Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Ordering of civilian and military casualties

The following ordering of civilian and military casualties came off as bizarre and POV,

It is estimated to have caused tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian casualties and hundreds of thousands of military casualties.

so I re-ordered it to put military casualties first. The number of military casualties is a full order of magnitude greater than the number of civilian casualties.

The edit was reverted by @TylerBurden, with the reverter claiming that my paying attention to the ordering at all is bizarre. I was told to discuss it on the talk page.

When you have two separate statistics but one overwhelmingly larger than the other, it is usually somewhat more natural to put the larger statistic first, as it represents the more significant parameter. This is especially relevant when the ordering is relevant for propaganda purposes. It is well-known that civilian casualties (in all armed conflicts) are an important propaganda weapon. I am thus afraid the original wording could be perceived as propagandistic in nature.

The convention in armed conflicts is to mention combatant casualties prior to civilian casualties, especially when the former considerably exceeds the latter as is usually true. This is evident in the infoboxes of all major wars. I do not see any compelling reason here to stray from that convention. JDiala (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to this "convention"? Because like I mentioned in my edit summary, I don't think it matters, they are both described in literally the same sentence, and both are significant parts of the article, so the placement is subjective and thus there is no reason to change it. I also don't buy the propaganda argument, you could say the same thing about the edit you made placing civilians behind military based purely on numbers being some propaganda attempt to divert focus away from civilian casualties, which would be equally unconstructive. Since it has never been an issue until now I am guessing that most people aren't interpreting it the way you are. TylerBurden (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a stylistic judgement. I don't think that, for stylistic judgements such as this, we require (say) a military handbook which says "mention military casualties before civilian casualties" or something. Rather, it is reasonable to make judgements as competent English speakers as to how a sentence should be optimally arranged to come off as neutrally as possible. I am making the judgement that it is better to put combatant casualties prior to civilian casualties, because the former exceeds the latter by a full order of magnitude. You claim that this could equally be interpreted as propaganda, but this is not true, because I have a logical, non-propaganda explanation for my version (italicized in the prior sentence), whereas you do not for yours.

Imagine one of the first sentences on the 9/11 article writing something like "the attacks killed dozens of soldiers in the Pentagon, as well as around three thousand civilians". That would be a bit weird as the framing appears to emphasize the soldiers dying, despite the nature of the attack (a terror attack on civilians) and that far more civilians died. This would thus not be a natural or neutral way to word things consistent with WP:IMPARTIAL, particularly in the lead where it is especially crucial to be impartial. Likewise here, this is an armed conflict where the overwhelming majority of people dead on both sides are armed soldiers. The immediate emphasis on the comparatively low number of Ukrainian civilian casualties strikes me as strange. This is especially considering that the ratio of civilian-military casualties is not unusually high in this particular war (unlike many other armed conflicts). A reasonable reader could interpret this as having a propagandistic slant. This is not consistent with the project's goals.

I feel that this is ultimately a difference of opinion. Unlike a content dispute, it is difficult to "prove" that a particular sentence has a biased tone, and we might not be able to come to an agreement. For this reason, I welcome input from other editors.

Finally, I am not sure why the fact that the issue has not come up before is relevant. It is quite frequent (in fact, the norm) that a revert made at any given point in time was not something previous editors noticed. JDiala (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well since you said it was convention, I was hoping you would back it up with a link. Like you said, this more comes down to stylistic judgement and personal interpretation. I don't think a single editor saying "I agree" constitutes consensus, since they also provided no link to the claimed convention. So unless that is done or it's clear that more people interpret it as POV, I think your change was premature. TylerBurden (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: You are not engaging with the points made. As I have told you, stylistic judgements can be made by native speakers of the English language without citing a formal convention. There is no expectation of this as this is not an issue of content but of writing. I have given sound rationales for the change which you have not addressed, and I already have another editor agreeing with me. Furthermore, the discussion has been stagnant for a over a week. I do not believe it is a reasonable standard to demand an even more overwhelming consensus for this, especially since this is a minor issue. JDiala (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You're acting as if you're fixing a typo, you're not. Your argument is "there are more dead soldiers", that's true, but the number of civilian casualties is not insignificant. And please, don't act as if two editors agreeing with each other is "overwhelming consensus". TylerBurden (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: This is a bit more than a typo, but not by much. I don't think "well, yeah, but lots of civilians died too" is engaging with my point in good faith. I'd be happy to start an RfC if you'd like. JDiala (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: Instead of an RfC, c or WP:DRN are also options. Would you be willing to accept the outcome of either of those processes? JDiala (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I already said I'd accept more people interpreting the same "POV" view as you as grounds to change the order. It should be noted that you've already recieved a topic ban in WP:PIA for POV issues. TylerBurden (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: It is inappropriate for you to refer to a sanction I have in another unrelated area as a substitute for an actual argument. Topic banned editors are allowed to edit in other areas, even contentious ones. You have provided no evidence that my conduct in this interaction is inappropriate or POV. Referring you to WP:PA, WP:GRAVEDANCING, WP:GF. JDiala (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is quite relevant when someone who is complaining about "POV" based not on policy or guidelines but on subjective personal opinion is already topic banned for the same conduct in another WP:CTOP. No one has said you are not allowed to edit, it is relevant nonetheless. You can also stop pinging me, I have the page on my watch list. Thanks. TylerBurden (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It is disappointing that an editor with such experience lacks a basic appreciation of WP:GF. You cannot engage with my arguments and instead choose to make personal attacks. I have started a discussion on administrator SFR's page about your conduct. JDiala (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If you view this as a personal attack, I don't think there is any point in engaging further with you. TylerBurden (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

As a WP:3O, there is no clear convention in WP or elsewhere as to how this should be ordered. It does not require an overwhelming consensus to determine the order. One of these has to come first; therefore the other is second. This rather trivial issue has already killed way too many electrons. In my opinion, an RfC on this question would be disruptive because of its trivial nature. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. When you write "[it] does not require an overwhelming consensus", do you agree that the current 2-1 should be adequate to decide it? What is your stance on what should be done? JDiala (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That's the point I've been trying to make since the beginning, since they both have significant coverage in the article and are mentioned right next to each other the order of it should not matter. TylerBurden (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The order doesn't matter. Two people think it should be one way; one person thinks otherwise; and nobody else gives a brass razoo - including myself. So why the fuck are the two of you still arguing over it as if it means the end of the world?

PS I can solve this with the toss of a coin if you both agree since nobody else gives a toss and that is how much it matters. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

DPRK troops as a belligerent

North Korea has recently been added to the infobox as a belligerent citing this Kyiv Post article bearing the headline Pyongyang Says It Will Send Troops to Ukraine Within a Month. More specifically, the article says Pyongyang announced early this week that it will be sending troops in the form of a military engineering unit to support Russian forces on the ground in the Donetsk region. The actual planned deployment seems less significant than the title implies; remember WP:HEADLINES. My question is if/how we as editors intend on differentiating this North Korean military engineering support unit from Western countries' military advisors and support elements that are already on the ground as well. Best regards to all SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine is completely dependent on foreign lethal military support.

Here are the the main points of opposition and their resolutions:

1. The West only provides hardware

In addition to having received military intelligence, combined arms combat training, analytical exercise preparation, and war games planning, Ukraine is now receiving fighter jets along with many months of NATO-provided training on those fighter jets.

2. Infobox creep

There only needs to be one entry - either UDCG, US or NATO.

3. Infobox inclusion of Ukraine support advances Russian propaganda

Omission is "Western" propaganda.

4. Distinguishing between aid type is complicated

The types of aid we care about are (a) lethal military aid and (b) the most severe economic sanctions possibly in the history of modern civilization. A single "Supported by" entry - UDCG, US or NATO - would encompass those two types of aid, and only those two types of aid.

After more than two years of conflict, it is far past time for that info box to present an honest assessment of who is engaged in this war. Without lethal military support from the leaders of the so called rules-based international order, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this confict long ago. This reasonable inference should be reflected in that info box.

Chino-Catane (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding UDCG [expand] is a sensible idea in my view. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This hasn't happened yet. Troops are not on the ground and fighting. Also, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE we don't add leaders where these are not supported by the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is premature at this point to make any changes to the infobox. But it may be worth discussing whether North Korea should be added as a belligerent if their troops (engineer corps) end up in Donetsk as announced. And I think the answer should be yes. --haha169 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Iranian and Western troops are on the ground in arguably similar capacities, so the North Korean troops should not be considered in a vacuum in such a discussion. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the nature of Iranian "troops"? My understanding was that they were drone trainers only, and far from the frontlines. If you have a source for something more involved, please share. Similar with Western "troops", if the information is new/different from the last discussion that established consensus. --haha169 (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There are western mercenaries, and there are plenty of reliable reports about them, however that alone doesn't make Western states, belligerents in the formal sense. Mercenaries can come from anywhere in the world. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There are RS that small numbers of Western troops are in non-frontline roles, mainly but not exclusively training. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the Spanish Civil War would be a good heuristic for determining who is classified as a "belligerent". AFAIK no country at the present time has supplied the number of men to the front-line that the supporting belligerents did to both sides of the aforementioned war. AsyarSaronen (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Belarus as belligerent

The infobox lists Belarus as belligerent on the Russian side. This is sourced to a piece of information on the BBC which itself is sourced to a Facebook post by a Ukrainian adviser to the defence minister. I hope editors here agree that this is an extremely poor sourcing for Wikipedia to formally implicate a country in an international war.

To-date, the role of Belarus for Russia has been nearly identical to the role played by Poland, Romania or Germany for Ukraine: as a training and resupply ground, arms supplier, and political backer. There's no good evidence that Belarusian troops are or have been taking active part in hostilities. While bilateral relations are in a rather poor state, neither country is openly engaged in hostilities against the other.[1]

In this view, I propose removing Belarus as belligerent. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The role of Belarus has not been at all similar - nevermind “identical” - to that of Poland, Romania or Germany. Ukraine is not attacking Russia from the territory of Poland, Romania or Germany. Russia did attack Ukraine from the territory of Belarus. This is pretty straight forward. Volunteer Marek 05:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The main reason we list Belarus as a belligerent is that Russian troops were allowed to invade from Belarus. Ukrainian troops may train in foreign countries but always return to Ukraine before entering combat. Russian air attacks were also staged from Belarus. No country has permitted Ukraine to stage air attacks from their territory. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see the very complete discussion here. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Under this reasoning it could be argued that Belarus ceased its "belligerency" sometime around 2022, as Russian troops have not moved between Belarus and Ukraine since April of that year, and it is not apparent that Russian artillery and air strikes have since taken place from Belarusian territory or airspace.

A compromise might include a qualifier something along these lines:

Russia

• Donetsk PR
• Luhansk PR

Supported by:

Belarus (2022)

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

if there is a source which makes such an argument, let’s see it. Volunteer Marek 05:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Which argument, specifically? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it true that nothing has been staged from Belarus since 2022? The Ukrainian army reported a launch from Belarus on 5 August 2023 (Source). GordonGlottal (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Claim not verified independently - the source (CNN) only mentions is in passing, attributing it to an unreliable source (a different belligerent). Insufficient for an encyclopaedia IMO. Anyway, a missile launch by Russian troops stationed in Belarus does NOT make that country a belligerent. In other articles, we don't consider single instances of territory use as sufficient to consider the entire country a belligerent in a war. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal The close of that discussion highlighted that there was no consensus to list Belarus as belligerent. That was more than 6 months ago, and a new discussion is warranted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess it's been long enough for another RFC. But only if you think there's a real likelihood of changed consensus—be respectful of everyone's time. Note that another RFC is unlikely to be permitted for quite a while if two fail 7 months apart. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Belarus is not listed as a belligerent. It is listed as a supporter and there was clear consensus to keep [Belarus] there. This is affirmed twice in the RfC close.

This is the single most discussed element of the article and has hosted near a dozen RfCs and innumerable edit-requests and proposals across the two main articles. All bar one RfC has closed with no consensus. The Belarus RfC is the exception. 'A new discussion' without clear preliminary endorsement is doomed to status quo. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I support @Kashmiri's proposal for removal. The United States has provided far more lethal military support to Ukraine than Belarus has provided to Russia. Ukraine Armed Forces would not be able to make biweekly payroll without economic support from NATO. Russia can continue to prosecute this war even if Belarus removes itself completely from the situation. The same cannot be said for Ukraine if the United States steps away completely. Where is the neutral balance here? This particular aspect of the info box betrays a systematically biased point of view. Alternatively, simply have the info box express the fact that Ukraine is supported by the United States. Chino-Catane (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not only that. Ukraine is being actively armed by Europe and the US, it keeps receiving incredible amounts of military hardware, equipment, munitions, training, military intelligence, etc. The collective West has embarked on an economic war against Russia, seizing its assets and blocking its trade. Belarus has not done anything resembling that – generally, the West is much more engaged in the Ukrainian war than Belarus has ever been. If Belarus, by simply allowing Russian troops on its territory in line with its international obligations (CSTO), is called a "belligerent" by Wikipedia, what will be the right term for the Western countries so active in Ukraine? — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Russia invaded Ukraine from Belarusian territory. The US (or EU or NATO or whatever) did not invade Russia from Ukrainian territory. Or at all. Simple as that. Volunteer Marek 05:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in the CSTO treaty required Belarus to do any of this, not that it matters. I want to modify what I said earlier slightly in response to this exchange: Your proposed understanding of the conflict is fundamentally rejected by the vast majority of English Wikipedia editors and by the sources English Wikipedia has chosen to elevate as reliable. An RFC from this perspective is guaranteed to fail. It will be an enormous waste of editors' time and effort. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Please find a more productive use of your editorial energy. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting that Belarus is listed as a "belligerent" when you have already been corrected above? Belarus is not listed as a belligerent, so your whole suggestion here is built on either you misreading or a misrepresentation of what the article actually says. TylerBurden (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to Manyareasexpert for publishing an explanation offering reasons why this article labels Belarus a "co-belligerent supporter" and not the United States. Belarus permitted Russia to stage its pre-invasion force and launch missiles from its territory. Similarly, we in the United States staged our forces for the 2003 invasion of Iraq from somewhere. We also launched air support for that invasion from somewhere. Were those pre-invasion staging territories and air support launch pads labeled as "co-belligerent supporters" in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq? Chino-Catane (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Answer to this question seems to be that we list Turkey and Kuwait as belligerents proper (under "coalition of the willing"). The US didn't distinguish between different types of military support for the invasion and included hosts as full members of the coalition. See 2003 invasion of Iraq. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Genocide SYNTH in lead

@TylerBurden: The Wallenberg paper with the 30 genocide scholars only concludes that there is a "serious risk" of genocide and incitement to genocide, not an actual genocide. This is WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, the child article states the far weaker conclusion that the genocide allegation has only been stated with "varying degrees of certainty" by genocide scholars, and in no place states a scholarly consensus that Russia is currently perpetrating a genocide. Per WP:SS, the parent article should summarize the child article. I object to the current sentence in the lead on these grounds. JDiala (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

"To many observers, the erasure of Ukrainian nationhood in the occupied territories and frequent denial of Ukraine’s right to exist is evidence the Russian invasion is genocidal in nature. Some 30 genocide scholars, the Genocide Watch organisation and several national parliaments have supported this assertion."

This is directly quoted from the source, and on top if it there are several others cited. TylerBurden (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Stating that something is "genocidal" is not the same as asserting that it a genocide, which the lead sentence does. It could encompass a variety of strictly weaker things, such as incitement to genocide. This is SYNTH and OR. The actual Wallenberg paper does not definitively state that it is a genocide. JDiala (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources either describe it as genocide (Jade McGlynn) or various other mentions of genocide. I wouldn't be opposed to changing it to "characterised by scholars as genocidal in nature". TylerBurden (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree this would be a good change in wording. Moxy🍁 02:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. It's worth noting that Jade McGlynn, a historian and not a legal expert or genocide scholar, is a rather weak source for such a strong claim. Please note that WP:RS takes into consideration the quality of sources as well, and for such a contentious and strong claim it is best to err on the side of caution. That said, I agree with our compromise of "genocidal."

I also think the democide allegation should be removed from the lead. This does not appear to be a particularly notable allegation and there aren't nearly as many sources for it. I'm not sure it's due weight for the lead. JDiala (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I've carefully looked at the cited sources and none of them state that the war is a "democide." I'm going to remove this myself as it's an unsourced claim. JDiala (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Jade McGlynn is most certainly NOT a “weak source”. Volunteer Marek 04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added the qualifier "some" before "scholars", as this characterization is not a unanimous or consensus position among scholars of genocide. All of the cited sources acknowledge this in various ways: the first three are the opinions of single scholars in which they address the ongoing scholarly debate. The citations from the fourth article, the statement from the 30 genocide scholars and the Genocide Watch organization, are more significant, but I think there is a higher threshold for stating this as the scholarly opinion without qualification (our own article we wikilink to includes "allegations" in its title in reflection of this). — Goszei (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I scrolled through the Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War and there is no one saying there is no genocide in Ukraine. It's pretty safe to just state it as it is. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead changes

I have implemented a series of changes in the lead section between this and this revision which I will explain here:

• Added a mention of Russia's demands for security guarantees that Ukraine not join NATO, whose relationship with Ukraine forms the primary topic in the Background and Prelude sections. According to many analysts, this is the true underlying cause of the war (beyond Putin's Russian irredentist/neo-Nazi state/"demilitarise and denazify" pretext), and so should be mentioned in the lead.
• Trimmed the fourth paragraph, which deals with international reactions and secondary effects (I moved the mentions of ecocide and food crisis here). I think that the UN General Assembly resolution is important enough to mention here, but that the ICJ and Council of Europe should be saved for the body. The same goes for the "terrorist state" designations by the Baltic states and corporate withdrawals.
• Added a mention of the EU and the US as the primary contributors of humanitarian and military aid, which is highly significant from a geopolitcal standpoint and detailed in the body.
• Moved the genocide allegation from the first lead paragraph to the fourth, wikilinking it from the ICC investigation sentence. This better reflects its WP:DUE prominence as a matter under ongoing investigation by several bodies and interpretation and debate by scholars. If in the future the genocide becomes something closer to a consensus among scholars or widely-accepted historical fact, it should be moved to the first paragraph.

— Goszei (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse these changes on the grounds you mentioned. This is an excellent step towards neutrality. Thank you for the excellent work! JDiala (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Such drastic changes require consensus. I do not think they have have such.

• “Many analysts” is vague and unsourced. Many other - really most - analysts are clear on the fact this had nothing to do with NATO.
• No comment currently on 2 and 3.
• Strongly disagree with moving it.

Volunteer Marek 04:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

On the third point your text made it seem like these were the only countries which sanctioned Russia. Volunteer Marek 04:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

A consensus is not required to edit or make changes to the article. Whether they are substantial changes or not does not factor into bold editing. Your 04:46, 7 July 2024 edit appears to be disruptive. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

No, but if someone objects to changes to long standing text, then yeah it’s a good idea to seek consensus.

What exactly is “disruptive” about my edit? If consensus isn’t required to make changes to an article then undoing such changes is even less problematic, no? Volunteer Marek 05:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you yourself basically say pretty much what I just said here Volunteer Marek 05:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I did end up moving the paragraph beginning with info on ecocide roughly to where Goszei wanted it. I do think the text itself was better previously. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverting because you have a genuine objection is fine. Reverting solely because prior approval was not sought isn't.

That said, it had appeared to me that you'd removed the ecocide material rather than moving it. The highlighting in the diff tripped me up. I've struck the portion of my comment relating to the edit and apologize for my error.

I think the edit you've linked to isn't quite comparable. There was an on-going discussion of that material, which had been disputed by several editors on specific grounds including being based on actual misinformation. At that point, a consensus with adequate sourcing is required. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)