Talk:2022 Russian mobilization

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

Previously mobilization[edit]

«Previously, mobilization in Russia was announced only twice: at the beginning of World War I, and following the German invasion of the Soviet Union during World War II» — incorrect, the country called «Russia» (full name «Russian Federation») appeared in 1991, before there was Soviet Union, now not existing, included Ukraine, by the way. Владимир Казаринов (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what it used to be called and which territories it had included. Russia is still deemed the successor of the USSR, including in both Russian and English Wikipedias. If you disagree with that, you can direct further discussion to the respective articles. 46.166.88.108 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Partly agree, but from this enlarged point of view we should observe what might called «historical Russia», going from Soviet Union then deeper to Russian Empire, an then to Tsardom of Russia and so so on and count all acts of civil mobilizations. Or mention just one act in 1941; «Previously, mobilization in Russia was announced only twice» still not correct enough. Also actually previous mobilization in USSR took place long after WW-II in Soviet–Afghan War (mentioned in Russian Wikipedia). So, let's think of appropriate wording. Владимир Казаринов (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim is obviously false. There were similar partial mobilisations during the Russo-Japanese War. And then there's the very similar Winter War, in which the Red Army deployed (and lost) a huge force. The talk of the Great Patriotic War is an attempt to spin this as an existential defensive war when there are more accurate precedents. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Federation was not the Soviet Union, and is only one of its successors. The Russian Federation is not the Russian Empire. All of those mobilizations affected both Russia and Ukraine, for example. Let’s try to keep some perspective. —Michael Z. 14:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were fine, but I'd still note the Russian Federation is the only de jure successor of the USSR, hence it was handed over the USSR's seat in the UN Security Council after the Soviet Union got officially disbanded.Knižnik (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor POV in lead section[edit]

"...the Russian retreat in Kharkiv Oblast and calls from pro-war nationalists appear to have swayed Putin into mobilization." (first sentence of last paragraph of lead)

Likely POV, cited article (based on a quick Ctrl+F) doesn't even use the term sway. Can someone change to be more neutral? Fun Is Optional (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian mobilization article[edit]

We already have an article for the Russian mobilization and the DPR and LPR mobilization. I wonder if we could also make an article for Ukraine's? Super Ψ Dro 16:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Gathering some references from other articles:
Initial Ukrainian mobilization occurred in stages, including March 17, May 6,[1] and July 22, 2014.[2] Ukrainian territorial defence battalions established during this time,[3] and rolled into the Armed Forces after November 10.[4] Special Tasks Patrol Police created April 15.
The Territorial Defence Forces (Ukraine) were activated January 1, 2022. Reserves called up on February 22, 2022.[5] martial law and general mobilization enacted February 24.[6][7]  —Michael Z. 14:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is now one, Mobilization in Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 17:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number of planned to mobilize[edit]

Look, medias like "Novaya Gazeta" and "Meduza" show what might be called "liberal" point of view, anti-government in other words, what they have right to do of cause. But they really far from balanced, objective position, speaking simply they do mostly liberal propaganda. The article gives this source and this is how it starts (translating):

"The classified seventh point of the decree on mobilization allows the Defense Ministry to conscript one million people. This was reported to "Novaya Gazeta. Europe" was told by a source in the presidential administration".

Further in the article same thing: some unnamed "source", "interviewer". Really, an anonym source in presidential administration? So this article links an article of "Novaya Gazeta" and it links an anonym, whom existence itself is doubtful.

I can easily find "sources" with even bigger numbers.

A suggestion: official numbers and neutral-minded estimates based on something solid.

Владимир Казаринов (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A week gone, no reply, then I correct. Владимир Казаринов (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not required to be unbiased. Kleinpecan (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meduza represents simply open-minded journalism; it was founded by journalists from the conformist Lenta.ru who couldn't bear the state-sanctioned self-censorship any more. No-one is perfectly neutral either way.Knižnik (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know what is "Meduza", they could be considered as reliable source in common, but in this certain case this is what they put (quoting English version, Russian is similar):
"Russian authorities plan to conscript 1.2 million people for their “partial mobilization,” Meduza has learned from a source close to one of the country’s federal ministries" — another unknown "source".
So, both, "Novaya Gazeta" and "Meduza" link some unknown, anonym, doubtfully excising "sources"; if we want Wikipedia to be about objectivity, this should be deleted. Владимир Казаринов (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of a source only, it's also about a certain article in the source. I'm not saying "Novaya Gazeta" is not a reliable source, it is, but this certain article, linking "a source in the presidential administration" is a nonsense. So could not be used as a link in this article.
"When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering" — not in this case. Владимир Казаринов (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 September 2022[edit]

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: page moved to 2022 Russian mobilization by Czello. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian conscription → 2022 Russian military mobilization – I’ve not taken much time to think about it, but the title seems egregiously wrong, so here’s a hasty move request. Please chime in with suggestions for improvement.

Conscription in Russia is routinely ordered every year. This article is not about that subject or its specific details for this year, which was ordered in late August.[8] It is about an outstanding military mobilization, the first since WWII. Its author calls it a “partial mobilization,” but there is evidence that he was lying about its scope, so committing to “partial” in the title may be premature.  —Michael Z. 17:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for 2022 Russian mobilization. The article's previous title has been changed without discussion. In the international media, the name “mobilization” is common, and not “conscription” PLATEL (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, thanks for the comments, and support 2022 Russian mobilization. Sorry I didn’t check the article history. —Michael Z. 21:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I only just saw the Move button on pages yesterday and I thought conscription was more appropriate than mobilisation as Putin is merely attempting to give the appearance of Russia on a war footing and frighten Ukraine and our allies. Most sources cover the conscription of troops more than anything else but I would agree with colleagues that mobilisation is the formal name of the order. My apologies for the hasty move. IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No sweat. I’m glad to see we’re not in conflict. —Michael Z. 22:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for 2022 Russin mobilization. As someone who has co-authored an academic article on conscription, this is not standard conscription. This is partial mobilization to meet military requirements across multiple fields, sometimes a prelude to full mobilization, i.e., the mass militarization of a population, in the modern era part of industralized total war. Basically, it's one step from hell.Johncdraper (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for 2022 Russian mobilization. Gaardemouk (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rightful skepticism of so called "partial mobilization" is not scare quotes[edit]

The phrase "partial mobilization" is in several cases a quote attributed directly to Vladimir Putin and should have quote marks for that reason alone. The use of quotes around the so called "partial mobilization" is entirely deliberate and necessary for an encyclopedia to make extra efforts to keep a WP:NPOV neutral point of view and not merely accept loaded terminology from state propaganda at face value. See also the Russian version of this mobilization article and the use of quotemarks there.

MOS:SCAREQUOTES warns that "emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression, so such occurrences should also be considered carefully" but in this case the terminology is already fully loaded. The references provided also show that there the mobilization is not clearly defined, the laws passed do not appear to make any such distinction, and in practice it has not been limited strictly to people with previous military experience the way media statements claimed it would be. To use an analogy this so called partial mobilization is a "poop sandwich" and a "partial poop sandwich" is effectively the same thing and fooling no one. Attempting to exclude quote marks in this article would be an over correction. Alternatively you could avoid the phrase, and simply remove the "partial" qualifier and call a spade a spade. -- 109.79.169.156 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are scare quotes. Scare quotes are quotes used to cast doubt onto a statement, which is exactly what putting quotation marks around the word "partial" does in this context. It is not fit for an encyclopedia to use such formatting, and the manual of style forbids such use. Their use on the Russian Wikipedia is irrelevant, as it is not the English Wikipedia, and therefore has different policies and styles. If the article should cast doubt on the mobilization being partial, rather than a general mobilization, it should not use scare quotes to do so, and should have sources backing up the claims that it is in fact a general mobilization (and articles about them mobilizing more people than announced would not really be sufficient to write that it is in fact a general mobilization). Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quotation marks should be used when quoting Putin or other parties, including the designation partial mobilization. The article should probably not say partial mobilization in its own voice. May as well avoid scare quotes like “partial” mobilization altogether. —Michael Z. 01:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilization boss Lt-Col Malyk found dead.[edit]

I updated the lead. Very few sources.. if anyone can expand.Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This guy was in charge of mobilisation in three small areas in Russia's Far East (Partizansk, and the Partizansky and Lazovsky Districts) that have a total population of approximately 70,000. Your insertion seems to say that he was in charge of the entire mobilization. He was not, despite the tabloid source you used which falsely claims "Putin's head of Ukraine mobilisation campaign found dead in 'suspicious circumstances'". This really doesn't deserve a mention in the lead of the article. YantarCoast (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The citation is what I have used to phrase the insertion which included the Times - completely reliable. Can you provide a citation for your claim? I would assert that this is a very significant event in the mobilization story.Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading a Russian source, e.g. https://www.rbc.ru/politics/15/10/2022/634a72109a794719eef3e5d0:

"Военный комиссар Партизанска, а также Партизанского и Лазовского районов Роман Малык умер вечером 14 октября, сообщила администрация Партизанского городского округа в социальной сети «ВКонтакте»."

"The military commissar of Partizansk, as well as the Partizansky and Lazovsky districts, Roman Malyk, died on the evening of October 14, the administration of the Partizansky urban district reported on the VKontakte social network."

i.e. His death was reported by the social media page of a local administration. Hs death really isn't significant in the context of Russia as a whole. The Times calls him simply "A troop mobilisation official". If the guy responsible for mobilising a major city (i.e. 1 million plus residents) was found dead, well that would be another story. And you'd hear some comment from top officials (such as the head of the Investigative Committee), not a social media page. Maybe you should mention it in the body of the article (under the "Attacks" section perhaps, although there isn't actually any proof of an attack yet), but not the lead.

Also note that there is zero mention of Malyk on the much more detailed Russian-language wiki article.

YantarCoast (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for citation. I don't read Russian so I am wondering if the words 'suspicious circumstances' occur. Relevant as to whether this amounts to an 'attack' or not. Very few sources. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan conscription needed to be added in background[edit]

To be accurate the article needs to speak to conscription in Afghanistan which had similar elements. Also there is an analog in the Vietnam draft where conscription 1) has an disproportionate impact the poor the most (and in russia's case - ethnic groups in remote regions) 2) is not used because a) it is destabilizing b) draftees have minimal or no training.

https://www.economist.com/culture/2022/09/22/the-soviet-invasion-of-afghanistan-echoes-in-todays-war

Since the beginning of its invasion of Ukraine, Russian authorities had repeatedly rejected the possibility of mobilization at least 15 times, according to The Moscow Times. For example, on 8 March, Vladimir Putin publicly promised that no reservists would be called upon to fight in Ukraine.
Russia had previously avoided declaring mobilization in Ukraine until this point. Previously, mobilizations in the Russian Empire were conducted during the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, and at the beginning of World War I in 1914. The Soviet Union mobilized its population and industry following the 1941 Nazi German invasion during World War II.

I need to reread the article; I would appreciate if someone could add the link and make an edit (as I am running out for now) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Russian officials and their families"[edit]

And for what reason is there no such item in the article Mobilization on Ukraine? Or is it not profitable for someone to report how Ukrainian officials and businessmen took their families out even before the start of invaision? And some for bribes when they leave for people of military age was already closed. Just as there is no information about Recruitment of prisoners in Ukraine Zovodilniu (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about 2022 Russian mobilization. It is not about Ukrainian one. Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Russian recruits in Crimea[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if there are other images that could be used in the article of Russian recruits in territories actually internationally recognised as part of Russia. Call me biased, but I don't like that the only images of Russian recruits are from the illegal Republic of Crimea. These images shouldn't have existed in the first place. We should avoid any possible legitimization of Russian annexations if there are other good alternatives. Though if there aren't, then nothing should be done. Super Ψ Dro 00:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "legitimization". Russia is mobilizing civilians in Crimea as well as in Donetsk, Luhansk regions and other occupied territories. That is the reality. Mellk (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Russian_mobilization&oldid=1210793115"