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.

RFC on Syria in infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should "Syria" be included as a belligerent in infoboxes of pages relating to the 2022-23 war where Syrian mercenaries have participated? (see earlier thread) HappyWith (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this asking specifically "Syria" or "Syrian mercenaries" too? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Specifically "Syria", I'm basically referring to the presentation in the infoboxes of Battle of Donbas (2022) and Southern Ukraine campaign. HappyWith (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There is currently nothing in the Syria article at Wikipedia which even mentions Russia, Putin, or Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It does not need to be reciprocal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a measure of importance though; if its not at all mentioned in the Syria article then it leads to questions about its importance elsewhere. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It is something to keep in mind and factor in but not the be all and end all. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No  The reports are vague as to the nature of involvement by Syrians, but they appear to be mercenaries recruited by Wagner and/or other Russian outfits. Apparently Syria allows them to advertise for recruiting, but that seems to be the sum of involvement by the Syrian state. Even the one SOHR article at first says that 5 fighters of the Syrian 25th Div. were killed, kinda-almost implying that a Syrian unit is in Ukraine, but then refers to them or other Syrians as mercenaries. The Syrian state is not a belligerent. If it is encouraging or even sending a few fighters to fight under the Russian flag or in Russian PMCs, that still doesn’t make it a belligerent. Ukraine and Syria may have a bad relationship, but they are not at war, and shouldn’t be marked as opposing belligerents in any infobox, because that would be misleading.

(I earlier argued that Iran should be included among belligerents because Iranian soldiers are officially but covertly involved in operating drone weapons. I am no longer confident that it should, and Syria is way below the threshold of military involvement.)  —Michael Z. 23:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No - As many of other editors have noted their level of participation does not rise to the level of belligerent. BogLogs (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No The presence of Syrians is poorly documented, somewhat attributable to a single source (the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights), and to the best of my knowledge, there's no real indication of official (narrowly defined ;) Syrian government support.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No. No countries should be named as belligerents based on the participation of mercenaries.

Sennalen (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd leave it out (invited by the bot). I'd also leave out the 2 "entities" that exist only in the Russian's imagination that are currently listed out. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

(Incidentally agree that based on what we know at this point DLNR’s 1st and 2nd Army Corps definitely belong under “Units,” and their puppet governments do not belong under “Belligerents.”)  —Michael Z. 23:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No The presence of Syrian mercenaries does not mark the nation of Syria as a belligerent to be placed in the infobox nor should we mark these mercenaries with the Syrian flag under units. Both actions would misrepresent Syria's involvement. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No I have had a look around and I can't find anything that would support Syrian state military involvement in the conflict. THIS (although written in the relatively early days of the most recent conflict) seems like a good summation. To say that Syria wants to support Russia (Putin) is one thing. To include Syria as a belligerent would need well sourced information that organised Syrian Government military had been actively (even in support) deployed in the area of conflict and sufficient to meet the definition of Belligerent

waging war

specifically : belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No Supplying arms or mercenaries does not make you a belligerent. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 10 February 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.

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)

Hundreds of thousands

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: [5]. 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)

Lead section trims

The lead section appears to be getting clunky, dated and long-winded; I'm suggesting that it is improved by removing the second paragraph which summarizes, somewhat gratuitously, the Background section which appears 2 inches below it on the screen. Suggesting here that the article lead section looks better without reduplicating a summary of the Background section as the second paragraph of the lead section since any editor can just look down two inches lower on the screen to read the Background section. Starship is opposed and is starting to revert this on the main page. Other editors comments for support/oppose if possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the whole article, regardless of where the content summarized is located. DecafPotato (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:LEAD, it is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. A good lead should be focused and succinct. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella157: Could you support removal of that paragraph on background in the lead section as being somewhat redundant and not covering the main points of the Invasion article. If you could do the lead section trim then I would support you. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I would support a removal of all if not most of the paragraph for the reasons I have given but I will wait a bit first. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I only meant that we shouldn't not summarize "Background" just because it's near the location of the lead in the article. DecafPotato (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella157: I'll support you whenever you are ready for this removal of paragraph two from the lead section as redundant material. Just ping me if anyone comments on your edit to remove it. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella157: Your delete of paragraph 2 looks good. Regarding your delete of the recent 2023 material added, then I'm not sure that helps to update the lead section to 2023; the lead section is currently strongly oriented to 2022 and not 2023. If you have a preferred update to cover 2023 in the lead section then it would help to update the lede. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, my point would be that the detail you would add to the lead is too intricate for the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You can shorten it if you prefer and I'll try to support you; the bottleneck in the Russian invasion for the last month or two in 2023 has been the siege of that city. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, the detail you would add was as at 4 March. The Ukrainian withdrawal and Russian capture of Bakhmut appeared imminent but I am not seeing anything to state the status of the city has changed. See my suggestion. If the city is captured, the text can be edited to reflect this (and the body of the article). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

TylerBurden, re your revert, I am actually of a similar inclination, that this can wait until there is something definite. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 Ah, thanks for the ping as I did not see this discussion. While Bakhmut has been significant and might fit into the lead eventually, it would be premature to add it while the situation there is still ongoing. So I agree with waiting. TylerBurden (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've added Renewed offensive in February to the lede. No one knows when Bakhmut will end, though it is known that there was a large offensive organized at the start of Feb. You can change or alter the edit as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. Clear consensus to move by numbers and especially by policy basis. I mean, Oppose isn’t based in policy or convention at all. So what if there have been other invasions of Ukraine by Russia? This (proposed) title is already a PRIMARYREDIRECT here; quintessential unnecessary disambiguation. Not PT by long-term significance? Perhaps. Time will tell. But, again, the PT question has already been resolved, at least for now and the foreseeable future) by the PRIMARYREDIRECT. Come on folks. You know better. This means all the related articles linked in the proposal can be moved unilaterally too (link to this RM in the edit summary for basis). However, there is no consensus for a moratorium, though I suspect it’s moot because I can’t imagine a solid argument for moving from this title.(non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 02:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) → Russian invasion of Ukraine – Starting this new RM per the discussion above. This article was moved from its longstanding title of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to the current name a week ago, following this RM, on the grounds that the invasion remains ongoing. However, this new title is problematic: it uses parentheses to indicate the years of the conflict, (2022–present), but there are no other articles titled Russian invasion of Ukraine to disambiguate from. As you (should) know, parentheses in article titles are used solely for disambiguation purposes on Wikipedia, but here there is nothing to disambiguate this article from. When I brought this up a few days ago, some argued that there have been other Russian invasions of Ukraine as well, and the DAB page Russian invasion of Ukraine (disambiguation) was subsequently created. However, not only is there still no other article titled Russian invasion of Ukraine, but even if there was, this article is unequivocally still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As there was disagreement above as to whether the developments in Ukraine post-2022 are still considered to be part of the "invasion", I propose moving this article to simply Russian invasion of Ukraine, per WP:CONCISE and the misuse of parentheses for pseudo-disambiguation.

There is also a second question, concerning the 128 other articles, drafts, templates, and categories (the search results page includes 14 redirects and the main article) that have Russian invasion of Ukraine in the title. Regardless of the outcome of this RM, should those pages be moved to Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, or Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)? Note that due to the number of affected pages, I won't be adding them to this RM nomination template, but if someone else wishes to do so, they may. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support per nom. There isn't anything to disambiguate from, and this is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. HappyWith (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment InfiniteNexus, I would suggest removing your second question from this RM as will probably only serve as a distraction to the main issue here. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  One of the problems with the previous RM was that it provided no clear answer as to what to do with other articles and categories. As a result, some pages were moved while others weren't. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  No specific answer was required for the previous RM. Articles stand alone and WP:AT gives us advice. While consistency is one article criterion, it is not controlling. However, if this RM is successful, the relationship and implication for other article would be quite clear. I am just advocating the KISS principle. The other issue is a separate question than can and should be dealt with separately. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Better and more concise title. Jeppiz (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't the first time Russia has invaded Ukraine. Also the previous RM ended a week ago, there is no need to change the name again so soon after clear consensus was shown in that RM. BogLogs (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Simply stating that there are other Russian invasions (by the Russian Empire, Soviets or even the Russian Federation) is not a substantive argument, given this is clearly the primary target (which has been tested), that there is no actual title conflict and that Russian invasion of Ukraine redirects to this article. WP:AT (WP:TITLEDAB) tells us to only use qualifiers (natural or otherwise) that are necessary to resolve an actual conflict in title. This is clearly not the case here and therefore, retention is clearly contradicting policy. Statements that contradict policy should be discounted. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Who cares? Let the title describe what it is. BogLogs (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Invasion of Poland is a long-standing article under its current name, despite the fact that there have been other invasions of Poland, because it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It doesn't need to be the only Russian invasion of Ukraine for it to have the title. There's nothing to disambiguate from here. HappyWith (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose see List of wars between Russia and Ukraine, for more context and rationalization of the articles. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  None of those other articles have the phrase Russian invasion of Ukraine in their titles, and this invasion is the clear primary topic. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. The number of move requests for this page is out of control. I think there have been 9 recently.  // Timothy :: talk  10:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  This needs clarification. Your rationale for opposing this RM is because there have been too many RMs for this page? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support clearly the primary topic. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose this is the third major invasion of Ukraine by russia in this war alone—blindlynx 13:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Have not already had a page move? Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Unless there is an agreement to split the article such that these are separate and that this is not the main page covering all three then I don't agree. The previous RM also raised questions about splitting the article but this doesn't seem to be something anyone is willing to propose. As such given this article covers all three (and isn't proposed to be split) I don't think this view is applicable to the naming question. Tracland (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per other oppose votes. The 1919 Soviet invasion of Ukraine, Annexation of Crimea, or the War in Donbas could all be regarded as prior Russian invasions of Ukraine.Estar8806 (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the 1919 invasion could be regarded as a "Russian invasion of Ukraine", but is that the first thing the reader thinks of - eg. the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? The oppose votes on this RM aren't really responding to the main argument of the proposal. HappyWith (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I could see editors adding information about 2014 mainly in an article titled Use of cluster bombs in the Russian invasion of Ukraine (instead of the current Use of cluster bombs in the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)) believing the information pertains there. I think disambiguation is preferable. Super Ψ Dro 20:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  The lead of that article would define that stuff from 2014 was out of scope. If an editor was silly enough to do that, then Cunningham's law would prevail. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Soviet Union != Russia, and I've yet to see a single WP:RS (which WP:COMMONNAME goes off of) refer to it as such. DecafPotato (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  Additionally, see Cinderella157 and HappyWith's responses to BogLog above. DecafPotato (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I've always favored 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine and when this war ends the title will inevitably lead to such title. However, the nominator's notice of the several categories and related pages that have remained the same after the move is relevant. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's the primary topic today, but it's not necessarily the primary topic by long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support While I personally prefer '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine' the current title's parentheses make little sense to me. Parentheses are typically used for when the title is the title for multiple pages. Here, this is the only title which is close to 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' therefore I support this move. I also agree and have raised similar points to the nom, what should now happen to all the accompanying articles to this one? The parentheses make even less sense in Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4 for example. Yeoutie (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support – As the person who suggested this name in December, my rationale stands. 1) It's the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and parenthetical disambiguation thus isn't needed per nom; 2) Russian invasion of Ukraine redirects here anyways, so there's not like there will be any new confusion that isn't already there; and 3) We should also change all the other pages that use the name "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine"/"Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)" to simply Russian invasion of Ukraine as well. DecafPotato (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is clearly the primary target (which was tested in January). There is no actual title conflict and Russian invasion of Ukraine redirects to this article. WP:AT (WP:TITLEDAB) tells us to only use qualifiers (natural or otherwise) that are necessary to resolve an actual conflict in title. This is clearly not the case here and therefore, retention is clearly contradicting policy. Per WP:NHC, statements that contradict policy should be discounted. Opposing !Votes do not address the prevailing policy but largely make a simple statement that other invasions exist. While things can change, this does not mean that they will change. For the present (and the foreseeable future), the proposal is supported by policy. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support There is simply no policy reason to have the term without a disambiguation qualifier be a redirect to the term with a qualifier. If someone wants to turn Russian invasion of Ukraine into a disambiguation page, that's another matter, but if it's just going to redirect here anyway, the move is a no-brainer. 25stargeneral (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• As mentioned on previous move requests this was always my preferred name as it's clearly the common name that is used and is the most concise title available. Tracland (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Per Commonname. No need for PRECISION here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I support the idea since this is the first and only event where Russia invaded Ukraine. Having 2022-present sounds Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. Cwater1 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• 'Support': This is for sure the biggest primary topic, and the title "Russian invasion to Ukraine" also redirects to this one. The main rationale seems to be that there were other Russian invasions of Ukraine in the past, but the thing is that all of those other ones have slightly different political connotations within them that really changes things. First of all, the Soviet invasion of Ukraine refers to the polity of the USSR rather than the Russian Federation, so it cannot be associated with "Russia" (which generally refers to the Russian Federation). The War in Donbas is further compounded by the complicated political situation regarding the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics, as Russia did recognize them as independent states, but the international community really didn't. This definitely muddies the things, and I'm not sure how Wikipedia handles the political situation regarding the Donbas territories. With that being said, these confusions complicate the situation, and as far as I know, the Wikipedia article does state that Russia did "subsume" the territories as part of the invasion, hence the rationale being that the political complications makes it hard to determine, and furthermore, the article deems it a "war" rather than simply just an "invasion". The annexation of Crimea would definitely count as an invasion, but again, the political situation regarding Crimea complicates things. To avoid such confusion, the status of annexation can outweigh. Therefore, I support the simplification of the title, which does disambiguate it from other such incidents. To resolve the matter however, a "Not to be confused with" tag could be placed on the top to differentiate it from past events however. -Dcdiehardfan 17:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Compare this to the Republican People's Party. There are a lot of Republican People's Parties in the world, but the main one is Turkish, and the title of the article is not the Republican People's Party (Turkey). If a person searches for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he is not looking for an invasion of the Crimea and not the Soviet "invasion", but specifically the conflict that began on 24 February 2022. PLATEL (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support The only title that makes sense to me, everything else is unnecessarily precise, is also not used for past invasions such as the invasion of Poland and completely contradicts the naming conventions of Wikipedia. --Tobiasi0 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per numerous responses and comments above. – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Not only is it the WP:COMMONNAME, it also solves to issue of the subpages names. Example: Economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). The 2022–present can represent two things that both confuse the reader.
  1. It refers to the economic impact from 2022 to the present. If so, then where's the article for the impact before 2022? &
  2. It refers to the invasion from 2022 to the present. If so, where's the article for the invasion before 2022? RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per the above. Compusolus (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support — WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Support renaming the others for consistency.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support as a clear and obvious application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Until there is another page named "Russian invasion of Ukraine" there's not much to debate. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. While this is technically not the first "Russian invasion", this is clearly the primary topic. Mellk (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above, as an example of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed moratorium on move requests

The number of move requests for this page is out of control. Propose a one year moratorium on move requests.  // Timothy :: talk  10:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  10:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• While this particular horse has already bolted, I would otherwise support a moratorium. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure that works for an article which is dated in its parenthetical portion; if the invasion ends anytime this year, then the title needs to be updated at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – No. As an ongoing event, things are bound to change at any given time. If there is to be a moratorium, it shouldn't be one year long. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Support the current title and the moratorium. An argument for a moratorium of less than 1 year makes sense only if it is likely that a culminating point were to be reached before then. For example if one side were to collapse this year, as their materiel or troops were to become exhausted, and they were to be defeated (then 'present' in the current article title would turn into an actual date in the current title).

  But consider the prospect that the belligerents might continue in this way for decades, given that supporters are providing additional materiel and training. Don't forget that the supporters are learning about combat capabilities for themselves, and that their timescales reach into the 2040s, and beyond, for themselves. The supporters are actually conserving their cash and their own troops.

  -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  The last paragraph of your comment is WP:CRYSTAL. We shouldn't take decisions based on what we think will probably happen. Super Ψ Dro 20:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, the comment is about the spectrum of support, ranging from 'As long as it takes' --Lloyd Austin (which literally will take an Act of Congress), to last week's delivery of Leopard 2A4 tanks, to literal bake sales in Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia to partially fund a tank.

  Beginning 1 April 2023 the Russian army is to be replenished by 400,000 contract servicemen.

References

-- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - As an ongoing event, we should try to keep the article title should be stable. Regardless, a moratorium can be lifted early if there is consensus. Estar8806 (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wouldn't that just mean that a discussion of a move would be replaced by a discussion of whether to lift the moratorium, followed by a discussion of the move itself if that one is successful. That seems to me to be at least as much, and in some circumstances more, pointless discussion by people who don't understand the word "invasion". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose a moratorium per Phil Bridger's arguments. It would just make things more confusing. HappyWith (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Then what's the point of having a moratorium? Super Ψ Dro 20:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• oppose on principle, generally speaking these are bad Red Slash 18:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Whilst I don't agree that constant page moves are a good thing I fundamentally oppose this suggestion. Page titling needs to be agreed by consensus and unfortunately this may take several discussions to get right. But surely that's better than having some arbitrary moratorium which could result in the wrong page name being retained without the ability to discuss the position. Tracland (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose per Tracland. DecafPotato (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• One year? Absolutely not. This war has only been going on for one year and a few weeks, not even a month. Things can change quickly and a static year is an obstacle to improvements. I'd support 3-4 months, no more. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• comment I agree that it is silly to have move requests so often but if something drastic did happen that would warrant a change I'd at least like the possibility to be there. That said I hope editors in the future wait at least a little while out of common curtesy.BogLogs (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose One year is ridiculous in my opinion. I could support two or three months maybe. Yeoutie (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• 'Oppose' I do support a moratorium, but think that 1 year is also a bit excessive. Perhaps 6 months would suffice. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support 6 month moratorium; 1 year is overkill. – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support 6 month moratorium agree that 1 year is too much, but I think a moratorium is necessary as the requests are getting absurd in their frequency. — Czello 09:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose we have not seen an excessive number of RMs and it's not that clear that this RM will result in a clear consensus for any title. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:00, 20 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)

Belarus is listed as supporting Russia for having given Military acess, but NATO sending tens of thousands of tons of War equipment isn't listed as supporting 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.

---

Doesn't make any sense, and before you say "Iran isn't marked either!", Iran sells to both sides, while NATO only sells to Ukraine and sells for free 80.102.106.180 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

People (many of them unregistered IPs, that is, common readers) keep expressing their opposition to the exclusion of Western support to Ukraine from the infobox. It is clear that Wikipedia is not appropriately addressing readers' expectations and held notions. Eventually, Western support will be added in the infobox. Super Ψ Dro 14:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Or they are bots or socks, who knows? But until consensus changes the "see FAQ" is the answer they will get. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The rest of the article elucidates further. The infobox content is an immaterial distraction. Whataboutism? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think neither. NATO supporting Ukraine should be here is the popular opinion amongst regular readers (clearly) , albeit not the one we have chosen here. Starship 24 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe time for another discussion about the matter. I mean if we are gonna talk about changing the article title every week might as well. BogLogs (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone else agrees ill start a discussion @BogLogs Starship 24 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Not the first time you've said that, Super, but a bunch of IP's showing up to repeat the same point over and over again is no consensus. TylerBurden (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the FAQ --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

7th time. Please, read the FAQ. It is there for a reason. Starship 24 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, wonder why it keeps coming up.... BogLogs (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Because people are too lazy to read, clearly @BogLogs Starship 24 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

haha, I'll admit that is one possibility. BogLogs (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think these are sock as they are few and far between. Not bots for same reason. Leaves total idiots (which I dont like to assume people are) or people to lazy to read. @BogLogs Starship 24 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe this article wouldn't be a target of Russian web brigades. TylerBurden (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't as why would they be invested in writing in NATO as supporting Ukraine. I'd get vandalism as to the outcomes, calling it a liberation operation, or casualties, but NATO supporting Ukraine probably doesn't matter as much to them. Being that there has been none of the list above, I doubt it. @BogLogs Starship 24 (talk) 15:55, 16 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.

Ukrainian Boy Shown as Manhandling and Humiliating Putin in New Bansky

Reuters has reported that a depiction of a small Ukrainian boy humiliating Putin in a new Bansky has been released by the Post Office of Ukraine. Should the image linked in this Reuters article be included in the article: [6]. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

no, its trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if this is notable or not, because while it appears to not be notable, the same source also states "Residents of the capital flocked to buy the new stamps on Friday from Kyiv’s main post office." If it's raising funds for Ukraine, is it notable? Is it raising enough funds to be notable?

It probably would be notable enough for a mention on Ukraine's wartime propaganda (should we ever get a separate article for that) given the supposed number of people who seem to be getting them. Nice argument (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s not quite notable enough for this article, but I think it could fit into some sort of article about the war in popular culture, if that exists. HappyWith (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Should make it mandatory to read the FAQ

Seven different times people have asked to add NATO as supporting Ukraine, which is in the FAQ. Should make it so that a pop-up appears where you must check the box saying that you have read the FAQ in order to start a new discussion? Starship 24 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a sample. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can we do something about the endless move requests while we're at it? It's honestly amazing how many people think they've found some perfect solution when it didn't need to be moved in the first place. TylerBurden (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No bc some are good and those at least arent the same @TylerBurden Starship 24 (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

References

If this can be implemented yes. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

As useful as this would be, I have a feeling it's not possible to implement and it wouldn't make people read the FAQ regardless. They can just check the box and not read the FAQ. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Amd then we can just delete the post without wasting time on it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

We can delete them anyways. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes we can, but this kinds of gives us an official reason to. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It also hopefully decreases the amount of posts necessating this @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

We can never force them to read it, we can increase the likelihood that they do. That is as good as we can get @Blaze Wolf Starship 24 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Or we can just delete the posts and not waste our time on something that will essentially amount to nothing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

We occansianly spend a lot of time on the nothing:See 2 sections ago I think is worth a try bc the current system allows the same thing to keep happening. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results. That is what is happening here@Blaze Wolf Starship 24 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this "pop-up" would work (and what does this have to do with efns?), but if you want people to see the FAQ, just put it on an editnotice. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Huh, I just realized that neither this article nor its talk page currently have editnotices, not even to alert editors of the sanctions. That's... odd. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Defintetly should be fixed. The pop up would jsut say before posting, read the FAQ and provide a link and make them check the box that they read it.@InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a capability on Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

To see the NavPop, click on the little [a] and follow the link in the Popup-- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I know how efns work, but I'm pretty sure the proposer was referring to pop-up dialog boxes, which don't exist on Wikipedia as far as I know. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You can hover your cursor over the little [a] to see the popup (if you have NavPops installed). It's not modal; that's a question for WP:VPT. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'm aware of how efns work; I've used them extensively. What I'm saying is, they do not have the capability to have users check a box, and I'm not sure where you would place the efn in the article. And I believe Starship 24 was referring to a dialog box, not an efn popup. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus is correct but if that isnt possible im okay with @Ancheta Wis idea Starship 24 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2023

I want to add some more belligerents as the war has changed with extra countries supporting Russia and Ukraine. 192.181.215.45 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Read the FAQ ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The FAQ: Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)/FAQ. Also see the box at the top of this talk page.--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Which countries? When? Why? What are the sources? BogLogs (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Time number 8. Read the FAQ people. Starship 24 (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"Russia's occupation of Ukraine". Not considered by me as an "invasion"

Hey people, how about the page be titled to; "Russia's occupation of Ukraine". Just a suggestion, please don't bite my head off. 😚 TypeWriter686 (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, "Russian occupation of Ukraine" has only 41 hits on google scholar since 2022 v 7,800 hits for "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for the same period. Nothing like a common name. I think this will float like a brick. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Well to occupy they must have invaded. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Since when are you an official source. We follow the majority of sources, not what you think @TypeWriter686 Starship 24 (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Shall we consider renaming the article to Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I understand that as a non-extended-confirmed editor, I'm unable to initiate or comment on a move request. However, I'd like to discuss informally with you my proposal. If it receives support, any extended-confirmed editor may proceed with a formal requested move proposal. My rationale for this suggestion is that 'Russo-Ukrainian War' is the term that's more prevalent in academic literature since 2022 compared to 'Russian invasion of Ukraine.' Moreover, the former term sounds more scholarly and comprehensive. I'm curious to know your thoughts on this matter. Maedc (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What we need is to rename this to Russian invasion of Ukraine per COMMONNAME. No need for this (2022-present) at all . _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

While your proposal is currently being discussed above, I recommend that we consider approaching the matter from a slightly different perspective. Maedc (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You are unable to initiate a comment or move request for a reason. Don't try to circumvent that. If others agree they can propose yet another move discussion (like the 10th one). @Maedc. Additionally, this isn't a move request or request for comment, don't treat it like one @Piotr Konieczny Starship 24 (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And your sources are? Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This should be closed immediatly. This is not a way to circumvent the rules and make a move discussion. Continuing to discuss this encourages more people to do this. @Maedc@Piotrus@Xx236 Starship 24 (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Such discussions are not binding, I have no opinion anyway on closing this thread (but tnx for mentioning the RM above, I cast my vote). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:15, 17 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.

This sentence needs copyediting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"On 7 March, the New York Times reported that Ukrainian generals were requesting permission to continue fighting against the nearly fully surrounded and besieged city.". Fighting against? Maybe what was meant was "despite the city being nearly..."? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

They were fighting the Vulcans from Star Trek. No, they were fighting against the Russians. What do you think? Pretty obvious. @Piotrus Starship 24 (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No. This isn't necessarily correct grammatically. It implies they were fighting against the city. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

My point exactly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine, add the "Russians in" after the word the and before the world nearly @Blaze Wolf@Piotrus Starship 24 (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... that would definitely fix the issue. Piotrus what do you think? Asking because of the controversial nature of this article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That would work too, thanks. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you truly think that anyone believes Ukraine is fighting a war against Bakhmut not in it @Blaze Wolf @Piotrus Starship 24 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You do realize some folks who read Wikipedia are kids, or don't follow news much, etc.? I teach students in Asia and I fear most my class don't even know what Bakhmut is, sadly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Even kids know that countries dont fight wars against cities, or at least i hope so @Piotrus Starship 24 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's dumb to think the Ukranians are fighting a war against a city, it's simply just incorrect grammar. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay but what i was saying is isnt a big issue @Blaze Wolf @Piotrus Starship 24 (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Except it is because grammar is literally part of the MOS, see MOS:GRAMMAR ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right but it isn't as important as the factual issues in this article @Blaze Wolf Starship 24 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree it isn't, I just thought it's a small grammar error we can easily correct (but since this is a high visiblity article and I am not an English native speaker, I just wanted to get a second opinion before changing the sentence). I am unsure why we are still discussing it here? Anyway, thanks for commenting, everyne, you are doing a great job taking care of this important article. Pats on the back, everyone. We don't say nice things to others enough, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:40, 17 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.

Intro biased Anglo view

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.

---

"American historian Timothy Snyder described Putin's ideas as imperialism. British journalist Edward Lucas described it as historical revisionism. Other observers have noted that the Russian leadership holds a distorted view of modern Ukraine, as well as its history." That's the summary of the intro. Does that look like a balanced view to anyone? Shouldn't it mention some other international historians besides those historians of the very two countries advocating for Putin's overthrow? What about what German historians or other European historians say? Or Russian or Ukrainian historians? How can the summary of the article present only the view of historians from the one country which is already clearly the main party advocating Putin's overthrow? Looks like not even wikipedia cares about presenting a fair objective article. Jimhoward72 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

If they can be found here, do you have any? Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jimhoward72 Be WP:BOLD and see if you can find other scholarly opinions on the invasion and add it into the article. Should there arise any editing conflict, you can discuss in the Talk Page. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. In the first two sentences you identify the people cited as American and British, but later you say "...the view of historians from the one country...". Are you talking about one country or two? And are you saying that these people represent the views of the American and British governments? And was the international arrest warrant for Putin only issued by one or two countries? I am sympathetic to the idea that we should not limit ourselves to Western sources, but I don't think you have thought things through here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

international arrest warrant for Putin only issued by one or two countries?. ICC have been severely criticized for being a Eurocentric and working for european interests, the African Union (AU) has encouraged African states to not work alongside the ICC. These leaders and political bodies said that “the ICC is acting as a neo-colonial force seeking to further empower Western political and extractive interests in Africa.” Stephan rostie (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

you identify the people cited as American and British, but later you say "...the view of historians from the one country...". Are you talking about one country or two?. He probably means that Both are on the same category, the anglo-saxonian western category. Stephan rostie (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jimhoward72 Bear in mind this fact GALLUP:Americans' Trust In Media Remains Near Record Low, OCTOBER 18, 2022 MSM media are overwhelmingly used to write this article.

Further: In the Walter Smolarek show Brian Becker said: "We have to hear the voices in the media and not trust them. To understand that the US capitalist corporate owned media is not journalism, that this is in fact a propaganda arm for the Pentagon and for the ruling class establishments in both political parties and they have decided that we're moving towards major power conflict. Right now we are moving towards major power conflict not because Russia wants it, not because Russia is taking over Eastern and Central Europe, not because China is menacing United States but the United States believes the U.S. policy, policy makers believe, and this is the consensus position which is why it's reflected without criticism in the corporate owned media. They have decided that the only way they can retain complete U.S. hegemony, dominance is by exercising primacy over Russia and China threatening them creating pressure cookers inside their own ruling parties and hoping that those parties will split apart under the pressure that Soviet Union did break apart in the late 1980s"

All the Lies That Are Fit to Print: The Media & the Ukraine War

Bottom line: The whole article is not worth of reading. 178.222.169.118 (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Was it the mainstream media or the Russian regime who ordered the invasion of an independent country? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree. Diversity and covering all points of view is important, you can’t keep citing western/anglo-saxonian historians and politicians alone. It needs to include chinese, Russia,and indian sources as well. Diversity on that matter is important to reflect the view of all the world not just the west.

Stephan rostie (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You can’t just lay out a menu of your favourite countries and demand there be reliable sources appropriate as a basis for this article to be found there. Academics in China and Russia have their speech constrained, and so there are few or no reliable sources to be found there, mainly only political speech to be quoted as a subject, not a source.  —Michael Z. 07:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Academics in China and Russia have their speech constrained. It doesn’t deny from them their academic status or the facts they state or the right of their point of view to be shown, if they said 1+1=2 it doesn’t mean they are wrong because the western sources said 1+1=3 because they have a little more degree of speech liberty. There is no doubt that mainstream western media and sources are directed and push for political agendas that even opposes the consensus of the international community and international organizations (the entire world except the west) as clear in the cases of Israeli occupation of Palestine and war crimes, Taiwan, US invasion of Iraq and it’s war crimes vs Russian invasion of Ukraine, etc, that includes academic freedom as well (i.e criticizing israel’s crimes or zionism in academia) . We can’t just show the western point of view alone.

also note that i mentioned Russia and china as just examples, there are the entire world (obviously the west is not the world) and other reputable international organizations like UN, ICJ, etc Stephan rostie (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

As per the above, neither Russia or China have a free press, or free academia, thus are useless except for their views (here maybe we can have a line saying something like "But Russian academics disagree" with sourcing. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Look guys, you can just be WP:BOLD and add in more sources yourself, I really don't see the need for debates about whether or not it should be more inclusive. Of course the lead section should be more inclusive. Again, really the only debates that will occur in the future is to the actual edits itself and how constructive each individual edit is. Do be cautious though to ensure unbiased scholarships of the war. If the worse comes to the worst, I think perhaps the entire thing could be rephrased as to summarizing the world's general reaction to the Ukraine invasion, and link to this page. Long story short, it'll really be hard to summarize it, so perhaps redirecting the reader to the other article while also giving some concise commentary on overall political reactions would suffice? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Useless soapboxing from a regular talk page troll

Western MSM are not free press nor anyone could freely say anything against this war and have it published in say NYT. Did ever N. Chomsky was interviewed by CNN or WaPo? What happened to the leader of "Occupy Walstreet"? Jailed. What happened to Julian Assange? Jailed. What happened to E. Snowden? Exiled. Chelsea Manning? Jailed. Why Amnesty International never voiced against caging and separating Aboriginal children from their parents in Australia? Why a student at a Canadian Catholic school was suspended after insisting there are only two genders? Etc. etc. There is a far more democracy in Russia and China than in the collective West.--178.222.169.118 (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I will respond, rather than delete this wp:soapboxing, [[7]] reporting on politicians not want to aid Ukraine (none of whom are in jail, or falling out of windows). As to the rest, noting to do with this article. [[8]] more of the same. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I won't reply to the rest of your comments, because this is getting way off-topic, but I would refer you to the results of first search that I performed in response to them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven and Dcdiehardfan have identified the solution: find the sources and integrate them into the article. The rest of this thread is pretty much soapboxing and should probably be closed now. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2023

Marginataen (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Link to 2023 visit by Joe Biden to Ukraine at "Biden visited Kyiv"

 Done — Czello 15:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding Additional Context

When the article starts to discuss Russia's stated reasons for the special military operation in the introduction, there should be information on Russia's accusations of American involvement in the "Maidan Revolution", as this is crucial to their casus belli, that Zelensky's government was not legitimate because Poroshenko was removed from office through illegitimate means, and that implies that Zelensky's election was not legitimate either. This is how many Russians see this situation. Dotacal (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Can we have any source for this? Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Ofc. I can give more or different ones.

RT

Jacobin

Putin writes "Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly interfered in Ukraine's internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements of state policy in Ukraine."

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 Dotacal (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide the quote where they say "and this was one of the reasons Putin gave for the invasion", as I hm having trouble finding any such reference. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I never said "and this was one of the reasons Putin gave for the invasion". I said "there should be information on Russia's accusations of American involvement in the "Maidan Revolution", as this is crucial to their casus belli" and I gave sources showing evidence regarding that. Dotacal (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

No you said "Russia's stated reasons for the special military operation in the introduction", but if this was not "Russia's stated reasons for the special military operation" (I.E. an official justification) then it has no place being added to such a section. (which (by the way) a "casus belli" is). Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This time, yes, I did say that, but I never said "and this was one of the reasons Putin gave for the invasion".

Here's Russia stating at the UN that since Maidan in 2014, threats to Russia's national security have been increasing and negotiations have been breaking down, forcing Russia to engage in the special military operation.

This is what they have stated at the UN. Dotacal (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If you really want a direct quote from the man himself though,

"... if there had not been a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014, none of this would have happened. Simply none of it"

From the RT article provided. Dotacal (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:RT.COM Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Russian government really mentioned Maidan in particular to justify this stage of invasion - or if they did, it wasn't prominent enough to get reported on. Do you have WP:RS that refer to this? Also, I assume you mean Yanukovych, not Poroshenko, lol. HappyWith (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

They've mentioned Maidan quite a bit, the government change in 2014 was seen as influenced by the US covertly with neo-nazi groups. And yes, I mean Yanukovch lol. Dotacal (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe just add it to Propaganda in Russia and add a link here. Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You mean Yanukovych was removed by the Rada when he fled: Poroshenko was elected and left office normally when he wasn’t re-elected.

But if you’re going to list Putin’s made-up casus belli, you have to include “external control” by EU/UK/USA, Ukrainians are a “fake people,” Volodymyr’s baptism, NATO expansion, “genocide in Donbas,” “drug-addicted Nazi Jew,” and “satanists” (what am I missing?).  —Michael Z. 17:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Zelensky's government is illegitmate because the former government was illegitmately overthrown with the assistance of the US" isn't as crazy or as shocking as what you're suggesting, but it has been brought up by Russian officials. It's a main part of the Russian rationale in this war. Dotacal (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You missed by favorite: Ukrainians are using black magic [9]. Super Ψ Dro 22:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

OP has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Lets leave them to provide a source. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

PLease read wp:or wp:v and wp:synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding NATO Support for Ukraine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Adding its own thread for this topic since it shouldn't be controversal. We should have NATO displayed as supporting Ukraine. Belarus and the unrecognized People's Repubics are displayed as supporting Russia, and it would make sense that NATO should be displayed as assisting Ukraine.

Easy. Dotacal (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Time 9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship 24 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is that? I don't see anything that explains why we're not displaying NATO as supporting Ukraine. Dotacal (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

[[10]], but to know why you need to read all the talk page discussions about this. Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no reasoning as to why we're not including NATO as a supporter of Ukraine, just that there's no consensus on the matter, which isn't a reason. Dotacal (talk) 19:15, 20 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.

(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)

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)