia, WP:NOTADVOCACY. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 14:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Its not, we have information about it, under Foreign military involvement (for example). Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2022

Add under "Commanders and Leaders" for Russia General Alexander Dvornikov. Source Perathian (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

He is added as lead commander for Russian invasion in the "Invasion" section of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia has appointed a new commander of the entire invasion: Please add to Infobox This was reported in the BBC News today (9 April, 2022). See here. (no signature)

→‎Invasion and resistance: Dvornikov assigned as military commander of 2022 invasion by Russia. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)