Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#RfC on Western support 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.

---

The heading above is a link to the RfC: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#RfC on Western support to Ukraine, closed 30 December 2022.

See also earlier RfCs: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022; and, Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022. All RfCs were closed with "no consensus". In the most recent RfC, the closer made the following statement:

Also, can we not do this again in a couple months? There is WP:NODEADLINE, and there is sure to be plenty of academic studies and expert writings that will provide excellent context and sourcing for what, exactly, should be listed in that infobox parameter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:13, 30 December 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.

Section on Phase 3 on invasion links to a subordinate sibling article about Phase 4, however, there is no Phase 4 section in this article: Is this an issue or not an issue for the main article?

The following subordinate sibling article is linked in the main article however the main article does not recognize or discuss a Phase 4 of the invasion at all. Is this an issue or not an issue for the main article, or, is the subordinate sibling article erroneous and anecdotal here: Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not use absolute phase numbers. We should stop using this novel nomenclature someone found in a single source as it is borderline FRINGE, and will continue to be problematic.  —Michael Z. 20:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It is fairly certain that 'second phase' was predominant in both the domestic press and the international press after Russia was repulsed from Kyiv. Once the second phase became common verbiage in the international press, it was natural for them to also start making back references to the 'first phase' which came before the second phase, even though it was only called that after the second phase was introduced in the press after Russia was repulsed from Kyiv. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t really remember that. Can you link the sources that said “second phase”? HappyWith (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Here are 3 references of the dozens in the international press to get things started: [1], [2], and [3]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera numbered phases in its six-month summary of the war at Psaropoulos, John (24 August 2022). "Timeline: Six months of Russia's war in Ukraine". John Sauter (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This article looks like it is heading directly towards a "Phase 4" designation and section within the next month or two, for lack of participation of editors in this discussion. If no one has a follow-up opinion, then the direction is towards starting a "Phase 4" section in this 2022 Russian invasion article within the next month of two. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Those "phases" are wildly different from the ones that we use. While there is use by reliable sources of "phases" to describe the invasion, there isn't RS consensus on where those phases start and end, and such consensus will only emerge (if ever) long after the invasion has concluded. DecafPotato (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2023

While we might title sections within an article with considerable licence, titling articles is quite another thing. Describing and naming of phases is a matter for reliable sources and more specifically good quality sources - which WP:NEWSORG are not. We don't lead but follow the sources and there needs to be a consensus in the sources to apply a particular title. Such a consensus can only follow the events. We don't have crystal balls. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There is not much choice here since sysops (Vanamonde) has already decided on retaining a Wikipedia article for the Timeline of Phase 4. Also, Michael and Steven have both opted to oppose the renaming of that 'Phase 4' timeline during a recent discussion on that Talk page. It appears that without further discussion, then this main article will need to go in the direction of naming new sections in accordance with sysops decisions for retaining the 'Phase 4' Timeline article here in this main article sometime during the next month or two. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You mention the renaming discussion, but that doesn’t support your argument at all when I actually look at the discussion; Michael, as far as I can tell, said he’s against the phase terminology in general in the discussion, and Steven just opposed it per WP:FORK. Similarly, that sysop’s closing statement was certainly not what you’re describing, as they mainly talked about how in that specific AFD, the arguments on both sides were messy and that “original research concerns about the title had not been resolved”, concluding that the content should be kept, but leaving it to later disussion as to what title or article it should be under. That is not a “decision to retain the article” in its current state and title by any means. HappyWith (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: You can link the Phase 4 Timeline article directly to see that sysops (Vanamonde) has endorsed it and kept it to this current day. I'm not sure what you mean here in your comments. Both Michael and Steven have opposed removing references to Phase 4 as well in those Talk page discussions. Unless there is a reasonable discussion among editors here soon, then the 'Phase 4' discussion will likely prevail in this main article here within the next month or two, given the opposition to removing it. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The AfD closure (by @Vanamonde93) said, ... And there are genuine original research concerns with the title that have not been rebutted. The title, and the need for a standalone page, could benefit from further discussion but given that this is already a hot mess, and that AfD isn't really the venue for discussing a merger or a retitling. And sysops have no additional weight in content disputes than any other editor. DecafPotato (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That was the first part of the comments where Vanamonde ended up endorsing keeping Phase 4 in the title; this was followed by the second part of the related comments where Steven and Michael both opposed the removal of the name 'Phase 4' from the Timelines. At present, it appears that by the end of this month, March, and the end of April, that this main article will be fully recognizing 'Phase 4' is the absence of any related discussion about it on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Please quote the section where Vanamonde "endorsed keeping Phase 4 in the title", because I'm looking at the closing remarks right now, and I don't see anything of the sort in there. It wouldn't matter anyway, because, as DecafPotato says, sysops have no additional weight in content dispute, but I think you're misinterpreting the results of that discussion. I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth, but Michael said on the talk page, and I quote, The vast majority of sources do not recognize any “phase 3.” A better title would be Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (September to November 2022), using a terminology that’s widely used, intrinsically meaningful, familiar to all, and easily adjusted if necessary, and later clarified that the phase terminology doesn’t meet the WP:CRITERIA. I have no idea what phase 3 is. Slatersteven didn't support the phase terminology in that discussion either, only opposing the move because of WP:FORK. HappyWith (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, you have not achieved consensus to insert the phase 4 into this article. You say that because of the absence of any related discussion about it on this Talk page, this article will soon include that terminology, but that's not how the process works. The discussion slowing down is not a substitute for consensus, especially since, with my rough count, most editors in this discussion are against this proposal. HappyWith (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this whole business with "phases" is in need of a centralized, well-formed RFC to establish a clear, well-sourced format for organizing the war's progression that editors can agree on, because it seems like no one likes this current situation. HappyWith (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This is Vanamonde's close of the AFD where she in the end decides to keep it: [4]. Right after that, two rename discussions were opened, as suggested by Vanamonde, with both Steven and Michael stating Opposition to removing titles with 'Phase 4' mentioned. That pretty much cements 'Phase 4' into those Timeline articles, and it means that 'Phase 4' is likely to be fully incorporated into the main article here before the end of this month or next month at latest in the absence of any other discussion among editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

With regard to the argument over the stances of other editors, please read over my and DecafPotato's last post again, where both of us quoted passages from those users that directly contradict your characterizations. But, that's not really important, and I don't want to argue over what other editors meant in statements they made months ago. What's important is getting consensus here, now, among editors. Michael, Cinderella, DecafPotato, and I - that's a majority of editors in this discussion, by my count - have all raised WP:OR concerns about this terminology that simply has not been answered. Editors can't just not provide arguments and then assume the resulting silence is consensus. HappyWith (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Your comments keep me thinking that you are looking at the article as it was two months ago. The current main article here already includes a link to the Phase 4 Timeline article (by another editor) in the Invasion section of this article. Its already there. The Phase 4 Timeline article appears to be cemented in place following Vanamonde's decision to retain it (with her explanation), and the decision of Michael and Steven to Oppose renaming it. The 'Phase 4' link and comments are on their way to being fully included in the discussion parts of this main article within the next month or so, in the absence of any other discussion among editors to remove/support it. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You're not engaging with my points at all, so this will be my last response in this thread for now. HappyWith (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

If Michael is your main source then you can comment on his reaction to these issues on the Timelines Talk page when he stated: "Oppose. The vast majority of sources do not recognize any “phase 3.” A better title would be Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (September to November 2022), using a terminology that’s widely used, intrinsically meaningful, familiar to all, and easily adjusted if necessary. —Michael Z. 14:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)".

Those are Michael's own words in his opposition to previously clearing up the 'Phase 4' references in the related timelines. The current bottleneck in the Russian invasion appears to be the siege of Bahkmut which seems on the verge of collapse, after which the Phase 4 transition in the article will likely take place without anyone against it at present. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

About your lead text. Your text talks about mid-March, but sources used are from 4th of March. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, you added text "On 7 February, 2023 the Russians had mobilized nearly 200,000 newly mobilized soldiers to participate in a renewed offensive towards Bahkmut.", but your source is from Feb 6th. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The convention of newspapers in general is to report facts from the previous day in comparison to the date on the front page. In this case I'm finding that the article from Feb 7th is documented as Feb 7th. Is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, your reference doesnt have a link to a source. Please provide a correct link so we could get to the matter. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Its from the New York Times here on page one: [5]. You do know that you can use your search engine on Google or Yahoo to pull up most articles, like those in the New York Times. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, regarding your "On 7 February, 2023 the Russians had mobilized nearly 200,000 newly mobilized soldiers to participate in a renewed offensive towards Bahkmut." Russians did mobilized 200000 but not on Feb 7th. And, they did mobilized, but not for "a renewed offensive towards Bahkmut" only, as your sentence says, but for other areas as well. Manyareasexpert (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If you feel the wording can be enhanced and that you have a superior version of the wording, then you can put in an edit change request as a separate thread on this Talk page in the format of change text X to text Y, and another editor will evaluate it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands

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.

---

At this point, I think we are allowed to say that the war has caused, "HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of deaths", not, "tens of thousands" as the article says. Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it, source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's been over 150 thousand deaths on the Russian side, so taking into account the Ukrainian millitary + civillian losses it's easily 200-300 thousans Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Has there, Source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

TNYT states 200K for Russians here: [6]. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"The number of Russian troops killed and wounded in Ukraine is approaching 200,000, ", not killed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Person who started this thread is not responding, though it might be worth making a review of the Casualties and Deaths table in the article. I'm thinking that it could be improved since some of the references are quite old, and some of the estimates used conflict by over a factor of ten; that's not so good. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. @ErnestKrause Starship 24 (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry, I was busy.

I know did not provide the source, BUT every single piece of information you can obtain suggests the death count is in ghe hundreds of thousands. Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This might be a matter of internal consistency. Our well-sourced casualties tables indicate ~45,000 confirmed deaths, and up to ~240,000 estimated deaths (deaths only) using the higher death estimates. If we're going by confirmed loss of life, then we retain tens of thousands, else if we go by speculative loss of life, then it'd be hundreds of thousands. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed is a pretty dumb figure in the middle of a war @Mr rnddude Starship 24 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed deaths simply refers to the loss of life that has been accounted for. That figure updates itself as more bodies are recovered and identified. It'd be strange not to have such a figure, as it'd mean that no bodies have been recovered. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you truly think that recovering bodies is the priority in a war. No. Most bodies probably aren't recovered @Mr rnddude Starship 24 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't address the point and is an inane response. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The point being that the confirmed casualties will always be far lower than the true casualties @Mr rnddude Starship 24 (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia which deals in confirmed facts rather than speculation. If the preponderance of reliable sources says tens of thousands then we say tens of thousands. If it says hundreds of thousands then we say hundreds of thousands. This is not a propaganda outfit either for Putin's croneys or Zelenskyy's. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

To put an objective perspective on this, we should consider order of magnitude. Anything between 3.16 x 10^x and 31.6 x 10^x is of the same order of magnitude. Hence, anything between 30,000 and 300,000 (noting significant figures) would be reported as tens of thousands. Furthermore, if we state in a Wikivoice that the war has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, then we are representing a fact. If we rely on the aglomeration of the tabulated sources to make a statement in a Wikivoice (even as an estimate), then we are sailing right into WP:OR. The table reports figures from belligerents that are inherently unreliable. This is OK when the source is attributed but it is not OK when stated without attribution. Because of the nuance of sourcing, arriving at some sort of total using such figures is not an exception under WP:CALC. From what I can see, total deaths (not "killed + wounded") when based on somewhat independent assessments are about 150,000 and not yet in the hundreds of thousand as an order of magnitude - even if we use Mr rnddude's 240,000. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

300,000 is not tens of thousands. It isn't Orginial research as these are published by various governments. Nearly every estimate is in the hundreds of thousands, so not WP:CALC either. @Cinderella157 Starship 24 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I know you didn't mean "hundredths of thousands" have died, so I have corrected it. If figures of killed are >300,000 (or even >200,000), published in good quality sources (preferably based on independent assessments), then it is simply a case of introducing these into the body of the article and then amending the lead so that it reflects the body of the article. Steven, at the very start, ask for a source and none have been provided that actually give a figure to support this. The assertion is unsubstantiated. And 300,000 is tens of thousands - 30 of them to be precise. But what I actually said was that 300,000 is the objective threshold where we would change the reporting by an order of magnitude to hundreds of thousands ie tens of thousands (10⁴) as a plural broad description covers the range 10^4.5 to 10^5.5 (30,000 to 300,000). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Isnt after 100000 hundreds of thousands. @Cinderella157 Starship 24 (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The real question is, where are these sources published by various governments that [n]early every estimate is in the hundreds of thousands? But no. It is a simple concept that to have hundreds of thousands, you need at least two of the buggers (100,000 + 100,000 not 100,000 + 1) for it to be plural. And saying that does not negate the objective basis for when we change from one order of magnitude to the next higher. Cinderella157 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

11 is in the tens, 100001 is in the hundreths of thousands @Cinderella157 Starship 24 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Reuters daily updates to these statistics seems to be the reliable source for these statistics. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, WP:Verifiability from a WP:RS. Not WP:Truth. We will never get the exact numbers right. A stream cannot rise higher than its source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Completly agree @7&6=thirteen Starship 24 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Where it is? Link please?? Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Manyareasexpert: These are the statistics from Reuters which are updated daily:

Estimated losses

From Reuters · Updated daily (Jan. 25, 2023)

Deaths

At least 42,295 people

Non-fatal injuries

At least 54,132 people

Missing

At least 15,000 people

Displaced

Approximately 14M people

Buildings destroyed

At least 140,000

Property damage

Approximately $350B

Are these numbers consistent or inconsistent with Wikipedia's version of the numbers for Jan 25 for example? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Cannot find it. Link please? Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

When using Google, I type in the keywords "Russia Ukraine Invasion" and the search result screen gives me a Google Infobox on the right side of the screen with the Reuters casualty information updated daily. Depending on which browser you use, then you can try to duplicate this type of search. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but this wasn't helpful. Can you pst an actual link? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the screen capture from the Google Infobox from today, in addition to the one I previously provided above from Reuters:

From Reuters (Mar 23, 2023) · Updated 21 hours ago

Deaths

At least 42,295 people

Non-fatal injuries

At least 58,479 people

Missing

At least 15,000 people

Displaced

Approximately 14M people

Buildings destroyed

At least 140,000

Property damage

Approximately $411B

Comment. It is not possible to get a page link to the Google Infobox, which just comes up automatically based on how their search engine works. The Google Infobox that comes up on my screen does state that their data comes from Reuters. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Google Infobox is not a good source even if it says "From Reuters". Many others are not having this infobox. Without link, there is nothing to discuss. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Reuters is not the best @ErnestKrause@Manyareasexpert Starship 24 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the closest thing to a source that has been presented in the past week of this discussion. If it is from Reuters, that's an RS and it won't be disputed by an editor, only by other RS. There won't be any change made without RS being presented to support it. At this point, this discussion can be closed as inactionable. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I still could not get a link unfortunately. Can u? Manyareasexpert (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a reason I used the qualifier if. I am no more able to verify the original source than anyone else. I was able to verify that the figures aren't being fabricated here, because they are repeated elsewhere with attribution to Reuters (e.g. this Jerusalem Post article). This doesn't suffice to confirm Reuters' as the source; but it also doesn't alter the core issue that no source to support the alteration has been presented and that the request is thus inactionable. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I can see the Google infobox that attributes Routers as the source. Click on "Reuters" in that infobox and it took me here. That link does not link to where the figures can be confirmed as being from Reuters. If Reuters is the source being attributed, then this should be verifiable - ie one should see where this is stated by Reuters. The reality is that Google is the one providing these figure. Google has somehow collated these figures, apparently by using information from Reuters. If we were to cite this information, we should say "Google Inc attributing Reuters". This then raises the question of whether Google is a reliable source? I think not in this case. Consequently, these figures are not reliable/verifiable and should, at best, only be relied on as a guide and not used in an article. Using it as a guide, the deaths are under 100,000.

Editors have asked for sources on several occasions and "Reuters", an agglomeration of the tabulated results in the article or figures that combine "killed and wounded" are what has been provided. Per Mr rnddude, until somebody actually provides verifiable RSs of reasonably quality to support the assertion, this discussion is going nowhere. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the difficulty of linking to the Google Infobox, then the appropriate question would be to ask if the format they are using to present the casualty results offers any lessons for Wikipedia to learn from; would this article's report of casualties be enhanced in any way by using the Google Infobox format which I have screen captured above, which Google is stating they got from Reuters? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you might have missed my point. The provenance of the figures reported by Google is questionable (WP:VER and RS) so the question is moot. And this discussion is still going nowhere without RSs of reasonably quality to the initial assertion. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time I'm hearing that the Google Infobox has questionable reliability; especially since the very often link directly to Wikipedia articles in general. I'm not aware of any RS issue with the Google Infobox; do you plan to list them at the RS review page for questionable reliability? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I scoured the Internet but wasn't able to find the original source from Reuters, but there is no reason to believe Google Search is lying when it attributes the data to Reuters — a highly reliable source. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Reuters is reliable but Google Infobox is not. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, what makes you think that? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

But theres no reason to believe Google is lying when it attributes the data... You do know that google runs on an AI right? Ever seen ChatGPT attribute something to something unrelated. Example, one time asking about wikipedia policies on pagemoving, it used WP:NOTFORUM as a source. What!? @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but it's clear you have no idea how Google Search works. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I know that google shows you sometimes false information and tailors it to what you like @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, not really. Misinformation appears on Google Search, yes, but only in the form of search results that link to unreliable sources. That is not what we are talking about here. Google doesn't generate its own content, all cards that appear at the top of the page are sourced from and clearly attributed to reliable sources. For example, the dictionary definitions come from Oxford, the info on Knowledge Graphs comes from Wikipedia, election stats come from AP, and it appears Russian invasion casualty numbers come from Reuters. It is highly doubtful Google will make up data and claim they got it from Reuters — that could get them sued. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In an age of infinite information, making up data is useless. Simply find the 1 out of 1000 that says what you like @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I complelty agree with @Cinderella157 that is a big part of what I have been saying this entire time Starship 24 (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion has diverged and is now totally off-topic. There is also a discussion fork so that the discussion is split over two sections. The other discussion has also diverged and is now totally off-topic. My intention is to close both discussions as unresolved/no consensus. This is not a case of shutting down further discussion but focusing any further discussion. I would suggest that there is an emerging consensus that the Google infobox is not a RS. To the proposal to use the Google infobox format, it is unclear: how this format would be presented (tabulated or prose); where this would be presented in the article; and, what data it would rely on. If these discussions were to be continued as a single new thread, I would suggest an OP should address these issues (ErnestKrause). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I see no reason to close a discussion when comments are still being added. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Because the comments are unrelated to the subject at this point @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's not a reason to close a discussion. It is fairly common for discussions on Wikipedia to veer off-topic, sometimes more dramatically than others, and if that happens editors are welcome to start a new subsection asking editors to circle back to the original topic. Unnecessarily closing discussions inhibits the consensus-building process. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. HappyWith (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just looked at the most recent archive, and it looks like a lot of discussions were closed by you and Ernest. Kindly refrain from doing so, most discussions on Wikipedia should not and do not need to be closed like this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Discussions going off topic should have a new discussion made about that topic. If nothing else needs to be said about the original topic, then it can be closed @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. This discussion and the associated one have no constructive purpose and are inactionable. They ought be closed and archived. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Off-topic is not a reason to close a discussion. I have never seen a Wikipedia talk page with so many closed discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't raise off-topic, but see WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. The usual response is to just hat the discussion. I don't care if a hatting or a closing is done. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Off topic isnt a reason to close a discussion? If this started being about space exploration, this should be closed @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus, HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, Starship 24, Mr rnddude and ErnestKrause, the main reason to close these two section is because the discussion is being conducted across two different sections. The close does not prejudice the discussion being reopened at one new section. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I said if it goes off topic there should be a new section. this should be kept for discussion of the original problem. if no longer necessary, then i agree this should be closed @Cinderella157 Starship 24 (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2023 (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.

How accurate are the estimates?

Are the estimates (particularly regarding Russian losses) remotely close to the actual number lost given the circumstances? In particular, how much does Russia's given military corruption, poor record-keeping, and intentional disinformation campaigns affect these estimates' accuracy in these cases? Do we even have a way to know? Nice argument (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No we have no way of knowing, hence why we state they are estimates, not facts. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Estimate 105.28x98.57. You'll something like 10,000. Now how accurate is that estimate (you can't have any math done). There is no way to know. @Nice argument @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm mostly asking because in this case it's completely possible the estimates aren't remotely close, as in more than 1/3rd off the actual number. Steven is right though, that's why they're listed as estimates. Nice argument (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The actual number? What is that exactly? If we knew that we wouldn't have estimates @Nice argument Starship 24 (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm more thinking about how heavily disinformation may have affected these estimates. However, as Steven points out, we don't have a way to know, and therefore there's nothing to be done about it. Nice argument (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Russia or Ukraine estimates are baised. Say Norway's aren't @Nice argument Starship 24 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I never said they're biased. I said they're inaccurate. Bias does affect accuracy but I'm not really taking that into account as much as intentional disinformation and poor record keeping. Nice argument (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You say heavy disinformation (caused mostly by bais). Intentional disinformation is unlikely to be somethign done by a neutral nation. Poor record keeping is unavoidable, but genrally lowers the estimate from the true value, not the other way around. @Nice argument Starship 24 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Heavy disinformation (not caused mostly by bias; more caused by intentional obfuscation of records and coverups of deaths especially by Russia) compounded on poor record keeping also affects the estimates made by other nations. That, and I never said the actual count was lower from the estimate, it's probably higher. Nice argument (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

neutral nations have zero incetnive to spread disinformation and will look at facts, not at what russia says. poor record keeping makes all counts too low @Nice argument Starship 24 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I am still unsure what we can do about this, can someone please explain what they want done? Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd close the discussion myself if I knew how, frankly it isn't leading anywhere and there's probably nothing that's gonna come out of it. Nice argument (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

We want to chance the statement saying tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands since it obviously at least that high @Nice argument @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Everything in the claimed table @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What "claimed table"? Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Are the statistics consistent with the Reuters numbers, which are published daily, or are they not consistent with Reuters? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Reutuers is not the be all end all @ErnestKrause Starship 24 (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

At #Hundreds of thousands, it was stated, ... these are published by various governments. Nearly every estimate is in the hundreths of thousands ... This was specifically in response to the assertion that we should not be relying on an aglomeration of the tabulated sources from the article. The question is simply asking for the sources claimed to support this - specifically. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Reuters is trying to do daily updates to these statistics and they have been doing fairly well so far; their numbers appear to be consistent and fairly accurate, unlike other sites which seems to vary even by a factor of ten on the statistics. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Reuturs disagrees with nearly everyone and is a private company so cant know everythign@ErnestKrause Starship 24 (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

See the Reuters statistics printed in the section above and see if the numbers are consistent or inconsistent with Wikipedia's version of the statistics. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, Reuters isn't the be all end all @ErnestKrause Starship 24 (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

What about the format being used in the Google Infobox which I've presented in the other thread on this Talk page for the casualty statistics? Can the article here benefit from using Google's Infobox format for presenting the casualities, even if Wikipedia can improve on them and refine them? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia purpose is not to get the "best" estimate, it is to display the most accepted ones. @ErnestKrause Starship 24 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It was a format question only which I asked. Is the format which Google Infobox uses for Invasion casualties at all useful to learn from; can the Wikipedia table used in the main invasion article here be improved by looking at the Google Infobox version which I've presented in the other thread on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think not. First, they only show one estimate. Second, much of the information is less about casualties (Property damage) @ErnestKrause Starship 24 (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion has diverged and is now totally off-topic. There is also a discussion fork so that the discussion is split over two sections. The other discussion has also diverged and is now totally off-topic. My intention is to close both discussions as unresolved/no consensus. This is not a case of shutting down further discussion but focusing any further discussion. I would suggest that there is an emerging consensus that the Google infobox is not a RS. To the proposal to use the Google infobox format, it is unclear: how this format would be presented (tabulated or prose); where this would be presented in the article; and, what data it would rely on. If these discussions were to be continued as a single new thread, I would suggest an OP should address these issues (ErnestKrause). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment This is the first I'm hearing that you feel that Google Infoboxes are unreliable, and this should be brought up on the RS Noticeboard if you are serious about it. Currently, Google is a grant supporter of Wikipedia and over half of their Infoboxes often include links directed straight to Wikipedia articles. Your calling Google Infoboxes unreliable seems inconsistent with their citation refering to Reuters for the casualty numbers, and Google's multiple redirects to Wikipedia articles in general. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not all google infoboxes are useful for wikipedias purposes @ErnestKrause Starship 24 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, forgive me for being pedantic, but I keep seeing the word "infobox" being thrown around. We've got to stop calling it an infobox, "infobox" is a Wikipedia/Wikimedia-specific term. Call it a card, a box, whatever, just not infobox. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment; If someone or anyone in this thread is stating that they feel that Google is providing bad information, or that their Reuters attribution from Google is unreliable, then report it the Wikipedia Noticeboard for RS. This is the first time I'm hearing that anyone at Wikipedia feels that Google is providing questionable data. As for the facts of the matter discussing death casualties, then Google is using Reuters to state that the numbers are well under 100,000, which is why these related thread were started here. As a matter of Google's providing data via Reuters, the actual casualty numbers are still under less that half of 100,000. I've already quoted these numbers by screen capture twice in the threads on this Talk page from both January and March of this year. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  If it's been impossible to find any sources that espouse this specific statistic other than Google's automatically generated infobox, I'd say that's a sign for it not being a trustworthy statistic. HappyWith (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Again Reuters is not the be all end all. They actaujly probably less reliable than say Norway. Ever heard of uncoverage bias. Google shows one estimate and declares it unanimous fact. Reuters isnt even notable enough to be in our table @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith @ErnestKrause Starship 24 (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Did you just suggest Reuters — one of the most respected and highly reliable sources in the world — is not a reliable source?? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just that a government which devotes far more energy and has far more access is more reliable. I am also suggesting thatt wikipedia shouldnt say when there are tons of varied claims to base there statement of reuters @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Present a source. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I need no source to say that one company doesnt have all the data @Mr rnddude Starship 24 (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the Wikipedia RS Noticeboard is against both of you concerning the reliability of Reuters; it currently has a "green" light status with no yellow flag or red flag restrictions. Reuters is a reliable source according the the Wikipedia RS Noticeboard. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Listen, Starship, the notion that Reuters is unreliable is just plain wrong and against the consensus of the Wikipedia community. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I didnt say unreliable, i said "Not the be all end all" @ErnestKrause@InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

'The be all and end all' expression, I think, has been exhausted in its value here. Nexus is trying to tell you that Reuters is listed by Wikipedia as a reliable source. I need to support Nexus on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

(this space intentionally left black)

This Talk page is being bombarded by edit requests for adding Nato and Ukraine info and banners. I'm going to suggest re-examining the Wikipedia policy on the Infobox belligerent section, and whether or not this space can be used to indicate that Ukraine is not in the NATO military alliance. At present the Belligerent section of the Infobox under Ukraine says nothing and is "this space is intentionally left blank". It can be put to good use by adding a short comment that NATO is not in a military alliance with Ukraine in parenthesis, or something like that. Otherwise, this Talk page appears to be under a daily bombardment of edit requests to add more about Ukraine and NATO. Comments of support/oppose from other editors if possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Or we can just say "see FAQ" or ask for PP. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

What is FAQ ? Stephan rostie (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

/FAQ. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The FAQ has not worked that well; as you can see in the thread directly above this one which has been marked as closed about NATO. Also, your comment about PP does not seem to help since the main page is already extended confirmed protected. Could better use be made of "(this space deliberately left blank)"? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't think that will work all that well. The questions will then be: "Why is it intentionally blank? Shouldn't we add NATO there?" Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you prefer that the empty space under belligerents in the Infobox remain as blank, or to include a short message like "(Ukraine does not have a military alliance with NATO)"? My feeling is that leaving it blank accomplishes nothing useful, whereas adding that short comment about NATO could at least help to try to address the bombardment of NATO edit requests which keep being made on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What I am saying is, adding "this space intentionally left black" or "Ukraine does not have a military alliance with NATO" is not likely to be an effective remedy. The remedy is to deprecate the use of "supported by" and there is an RfC at the template talk page to do just that. It isn't an actual template parameter. Its usage is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the template. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. And I don't think I'm having deja vu… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

We discussed this in the past. You run into the same problem and besides it's clunky. We have notes. Or just say Supplied by: see list. Still best solution IMO RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The main issue still remains to inform readers of the situation with NATO in the lede and Infobox as well as can be done. The main part of the article already does this, but the lede and Infobox still come short of giving a simple introductory view of NATO's relevance. The writing of a better lede section which incorporates at least some mention of NATO might help if someone feels up to doing it. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Ukranian army using civilians as “human shields”

I wonder why something like that is not included anywhere in the article, many sources stated that The ukranian army is using human shields and launching attacks from civilian areas and infrastructure, here are some sources:

• UN report from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): “ The placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields by both parties to the conflict – as documented in the case of a care house in Stara Krasnianka (Luhansk region) for instance – also raise concerns. “
• The head of Amnesty International’s Ukraine chapter has resigned, saying the human rights organization shot down her opposition to publishing a report that claimed Ukrainian forces had exposed civilians to Russian attacks by basing themselves in populated areas. . “ Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February”, Amnesty International said.
• At UN, Lavrov accuses Ukraine’s armed forces of using “civilians as human shields”
• A new UN report has found that Ukraine's armed forces bear a large share of the blame for an attack on a nursing home that left vulnerable residents trapped in the firing line, The report by the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said the battle at the nursing home was emblematic of its concerns over the potential use of "human shields" to prevent military operations in certain areas.

I wonder why are these allegations never mentioned in the article ?

Stephan rostie (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You could propose a formal WP:EDITREQUEST with the exact wording/sentence you wish to add to request it be added to the article (or one of the invasion's many subarticles). There's no need to "wonder why" the allegations aren't mentioned; that could also be taken as an allegation of biased editing. DecafPotato (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Lol I didn’t even know that this was possible. Stephan rostie (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Lavrov lies blatantly. The Amnesty report was widely criticized, including by Amnesty itself, and has been discussed before (anyone remember where?): but look at Amnesty’s reports on Ukraine and you’ll see that 99% of their reports are on Russian war crimes. Two of the points above refer to exactly one incident with an article: the Stara Krasnianka care house attack.  —Michael Z. 07:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There are enough reliable sources to include the “human shields” allegations in the article, it’s an allegation from reputable international organizations (UN, OHCHR) (such sources overweight western media and officials), UN member sovereign states (Russia), and independent Press and journalism (amnesty), that seems to be more than enough for the allegations to be included in the article. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I hate to say it but I have to agree, the accusation is out there. We just need to have it contextualised. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

OMG I can’t believe my eyes. Are you the real Slatersteven or someone hacked your account ? Haha. Anyway thanks for taking neutral stances !. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Stephan rostie Your entire account is pro-China and pro-Russia edits, let's not talk about neutrality. TylerBurden (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No not true, i just try to neutralize the obvious anti-china and anti-non-western bias. That’s all, I don’t recall that i once called to give a Chinese article anything special or biased, for example, it’s Taiwan’s article that have special status among all other unrecognized states by the international community with omission of it’s lack of international recognition from the lead, it’s the one that have special status, not once i called to grant any thing special for china, i just call for neutrality regarding things that the western media and governments support (which is a minority in the international community) and not grant it a special status because of that, that’s all, you can’t call me biased because you want me to be anti-china and pro-western. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

In our effort to neutralize, we should still stick to reliable sources. You can use Israeli reliable media, for example. Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Lavrov also said at the UN that Ukraine was using mosquitos and birds to infect ethnic Russians. Which deserves mention only for the absurdity of the claim if anything. Recently Russia bombed a church in Odesa and excused themselves by stating Ukraine had put military hardware or something. We also have petty shit like Russian state media celebrating the strike at Kramatorsk and denying it as soon as it was found out there were civilian casualties [7] or claiming 600 Ukrainian soldiers were killed in a single strike right after Ukraine did the same to Russia in a place that journalists later visited to find not even evidence of military presence there [8]. Russia is a pretty low quality source. It doesn't matter that it is a UN member sovereign state. Additions regarding this in the article should exclude their word because it has no value. Super Ψ Dro 14:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Lavrov also said at the UN that Ukraine was using mosquitos and birds to infect ethnic Russians.. Source ?

  for the rest of your reply, the same apply on ukraine and ukraine’s officials statements and reports as well, so should we remove anything that is solely based on ukranian officials claims from the article ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  If they start talking about mad militarized nazi gooses then we should. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  In the interests of complete accuracy and fact checking, it appears that it was Vasily Nebenzya, RF permanent ambassador to UN, who said it, not Lavrov. It does say something about the UN as a body and as a venue that such farcical statements can even be made unironically there (even if there are boos and walkouts and stuff). Can you imagine Fascist Italy unironically saying such things about the Ethiopians at the League of Nations? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: You can stop wondering why its not in the article and read WP:FALSEBALANCE, and you'll have to come up with much better sources, rather than dsistorting the ones above to twist into a narrative to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS.  // Timothy :: talk  14:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is the key point here. The Russian army has done so much more, and so much worse than these selected incidents involving the UKR army in the very early days of the war. These could be mentioned briefly in the "War crimes" subsection, since they really did happen, but to give them equal prominence in the lead as if they're equally important as, say, the Mariupol theatre airstrike, would be heavily misleading per WP:FALSEBALANCE. HappyWith (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Much better sources than UN and OHCHR ?,do you mean something like BBC or US officials ?

Perhaps a better source than the ones already provided would be a statement from god himself.Stephan rostie (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You're twisting sources to fit your narrative. A people forced into fighting to defend their homes and towns from a brutal aggressor is entirely different from a brutal aggressor invading and intentionally attacking homes and towns. If Poland fought to defend Warsaw, civilians would be caught in the middle, but claiming "both sides" were using human shields would be beyond credibility, as is the claim that Ukrainians are using civilians as shields as they try and defend their homes and towns.  // Timothy :: talk  14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your personal opinion. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

On examination, it does seem that the OP has a history of problematic and contentious talk page stuff, including ad hominems and whatnot.

But just because pro-Russia flamers (good-ish faith, but biased and tiresome) and trolls (bad faith) are in the information space does not justify bringing pathos-laden arguments into discussions such as this.

This is an encyclopedia with pretentions of being NPOV, not a mere news source such as Reuters.

The less we bring WP:WORLDVIEW into our editing, the less time we have to waste writing detailed replies to the kinds of threads people like to start here.

I would prefer to dismiss this whole thread anyway on procedural grounds, but there is in fact a subtler issue here that should be recognized.

Just because of the demonstrably and pretty obviously… wrong things being done by the Russians and their supporters in the information space, we must never anoint ourselves with the incantation "Gott mit uns" — this tends to have… unintended consequences over time, as the past thirty years have shown.

And I'd personally argue that this attitude is part of why large sections of the Global South and others support or tolerate the behavior of the West's adversaries. Did you see all the abstentions when the UN condemned Russia's aggression? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This is obviously very contentious. Probably more so than the eternally and perennially damned infobox wars.

In principle, I agree that a brief mention is warranted. Care should be taken to ensure that coverage is in an appropriate proportion (i.e. summary) to fairly egregious incidents like Bucha and Izyum, however.

I am not sure that this would get consensus. This is precisely the sort of case where we often have serious and subtle problems due to WP:WORLDVIEW, the ongoing nature of events, and the fact that the population of the Atlantic West identifies with Ukraine as "our team" rather than "fellow humans and victims of aggression and likely war crimes" — a subtle difference but one that matters, and affects coverage.

I haven't really read the whole article on RU WP, but from the glimpses, it may well be better at this than us. If so, that would be due to a more diverse editor group (second-gen speakers in West Hollywood, California, college students in Bishkek, Estonian moms, Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian teenagers, you get the point) and likely the linguistic nature of Russian compared to English.

The same facts can easily, and usually unintentionally, be made to seem POV to any side by a few small changes in presentation. No one but God (if you believe he exists) can possibly be 100.00% NPOV.

I would personally recommend finding as many RS as possible and then adding it to War crimes during the Russian invasion of Ukraine instead of the main article.

Human shields are one of the most time-honored and grayest (difficult to identify, call out, and enforce) infractions of the laws of war. Nobody really cares. Maybe they should, but that's irrelevant.

Right now most of us are in the general direction of this.

To be clear, that was World War ONE.

Plus ça change…

Due to more caffeine than I've had in many months, I'm starting to dive down a rabbit hole of larger questions outside the scope of this topic. That said, I don't see a way to handle this without a certain amount of contention. Ultimately it's a process that's sometimes necessary to reach a workable product, but I'd rather not. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit: How do I put an image in a talk message? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Try adding "|thumb" inside the link, I think that'll fix the formatting? HappyWith (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There are legitimate allegations of war crimes that have been made against both sides. Extended detail of this belongs at War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While allegations of crimes are predominantly against Russia, this article should not suggest that Ukraine is squeaky clean. NPOV is about proportionate weight. The body of the article here should reflect that. While this article does not presently have a war crimes section, there are plenty of mentions of war crimes allegedly committed by Russia but none for Ukraine. We should remedy this. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not our place to "black-wash" Russia. Russia is doing a pretty good job without our help. There is no need to guild the Lilly. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Remarkable poster image; are you suggesting that there are analogies between WWI and the current Russian invasion of Ukraine? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Your indenting indicates a question to me but I didn't post the image. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There seem to be NPOV issues indeed. Mariupol theatre airstrike and Izium mass graves seem to be completely missing. Mass abduction of children only vaguely mentioned. Bucha being whitewashed with extremely euphemistic Ukraine said it had recaptured the entire region around Kyiv, including Irpin, Bucha, and Hostomel, and uncovered evidence of war crimes in Bucha. Meanwhile unconfirmed Russian claims about 14 staff and patients killed in Novoaidar hospital are being reported as a fact in wikivoice. Also, regarding the human shields, the topic has been repeatedly discussed at the war crimes article, and one shouldn't confuse general endangerment of civilians by placement of military objectives, with an actual intentional use of civilians as "human shields" to deter enemy attack. The few cases of latter being reported by RS have been done by Russian Army.--Staberinde (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. HappyWith (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Mariupol is without question in this main article in the Invasion sections; also the other humanitarian infractions are covered in the sibling articles which have been forked from the main article. The issues have been covered extensively in the sibling articles if you look at them. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Ignorance of the FAQ

Honestly, I feel that from this point forward, if a question asked here is in the FAQ then it should just be removed with a note to read the FAQ. We made the FAQ for a reason so we shouldn't continue answering people's questions that are in said FAQ. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That is what I will be doing from now on, enough with AGF. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what does AGF have to do here. It is permanently necessary in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Assuming they have something new to add, that needs engagement, which they never do. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This is more perhaps a matter of Wikipedia:Competence is required - and in part that takes a small amount of time to familiarise themselves with the "back ground" to the article. Reading the FAQs is part of this. I know it is frustrating. We need a big banner with letters ten-feet-tall, with bells, whistles, sirens and flashing neon lights that says "Read the FAQs before you post here". Perhaps an editor new to the TP should premise their new post with "I have read the banners/FAQs". Then we would need an FAQ: "Why was my post deleted". WP:GS/RUSUKR already states: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments ... Perhaps we need to go back to ANI and seek refinement or clarification of WP:GS/RUSUKR to address the issue. Acting unilaterally might be seen as contentious. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the FAQ works that well since this Talk page is still being bombarded with NATO requests; see my thread above on using the space on the main page Infobox under belligerents which is currently seen as "(this space deliberately left blank)". ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel like another part of the issue might be that there are 6 notices on this talk page relating to relating to discussions. Yes the FAQ might be the second to the top however the other notices might get people to be like "Ok I get it this topic is controversial" and ignore the rest of them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, we need 48 point bold sans serif. I missed it the first time (partly due to a redshift filter on my laptop). Not joking rpt not joking RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have transcluded the FAQ onto the editnotice for both the article and its talk page. I hope this will help. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I've also updated the third question in the FAQ to specifically include NATO. Hopefully that will help as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Spelling

please change the spelling of "mobilized" to "mobilised" because the article is in British English 2A02:AA1:102D:CD2B:F615:CA3E:F156:2CA2 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

infobox as well please! Thanks 89.233.213.163 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Missed that but  Done now. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Too many moves

Regardless of the "best title" this page is being moved to often and being very confusing for everyone involved, myself included. Can we do something about this? Starship 24 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There was no consensus above for a moratorium on move requests. That said, I don't expect there to be further RMs in the near future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Moratorium I disagree with but a higher threshold to move is what im saying @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

A higher threshold can backfire by inhibiting the community from settling upon a stable optimal title. That said, in this case, as closer of the recent RM, I think support exceeded even high thresholds and has found a stable title. It’s unfortunate that sufficient numbers didn’t see it when it was first proposed, but that’s water under the bridge now. —В²C ☎ 05:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Everyone thinks of way to improve Wikipedia. Cwater1 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Born2cycle: I've just noticed that there was a sub-RfC attached to the main RfC which you just closed which asked for a moratorium on the name change requests. After reading them twice, then I am seeing some consensus on a short moratorium of 2-3 months, if I combine all the supports requesting a 1-year moratorium and a 6-month moratorium as combined with the 2-3 moratorium requests. It seems like it might make sense to close the sub-RfC to the main one you just closed as including a 2 month moratorium on further name changes. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErnestKrause (talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those are RfCs, and Born2cycle already determined that there was no consensus was closing that discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Too many moves cause a lot of redirects. I was fixing the links in some of the articles to reduce redirects when clicking the link. Cwater1 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on my rather extensive experience with WP titles, I believe the current title is stable for the foreseeable future because there is no plausible policy-based reasoning to change it. There should be no need for a moratorium. If I’m wrong and there is a policy-based reason to change, then that should be allowed. That’s how we achieve naturally stable titles. Not with artificial moratoriums. —-В²C ☎ 23:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong/harmful with redirects, except in navboxes and double redirects (which I and others have already fixed). Of course we're free to update them, but that's not a pressing matter. Those with access to AWB can also mass-update said links with a click of a button, if they wish to do so, so not a hassle by any means. InfiniteNexus (talk)

The two successive page moves have been very damaging to the daily page counts which this article is receiving. It was about 50K per day under the original title, which was literally cut in half when the first name change took place. After the second name change took place (to the current title), then the daily page count went down to under 20K total per day. That's a drastic count in readership which has not recovered for over a week since the first name change. The name changes do not look like they have been helping readers find this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That plainly doesn’t make sense on its face. Why would moving the page ever decrease readership? The old names still redirect here. I think the view count is just being split in between the redirects and the new names, which isn’t a problem at all. HappyWith (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

A loss of over half of the readers of this article due to the name changes, is clearly an issue. This has had a negative impact of the number of readers who are gaining access to this article. You can view the daily page counts for this article yourself, which has gone below 20K readers per day. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying - please read my comment again, more carefully. I am saying that there is not an actual decrease. HappyWith (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Try clicking include redirects @ErnestKrause Starship 24 (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

When factoring redirects, the numbers don't back this claim up. Pageviews before the first move, pageviews after the first move, pageviews after the second move. There was only a decrease of about 9,000 per day, which is not necessarily because of the move. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the second time you've repeated the same evidence-less claim. The article was still receiving ~50 thousand views after the first name change taking into account views via redirect. The second name change took place when the article was receiving ~40 thousand views per day and it retained that viewership.1 This is not unusual for the article which cycles between ~40 thousand and ~60 thousand views, probably resulting from news cycles (see the spike on 2023/2/24 for an obvious example). There has only been any real reduction in the past 2 days, and the cause for that is unlikely to be the moves. The redirect views search explicitly says that [s]ome data is not yet available for the dates: 3/25/2023 · 3/26/20232 which may account for at least part of that loss. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've redone the computations using the optional tabs on the Wikitools page for the Page counts, and the numbers do come closer to where they should be. Just looking at the bare page counts, however, is decpetive and does not present a reliable account of this matter. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Before saying something, please do your homework @ErnestKrause. The bare page counts have there own uses. Starship 24 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

My statement is very plain; after the page moves and taking into account the redirects, that the page has lost about ten percent of its readers as assessed on the page counts done by Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Your statement is false, however. Please read what everyone has been telling you. You even admitted that you were wrong earlier. @ErnestKrause Starship 24 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The statement in true. The numbers before the rename were somewhere between 49K and 50K on daily page views. The numbers now, adding in the redirects which requires an extra step, is at about 42K-43K daily page views. That a significant drop of a bit over 10%. I'm not really following your random snipes here, and do you have a point to make? You also appear to be sniping at InfiniteNexus as well about Reuters elsewhere on this Talk page? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Phase terminology in this article

Is there any actual reason why we need "Phase x" in each subheader in the article? There are dates and names for each of them already there. Couldn't we change "Second phase: South-Eastern front (8 April – 5 September)" to "South-Eastern front (8 April – 5 September)", etc? HappyWith (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Currently being discussed in one of the threads above this one? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There’s not really anything relating to my specific question, no. HappyWith (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There is an on-going discussion and critique within Wikipedia regarding which reliable source to use in the various Timeline articles which document this invasion, currently in the phase x to phase (x+1) notation; have you reviewed these. Most attention, though without consensus as yet, has gone to the NYRB article from January which discussed the invasion as having four chapters; have you read these Wikipedia discussions? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my position is that they’re original research and should be removed. My question in this discussion is, why do we need the ordinal numerals in this article? Wouldn’t it resolve a lot of the conflicts if we just grouped events by the descriptions and dates, and threw out the contentious ordinals? HappyWith (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The terminology originated in the international press when Russia retreated from Kyiv and the international press started widely using the terminology of the Second Phase as having started. This was accepted by virtually all nations in the international press as the start of the Second Phase of the Russian invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s true that they all called it the second stage, phase, etc, but I’m not convinced that the terminology has been consistently used for the subsequent stages of the war. My question is, why do we need to use the terminology on this page as the names of subsections? If we got rid of the numbers, it would make it much easier to create a subsection for the “fourth stage” with the stalemate and Bakhmut front, since we wouldn’t need to argue endlessly over whether it was the “fourth phase” or not - we could just call it “Second stalemate and Bakhmut push” with the date range in parentheses. HappyWith (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2023

Russia is putting in a vast effort to fully subdue Bahkmut at this time, it is difficult to see them backing off on this issue. It seems to be reaching a "Mariupol" level of attention from the Russian invasion force. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's true, though I don't see how it relates to what I was asking. HappyWith (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

While sources did refer to a "new phase" for the retreat from Kyiv, we have adopted this terminology when it is not otherwise supported by good quality sources for other sections that follow. The use of "Phase x" implies authority in naming, which isn't the case - it is largely arbitrary and constructed by our editors. I agree with HappyWith, that we should name sections descriptively or by date. We should avoid implying definitive divisions. Wiki follows; it does not lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep. No one has given reasons to keep the numbers in this page, so I'm going to remove them now as best as I can. HappyWith (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The international press has made dozens upon dozens of references to the 'second phase' of the invasion after the Russian retreat from Kyiv; there is no getting around that. Regarding the "Phase 4" discussion, then there is still the issue of the Wikipedia sibling Timeline articles which have incorporated 'Phase 4' into their titles and which are already linked with this main article. You must have seen these items in this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You are only justifying labeling phase 1 and 2 here. Everything else is original research. HappyWith (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No that's not how consensus was established on this Talk page several months ago, when you were not that active here on this Talk page. At that time, when "Phase two" was being used by vast portions of the international press, it was felt by the prevailing Wikipedia editors here that when the Ukraine counter-offensives took place, that a new section called "Phase 3" was called for in the Invasion article. At the time, and for months after it was named, this seemed to be perfectly reasonable and not criticized since it followed Phase 2, which was predominantly recognized and used throught the international press at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

But what was the reasoning for that? What reliable sources supported this terminology? Just because some editors decided to keep it in at the time doesn’t mean it can’t be challenged now. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, especially when there seems to have been no solid policy justification for the original consensus. HappyWith (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to not want to accept that the international press overwhelmingly adopted the language of the 'Second Phase' of the invasion after Russia retreated from Kyiv. Once you can endorse to me that you understand that this was the standard terminology used in the international press, then your questions might make no sense. It is almost as if you a pretending that the international press did not use the phrase "Second Phase" after the Russian retreat from Kyiv in dozens upon dozens of articles at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I never said that the "second phase" terminology didn't exist. I think I was pretty clear there. HappyWith (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If you fully accept that "second phase" terminology is established then it seems you must also understand how the international press started simultaneously referring to the first phase as coming before the 'second phase'. For example, see the January article on the Russian invasion in NYBR. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure. HappyWith (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Meta: Why no redirect for incorrect capitalizations of “of” and Ukraine?

Or is it just that I'm on the mobile app at the moment? I get a blank talk page inviting me to start a topic. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

to clarify, I mean Talk:Russian invasion Of Ukraine and Talk:Russian invasion of ukraine. I think. They also come up in search suggestions btw RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Russian invasion of ukraine is a redirect and WP links are not case specific for the first letter so russian invasion of ukraine also works. I was going to fix this but it isn't broken (now?). We could make redirects for every permutation of caps including "Russian invasion Of Ukraine" but I think that the search box suggestions are sufficient to deal with these. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI, WP links are case-sensitive. DecafPotato (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Then why {{Lowercase title}} exists? Try [9] vs [10]. Skovl (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not what that template is for. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

DecafPotato (and others), what I actually said was: links are not case specific for the first letter. But yes, they are case specific for every other letter. The two links I referred to give context. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but we are not going to create redirects for every possible miscapitalization and misspelling. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

As an article with millions of views, I think it may be useful. @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the quick search bar is not case sensitive and serves this function. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"PRussian Invasion of Ukraine" is a plasuible misspelling, and the search lead you noweehr near it @Cinderella157 for something with millions of views, this has probably happened to hundreds Starship 24 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

By the time one completes typing PRussian into the quick search toolbar, there are ten entries in the drop-down suggestion box that all say "Prussian" something - all with Prussian in big bold letters! Some degree of competency is required, even by our readers. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"Prussia" is not a plausible misspelling of "Russia", we're talking about two totally different countries that have nothing to do with each other. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

People accidently type p sometimes @InfiniteNexus @Cinderella157 Starship 24 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:RPURPOSE which states: Likely misspellings (for example, Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice). [emphasis added] While mispelling [sic] Russia as PRussia is possible it is far from Likely. The argument does not meet with the P&G. It will not survive the scrutiny of the broader community. Rather than wasting any more time, go ahead and create the redirect from PRussia invasion of Ukraine. Ping me when you do and I will put it up for deletion. Guarentee it will last as long as a snowflake in a heatwave. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

Should we remove this hatnote "List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine" that linking to articles that are related to the topic. Surveyor Mount (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Note: removing the link won't make any difference as Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(disambiguation) redirects to it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Remember that edit requests should be used for clear and agreed-upon suggestions, not to start discussions. I think the hatnote is great here, especially because there is no disambiguation hatnote (!). Maybe we should add the disambiguation hatnote? I'm closing this request until we figure this out :) Actualcpscm (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

More information about NATO in the lead section would be useful

More information about NATO in the lede would be helpful to keep other editors from the constant influx of editor requests about NATO involvement on this Talk page. NATO is mentioned many time in the main part of the article, and seems that more information in the lede would help is curtailing the amount of misinformation which many editors have about NATO and Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Why we say "Many countries imposed sanctions on Russia, and on its ally Belarus, and provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. ", not only is NATO not the only organ supplying aid, not all NATO countries are. So why single NATO out? Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It is Ukraine who feels that this is an issue when they requested NATO membership in 2008. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No. While NATO played a role in the larger geopolitical picture and is now arguably supporting (please please let's not rehash that for another month at least) Ukraine, the sort of assertions you recently inserted were, to say the least, extremely problematic both substantially and procedurally.

This is one of the most contentious pages on the entire encyclopedia. Edits should reflect consensus and so forth, and with hundreds of edits to the main article as well as the talk page, I'm sure you know that already.

Apart from which, with respect, we do not make large changes to an article just to avoid repetitive discussions at the talk page. No one is forcing you to take part in said discussions, after all. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There is still the issue of the large number of requests coming from drive through visitors to this Talk page for NATO information. Adding something about the status of NATO in the lead section might deflect these numerous drive through requests for NATO information. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Or will just cause them to want to peddle more of Putin's propaganda, no we do not make edits in the hope of stopping drive-bys, we ask for talk page protection. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is already at extended confirmed protection; you want to increase protection levels on this Talk page? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No, l am saying that is preferable to appeasing them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Meaning that you wish to continue to engage with each and every request from drive through editors with NATO requests? You seem to have previously expressed some chagrin at all of their numerous comments... ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No see [[11]], I will be deleting them with "see FAQ" in the edit summery. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I remember reading that previously; it sounds kind of summary in its approach. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That is because the FAQ is a summary, they are supposed to have read. What we do not give is give in to wp:badgering by wp:meatpupperty. Nor is this what they ever ask for. They want NATO in the infobox, They will keep on asking for that. I have no mroe to add, so will bow out. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't do that. Please read WP:TALKO for info on why. Just archive and move on. HappyWith (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is not a solution to the problem. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Its not a solution and I'm thinking that some prudent expansion of the lede or Infobox still offers open possibilities to inform readers of the NATO details, and deflect unwanted and unnecessary NATO edit requests on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine mobilization caused by lack of membership in NATO?

The following text is from the article:

As a result of Ukraine not having a military alliance with NATO, Ukrainian president [[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]] enacted [[martial law]] and [[Mobilization in Ukraine|a general mobilisation]] within Ukraine.

There is no citation to a reliable source for this cause-and-effect statement. Indeed, it is plausable that Ukraine would have mobilized in response to the invasion even if Ukraine were a member of NATO. I think the text should not go beyond what is in the cited sources. I am bringing this issue to the Talk page because it was recently removed and then reinstated, and I do not wish to participate in an edit war. John Sauter (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the material again. This is textbook WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. We can't go beyond what the sources say. HappyWith (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The current version of the last sentence of the second paragraph in the lede is very poorly worded and should be improved: "Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy enacted martial law and a general mobilisation." This makes Zelensky look anemic and hapless in the execution of his office. The reason Zelenskyy did not request the help of military allies, which any responsible military leader would normally be expected to do, is because Ukraine has no military alliances. A better version of this sentence might read as: "As a result of Ukraine not having any military alliances, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy enacted martial law and a general mobilisation within Ukraine." Two editors have reverted against this in opposition to my earlier version of adapting this edit to state that Ukraine has no military alliance with NATO. The current version of this sentence which I singled out for comment here is poorly written and should be improved to something resembling the 'corrected' version as I've try to present it here. I'll support any editor who can add it to the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is a plain statement of fact. The rewrite shoves in NATO/military alliance where it neither belongs nor makes sense as a causative agent. It is original research. With or without allies, a nation under assault will be mobilising and enacting or bringing into effect the laws necessary to its defence. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The phrasing you are suggesting is absurd. A country under large-scale attack moves to a war footing regardless of whether it is calling in allies.

Furthermore, the suggestion makes a number of assumptions about international relations, geopolitics, and the specific situation, which are unsupported and could be construed as POV.

Can we drop the subject now? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The causative relationship in the proposal is not supported. Mobilisation is a matter of course response to a significant military act of aggression - regardless of alliances. I think it is starting to snow now. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The causative relationship is not intended there, but only the historical one. It is a historical fact that Ukraine applied for NATO status in 2008 and was rejected. Its already covered in the main part of the article. The second paragraph of the lede would benefit from some mention of it as a historical fact. Otherwise the closing sentence of that paragraph in the lede looks dull and uninformed; as if Zelenskyy felt that Ukraine could do it all alone. If anyone can improve the wording in that second paragrph of the lede to express this historical fact, then I'll support. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"2022" in title of map

Given that the move from "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" to "Russian invasion. . ." was approved, the map of the current military situation in the introduction should reflect this change. RaiBrown1204 (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The current Infobox map and image is dated up to the current date. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think they mean the file name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This can be done, but not really necessary. And given the number of transclusions across so many wikis, this may be complicated to do. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

They may be referring to the legend in the map which retains the title '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine', rather than the file name. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

We could make a request on the Commons talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I have left a message on the file talk at commons to mention the request. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 Nuclear Weapons Deal Between Belarus and Russia

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-belarus-tactical-nuclear-weapons-3aed32661ae3c218c59117d1ce593777

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-security-chief-says-basing-russian-nuclear-weapons-belarus-will-2023-03-26/

Note this is an ongoing allegation under investigation by Ukraine and NATO given that the Nuclear deal in question violates ICC Arrest Warrant on Putin. There are fears of a Nuclear War as of March 2023 according to the AP New Reuters.2601:640:C682:8870:8BCF:AA77:4645:9A52 (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Ukriane as such. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

From the third paragraph of the article: "Russia has said the plan to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus comes in response to the West’s increasing military support for Ukraine." HappyWith (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This definitely has to do with Ukraine. It’s another example of Russian nuclear sabre-rattling to frighten Western politicians into tempering support for Ukraine. The plan predates the 2022 Russian invasion, but Putin’s announcement is timed for its propaganda effect.

Yesterday’s ISW Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment:[12]

Putin advanced another information operation by announcing that Russia will deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus by July 1 and renewed tired information operations about the potential for nuclear escalation. . . .

The announcement of the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus is irrelevant to the risk of escalation to nuclear war, which remains extremely low. Putin is attempting to exploit Western fears of nuclear escalation by deploying tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus. Russia has long fielded nuclear-capable weapons able to strike any target that tactical nuclear weapons based in Belarus could hit. ISW continues to assess that Putin is a risk-averse actor who repeatedly threatens to use nuclear weapons without any intention of following through in order to break Western resolve. . . .

Putin has likely sought to deploy Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus since before the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine and has likely chosen this moment to do so in order to serve the immediate information operation he is now conducting. . . .

 —Michael Z. 00:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Just give it a couple sentences or a paragraph in the standalone article we have for the topic and be done with it. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The aggressive gesture of nuclear weapons parked on the border of Ukraine has been covered in many international sources and needs to be added here. I'm making a short addition to the nuclear section of this article following the NPR report. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe the actual plans are to build a storage facility by July, but no statement has yet announced that weapons were to be moved. Putin also said that Belarus would not be given control of any nuclear weapons. These details ought to be reflected if someone can find suitable sources.  —Michael Z. 19:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Michael, there have been lots of random snipes on this Talk page from other editors since your visit last week, though if you would like to line up your citations for the edit you are describing here on tactical nuclear arms, then I'll try to add something. You are also welcome to adjust/improve/modify my own edit on this issue as needed in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Flags in infobox

Recently, there was a WP:BRD discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War about removing the DPR and LPR flags. As that talk page is far less active, I would prefer to move the discussion here, where several other editors will immediately jump in and help generate consensus. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion should remain at the other article, though a notice placed here to draw more attention to the discussion should be fine as it is neutrally worded. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed edit request

Remove 'z' in the Donetsk front sub-subsection of the Russian annexations and Ukranian counterattacks (6 September-present) subsection of the Invasion section. 64.228.216.34 (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mr rnddude (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)