Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by No such user (talk | contribs) at 12:28, 21 July 2022 (→‎Requested move 17 July 2022: close, no move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for 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.

The heading above is a link to the archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022.

See also earlier RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022.

Both RfCs were closed with "no consensus". Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 on cuts to the background section

This "RFC" appears to have been abandoned by editors for several weeks. It appears to have led to no conclusions or insight into the Backbground section or related issues. RFC is closed as not offering any clear statement of support or oppose. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 two proposed versions of the Background section of this article (version A and version B), both of which might be further refined. Which of these two versions is the better option moving forward? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(View change as a diff here.) (See previous discussion 1, previous discussion 2.)

Previous RfC statement, retained for context: Should the previous background section ("A") be reduced in size? Is the shortened background section ("B") better or worse? Jr8825 • Talk 01:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Keep A - this covers quite a bit of essential information that I think gives a good picture of the background to the topic. I don't think it's necessary to cut it out. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer B. We do not need to repeat the long story of Ukraine in the 21st century, readers can read the details in the articles linked from the section. On the other hand I think that we have to add that hostilities of the War in Donbas were largely ceased following Minsk Treaty and Zelensky's pacifist politics. Since 2020 up to February 2022 were only a handful of civilian victims from the both side almost all are from the landmines that had been installed in the active period of the war. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
could you expand more on the pacifist politics on Zelensky and they relation to de escalation, also the compliance of the minsk accords, with proper sources preference given to ukranian own sources, and in second place western media outlets. Juanriveranava (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to reduce it. So B. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While it might be possible to shave off a few more words, I think A is already pretty succinct, so my argument against (significant) reductions is that this necessitates losing background information I consider valuable. I listed the information removed in B which I think should be kept in the previous discussion. What's your opinion on these points? Jr8825 • Talk 15:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A, perhaps it's a little on the long side but the current invasion is one part of a very complex broader problem of Russian aggression, and it's good for readers that the background section contextualises it. Using bytes as a benchmark is foolish; a much better criterion is whether the text delivers information that's relevant to readers. If anything I'd have two other aspirations - to shorten the lede a little (in principle a lede should be a brief overview before the body of the article covers many different details), and to resolve some of the templates at the top of the background section, relying more on links in the body of the text. However, the former would be an extremely difficult task, fraught with reverts! bobrayner (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep A or restore the long-standing version, If this article was, in fact, too long, then it would have made sense to trim it. But it's well within the limits of WP:PROSE, not too long at all. One thing that I am not sure of is would readers actually visit Russo-Ukrainian War for the rest of the background?. Rousillon (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything in particular about the older version that you prefer to A? Content-wise I think they cover most of the same ground, but A does so using less space. I think several other editors felt quite strongly that the older version took up too much room. Jr8825 • Talk 16:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A, mainly for context. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concerned that both miss the point. The background of the invasion is that Putin wants the USSR back. See [1]

[Putin] calls the Soviet collapse the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." Russian forces seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, and remain to this day. Putin wrote last summer that Russia and Ukraine are really one country — which they were for long periods over the centuries.

Adoring nanny (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is already covered at least in part by the sentences on Russian imperialism at the end of the section. Perhaps more should be made of this -- suggestions welcome. Jr8825 • Talk 02:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Covered in part, sure. But it is the reason for the war and should be treated as such. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A, I think that the 2004 elections and Ukraine-NATO developments are important and are often mentioned when the origins of the conflict are discussed. Alaexis¿question? 14:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Jr8825, while it is good to garner further participation, I think that your RfC is premature.

  • It assumes that there is an intractable stalemate wrt the two version. That is not my perception.
  • It presumes that neither version could be improved by iterative editing.
  • You yourself acknowledge that version A could be improved per this edit stating above: I can see an argument for keeping Cinderella's shortening of the Euromaidan summary as it successfully manages to cut a couple of sentences ...
  • The RfC might be worded more neutrally?
  • The RfC gives a binary choice. Considering the above, the phrasing and choices presented for comment, it is unlikely that a workable consensus will be arrived at. It is the inherent nature of RfCs.

You may wish to reconsider this, at least for the present. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's necessary to engage more editors as our positions on the two questions are incompatible. There have been 2 lengthy discussions. While I've expressed willingness to accept some of the above proposals, this has been out of a desire to find compromise, not because I've felt the changes are necessarily positive. Ultimately, both camps seem to think each others' preferred version is moving the article in the wrong direction, and as you feel further significant cuts are needed beyond the already reduced text linked as "A", I can't see how my concerns can be accommodated. We fundamentally disagree over whether A or B is closer to the right level of detail, so more perspectives will hopefully shed light on strengths/weaknesses of the two approaches. Although the questions are narrow in order to focus discussion, there's no need for a binary outcome if participants review the opposing options and offer feedback. Jr8825 • Talk 03:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to your suggestions regarding the RfC wording. Jr8825 • Talk 03:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nether version is necessarily the best or ultimate version and one might be edited up, the other might be edited down. I have already indicated this passage: In February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special police resulted in the deaths of 100 protesters and 13 policemen; most of the victims were shot by police snipers, where the numbers killed is "intricate detail" it is sufficient to say that there were widespread protests and possibly, that these resulted in deaths. Also: ... candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned with TCDD dioxin ... - it is sufficient to say he was poisoned. And that is without really looking. A better proposition in phrasing the RfC is to acknowledge that both are a basis for further review and which is the preferred basis for this further review. The questions posed by the RfC are not "equal". Consequently, there is an intrinsic and subtle bias. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per your invitation, I have added an alternative RfC statement. I understand that you hold the personal view that your version is a minimal level of detail. But I also note your willingness to accept some changes. I hope, where I write: both of which might be further refined, it is an acceptable statement of the reality of WP. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing an alternative statement. I fully agree these are frameworks for future refinement, not the finished product. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 15:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks fairly plain that if Jr8825 and Cinderella can agree on a version off-page for this edit, that it would be accepted by the active editors as adequate and not require the full thirty day RFC cycle. It seems that Cinderella is basically asking that Jr8825 trim back some of his 8Kb expansion to the article; is that possible to do? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident we'll be able to agree on small refinements such as the ones Cinderella suggests just above this, but as there are differing views on the bigger question of how much and what information should be included it's helpful to draw wider feedback and establish which base we should work from. Jr8825 • Talk 23:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of response on this RFC suggests that it is not establishing abundant feedback. After 10 days are you sure you need this RFC for another three weeks? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia

Do you think that Russian Wikipedia is subject to the state and facts cannot be taken from it? 212.164.204.35 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:rs, no wiki (in any country) is an RS, and so no we can't take "facts" from one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant information with sources. 212.164.204.35 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why talk as if you will use a wiki as a source, rather than (say) just say "can I use XYZ.com as a source"? So now we need to know what sources you want to use. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you're asking about whether Russian Wikipedia is subject to the media laws prohibiting coverage of the war that disagrees with the state line. My understanding is that the Russian government has threatened the Russian Wikipedia project for contravening the state line, but has not yet taken concrete action against the website itself (although there was the case of a ru.wiki editor in Belarus who was arrested for their editing work). signed, Rosguill talk 18:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Russian Wikipedia article still refers to this as an 'invasion'; which may require some adjustment in the lead section of this article which did say that the term is not allowed in Russia. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Russian Wikipedia is not 'in Russia'. Why should it be? There are millions of native speakers around the world. Xx236 (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter where the wiki is (it's on the internet). What matters is where its editors are and how much they can be deanoned or have already deanoned themselves. 198.58.158.232 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily used by the state, but regardless Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for obvious reasons. Dawsongfg (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable sourceXx236 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons"

Why is there a section on this, longer than the section e.g. on naval warfare aspects of the war? It seems completely out of proportion considering it deals with a purely speculative situation. Yakikaki (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information may seem speculative but it is RS speculation that is worth documenting in an encyclopedic manner. If you have information that would be worth adding on naval warfare then Wikipedia:Be bold. The Meta Boi (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the big issue though as long as it's not saying "Russia will use nuclear weapons on Ukraine"? But kind of agreed to merge it with another section. Dawsongfg (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Obvious Border Adjustments Ignored for Decades

I would suggest the article should include a blurb about the various territorial adjustments that have been ignored for decades (much like older colonial Africa/colonial Asia border adjustments) -- when the USSR collapsed in 1991. At the time -- the SSR borders were "phony borders" based on internal USSR politics. The various SSRs spun off using those borders -- yet Russia SSR insisted that various adjustments were needed. Events happened too fast, the West recognized the SSR states, and Russia SSR under Yeltsin did not press the issue...hoping to get immediate economic aid from the West. They asked for $15 billion -- they got $1.5 billion -- with Bush Sr more concerned about USSR nuclear weapon issues than cultivating real Great Power to Great Power good will. The West favored the small SSR spin-offs rather than the main Russia SSR successor state, and relations soured a few years later over the first and second Chechnya war. NATO expanded in additional waves. Putin took a leadership role. 9/11 happened. Good will over the Russian offer to let the US military build a huge base in former Soviet Asia...dissipated. The various enclaves and separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine, Georgia, etc. drew Western criticism. Georgia was goaded into trying to resolve its separatist issues by talk of Georgia joining NATO -- in 2008, that led to a brief Russia-Georgia war where Russia was labeled the aggressor for intervening. These border adjustments and separatist mini-states (Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donbas states) have led to the impression of Russia as an aggressor. In reality these are issues left over from the USSR break-up/divorce. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Russia was really gunning to "adjust the borders" to let the peoples of Tartarstan, Bashkortostan, Chechnya, etc. leave the Russian Federation, right?
Despite the rather dubious framing of the OP, Russian revanchism/Great Russian chauvinism might have a place in the background section. We mention that there was a surge in irrendentism after Crimea, but not the origins. Maybe that's enough, no strong opinion on my part.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a disinformational narrative. The Russian Federation recognized Ukraine’s borders. There was no significant separatist movement in Crimea or the Donbas before the 2014 Russian invasion. Please ignore this and wait for sourced suggestions about concrete changes to the article. —Michael Z. 21:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac, true. I was referring to Russian nationalists in Russia. The OP's comment is mostly misinformation.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russia has been aggressively "adjusting borders" since at least 1991 (or since Yeltsin's time). Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAPBOX Phiarc (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly fire, Embarrassment and mishaps

During the Russian invasion there has been a few friendly fire incidents such as the tank battle russia vs russia, the Russian warplane that was fired upon by the Russian navy, the SAM missile that did a 180⁰ turn destroying the SAM missile launcher, the sinking of a Russian landing vessel after it hit a Russian sea mine russian tanks that drove through a mine field so theirs a bit of missing information 101.188.18.162 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change the picture "Countries sending military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 invasion"

At the time of the Invasion, the Crimean peninsula is Russian, and cannot be painted blue! At a minimum, it should be painted as a disputed territory. HellSAS (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian POV, unrecognized even by their “ally” China.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, not only Russia, and secondly, I'm not asking you to color it in the color of Russia on the map. I ask you to mark it as a disputed territory, because now it is under the absolute control of Russia. You can even call it occupied, but it is definitely not under the control of Ukraine now. And such nuances can harm the neutrality of the article. HellSAS (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)HellSAS[reply]
To be fair that seems a valid idea, "occupied by Russia since 2014" seems valid. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a de jure map. Even if we were to change it, there'd be many things we'd have to change such as Syria, Yemen, a part of Ukraine etc. Dawsongfg (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A typo

It should be "BBC News Russian & Mediazona" instead of "BBC News Russian & Meduza". Also the link doesn't work, it should be https://zona.media/casualties (in Russian, 2022-07-15 data) or https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/11/casualties_eng (in English, 2022-07-01 data).

Also it should probably noted that they say they count only those dead who were identified (by mass media, the Russian government, or their relatives on social media). Arzet Ro (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per strong consensus. Closing early, since this is a highly visible article, and the proposal has no chance to gain consensus. No such user (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine (2022) – Reliable sources such the BBC use this title in their headings. Interstellarity (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support – I have thought this article should mention 'war' in its title, as it is about the war that ensued after the invasion rather than details of the invasion itself. I think this would be good, with the Russo-Ukrainian War article renamed to War in Ukraine (2014–2022) and become more limited in its scope. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose  The Russo-Ukrainian War has been ongoing for over eight years. That is what reliable sources have been referring to with the name and variations. The use of a disambiguation string in parenthesis in a title implies that the thing is a different thing with the same name; i.e., that one War in Ukraine ended on February 24 and another one started. That’s misleading and factually wrong. —Michael Z. 23:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Totally disagree. It has already happened that the Russo-Ukrainian War has three components: the occupation and annexation of Crimea, the war in the east of Ukraine (Donbas), and the last third component is a large-scale Russian invasion. — Uliana245 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — The argument for changing is not really spelled out. If it's just because a single SEO friendly page on BBC.com uses that term, I can find 20 other pages that use "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Would also help if it was spelled out what the nominator's issue with the current name is. | MK17b | (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — If they moved to War in Ukraine, it could confuse the reader because we already have an article Russo-Ukrainian War. HurricaneEdgar 03:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our duty to dumb things down for the reader to make them not confusing. We just present the facts in an encyclopaedic way. If the reader doesn't understand that then they shouldn't be browsing an encyclopaedia. Buttons0603 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As many above me have already said, we already have an article, the Russo-Ukrainian War, which covers the aggression between Russia and Ukraine starting in 2014 and going to the present. This article is specifically about the Russian invasion starting on February 24, and the current article title reflects this well. Renaming the article to War in Ukraine just seems pointless. Not only does it make the article's title less descriptive, but it may be confused with the aforementioned Russo-Ukrainian War article. "War in Ukraine (2022)" should only be a disambiguation redirect to this article with its current title. Physeters✉ 21:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Name is non-descript, doesn't even make clear who invading party is. Yes, invading party. That is not POV, if one country sends troops into another without the latter's consent, it is an invasion. This is elementary, and saying otherwise is in fact what is POV.--Calthinus (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as the Invasion of Iraq and Iraq War. Same thing now, the invasion is over now it looks like a long war. Maybe split things MachoCarioca (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a proposal to split the article. The subordinate subject mentioned (the war article is parent of the invasion article, in summary style) ends at a milestone: “This early stage of the war formally ended on 1 May 2003 when U.S. President George W. Bush declared the "end of major combat operations" in his Mission Accomplished speech, after which the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was established as the first of several successive transitional governments leading up to the first Iraqi parliamentary election in January 2005.” As the Russians are still trying to advanced and have not achieved strategic objectives, there is no clear-cut end to the “invasion” phase. In fact, it is a subordinate article to the parent Russo-Ukrainian War. If it did get too long, it could be split into a multiple fronts phase and a concentrate on Donbas phase that started April 18, but I think there would still be an encompassing parent article. —Michael Z. 00:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even more simply: both Russian and Western sources predict that Russian forces are still trying to take the rest of Donbas, and likely all of the oblasts along Ukraine’s Black Sea coast if not come back to assault Kyiv again as well. So the invasion remains in progress. —Michael Z. 15:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is the invasion over? Was there a formal declaration made by at least one leader that it was over? If so, when and by whom? Otherwise the invasion will be over when either Ukraine capitulates or pushes the front back to Russian borders. 198.58.158.232 (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • negative, there is already an article called Russo-Ukrainian War.
    • the war is not only in Ukraine. rather, it involves almost the entire Russian Federation.
    • The biggest combats take place in ukraine but there are also bombings in russian territory. Matias Taboadaxx (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: War in Ukraine has been going on for the past 8 years there's no need to change the article name. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This page is about the invasion itself, not the war. We already have a page for that. Absolutely no need to change the title of this. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 14:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As what others have said here, this is about the invasion rather than the war itself. 2001:1970:4885:CC00:0:0:0:2BC8 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Describing the invasion proper as the "War" versus the current format of describing the whole bucket of initial conflicts (eg, Crimea, Donbass), buildup, attempted truces and peace, then the invasion as one "War". Would fit with how Wikipedia has handled other historical conflicts that had a similar buildup then invasion. See Second Sino-Japanese War starting at the invasion proper in 1937 and not including the Japanese invasion of Manchuria or Defense of the Great Wall. WanukeX (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This page is about the specific intentional full-scale large invasion of a sovereign nation state by another neighboring nation state that occurred in February 2022. It is not the article about the much smaller and more "hidden" by false information invasion and taking of territory that happened in 2014, nor the smoldering conflict of the subsequent 8 years. N2e (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would support if it wasn't just Russian fighting Ukraine. Disabled Lemon (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:NPOV should be maintained. 2001:8003:9008:1301:812C:B4D7:52DA:31CB (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support naming article War in Ukraine, since this conflict is considered first major conventional war in Europe since WW2. Strahinja28 (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Strahinja28: FYI The war has been ongoing since 2014 when Putin decided to invade Ukraine. A reliable source has said this invasion is the biggest attack state since WW2. CBCTV 18 WONDRIUM HurricaneEdgar 08:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't read the first source, but I don't think the second is reliable; it is probably the largest in Europe since WWII (depending on how you count the Yugoslav Wars) but not the largest in general. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe there should be 3 articles, one called "Russo-Ukrainian War" which is about the whole war, and then make an article about the two phases and so maybe create an article called something like "First phase of the Russo-Ukrainian War" and maybe rename this article to something like "Second phase of the Russo-Ukrainian War" but I'm unsure.94.38.155.78 (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; we need an article on the invasion, and this article is that. However, it may be appropriate to split the content into two phases; one phase about the invasion under the current title, and one about the ongoing war, but that should be a separate discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nominator failed to support his nomination with adequate rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; no need to reiterate reasons listed above. King keudo (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose It's still an invasion, and we shouldn't be pandering to Russian dis-information by re-defining things to suit their narrative. Ukraine is occupied at the moment, war would imply that its Ukrainians fighting amongst each other and that both sides are the agressors and defenders in equal proportions which is certainly not the case. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose When there is consensus in good quality sources for an alternative name (not WP:NEWSORG sources), that will be our que for a change of name. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I think it is not the time yet to create a new article called War in Ukraine and differ it from 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Eventually we will have to do the same as what happened with 2003 Invasion of Iraq and Iraq War, however I do not think we are there at this point. Personisgaming (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On the basis that 1. There are mystery attacks in Russia, they claim it's Ukraine therefore being a major point to keep this from being "War in Ukraine," also there's war in donbass and russo-ukrainian war (which isn't really the best, it might as well be called tensions or something but that's another story). Dawsongfg (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose 2022 invasion is just a part of the war started in 2014. Calling both of them "war" will cause a confusion. Leo0502 (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The '2022' weakens the case; it's part of a bigger picture already, in which the current title is more informative. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 18 July 2022

For countries who support Russia, add North Korea and Iran as both have said the support the invasion and are willing to provide aid 166.181.81.169 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I'm assuming this is for the support section in the infobox? The amount of support they have provided is not sufficient for inclusion in the infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We all know Iran is providing drones, but where's the source for North Korea? All I find is "rebuilding Ukraine". Dawsongfg (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents section needs updating

It is fair to add the EU and NATO countries that support Ukraine with weapons, when Belarus is included in the belligerents list as supportive. 2A00:A200:0:813:56E:D75A:58E0:768F (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out (countless times) no attacks have been launched from NATO soil, so they are not analogous. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to an extent.
Belarus is listed as a belligerent because Belarus allows Russian forces to launch their missiles from Belarussian territory and Russian forces attacked Ukraine through Belarus. The same could not be said for NATO and EU countries.
NATO and EU countries have only provided material and intelligence support. Therefore I feel like they could be added as "Arms suppliers". But nothing more. 94.16.40.154 (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them provided weapons and components to the Russian Federation too, so I don’t think that criterion for inclusion on the list will yield the result you desire. —Michael Z. 17:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Michael, I would oppose. Some companies in GER, SLO, ITA and FRA have supplied parts for weapon systems to RF. How would you list those? This would be NPOV. A09090091 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Belarus is under Russian belligerent then surely it’s only fair to list all of the countries supporting Ukraine with arms, training and intelligence? 82.47.195.126 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone looked at the option of changing the geographical maps in the section on 'Foreign military sales and aid' into Infobox format for that section. Doing this would make this discussion about belligerents and supporters much clearer. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Belarusian territory is used for direct attacks into Ukrainian territory. This makes Belarus guilty of the crime of international aggression according to the UN’s definition.
If Ukraine launches missiles from Estonia into Russia, or moves forces across the border from Latvia into Russia, then we can consider adding one of these countries to the belligerents box.
Provision of arms, training, and intelligence happens between states all the time in peacetime, and doesn’t create a state of war, so it doesn’t make a state a belligerent when there’s a war among other states. Israel and France have provided weapons and components to Russia since the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and Germany set up training centres and trained Russian troops before and possibly at the beginning of the war, but none of these states ought to be listed as supporting Russia against Ukraine. —Michael Z. 02:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could live with a note in the infobox that says "See section Foreign aide" - particularly if it stops this popping up nearly every second day. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Grammer, missing sources and politics.

The entire passage of: effects on ukrainian scociety[sic], seems to be written to push a political agenda. The information given by the sources is not checked and taken out of context 2A02:8108:97C0:1DC0:2D0C:7933:671C:3BF8 (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples of this context? Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal to say "war" in Russia

ErnestKrause, since you were using the nomenclature of Russian Wikipedia to argue that saying war is not illegal in Russia, see this Reuter's article [2]. Russian Wikimedia is being fined in Russia for "propaganda," and Reuters says as of yesterday Russia does not call what is happening a "war" or an "invasion", criminalising the use of either word.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ermenrich Your citation from Reuters is better than the NPR one currently in use, and I think I would support you to replace the NPR cite with your Reuters citation in the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian Wikipedia is international, it is not Russian. Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Second phase – Dnipro–Zaporizhzhia front"

I do not know the subject, but Dnipro is probably not a front city now. Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents section for Ukraine

Belligerent section for Ukraine shows blank which is total bullshit as if no country supports it when the whole Western world led by US and UK supplies it with high modern weaponry and sanctions against Russia 197.186.5.116 (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Ukraine is not quite the same as actively participating in warfare, as the term 'belligerent" would imply. Kleuske (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1099563809"