Talk:Z (military symbol)

Why Latin ?

Ok, so far so good. Why does a country using kyrillic letters invading a country using kyrrilic letters use latin letters ? --2003:D5:8737:4720:9D97:9D62:3032:FECE (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet. News reports mention this, but I have yet to see an explanation. If you find a reliable source that gives an explanation, please feel free to share it. — Newslinger talk 09:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, other than being easy to draw, for the same reason the Nazi used the Swastika: plain and simple cultural appropriation. 79.50.220.48 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a lot of speculation about this, but Wikipedia articles can't include any information until it is reported in a reliable source, such as a news article from a reputable publication. — Newslinger talk 11:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Just speculating, but I'd say the use of the symbol on military vehicles is just because it is easy to draw and easy to distinguish. If they had taken the kyrillic "z" instead, it would look like a mirrored 3, it might be mistaken as a 3 or 8 or whatever. It probably has no meaning by itself, no abbreviation for anything, at least originally. Similar to the V or upside-down V that we also have seen on western coalition vehicles, e.g. in the gulf war. It is simply easy to draw, it can also be done with two stripes of white tape (have you ever tried to make a round shape with straight pieces of tape?). Most other letters are either more complicated or can be mistaken as outline of some structure (e.g. an L could just look like the lower left corner of a rectangular plate). They could also use signs like the Playstation symbols or anything, but letters are on a keyboard and thus can easily be typed in texts, in contrast to a square or triangle.--OBrian (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Because Z is very distinguishable, and it isn't really used in any other context (in terms of either Russian or Ukrainian Military) so it makes sense 2601:2C2:501:DB00:7C09:E15B:32D4:3C3A (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Rename

The article is not only about the Z symbol, which itself has two variations. A better and wider title should be used. Super Ψ Dro 14:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This article does briefly describe the other symbols, but the news coverage and cultural impact are highly concentrated on just the "Z" symbol. — Newslinger talk 15:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the Russian Ministry of Defence...

Currently the article text says "On Instagram, the Russian Ministry of Defence stated that the "Z" symbol is an abbreviation of the phrase "for victory" (Russian: за победу, romanized: za pobedu), while the "V" symbol stands for "our strength is in truth" [ru] (Russian: сила в правде, romanized: sila v pravde) and "the task will be completed" (Russian: задача будет выполнена, romanized: zadacha budet vypolnena).[6][7][8]"

I think this is misleading: it's possible to check what the Russian MOD is claiming simply by going to their Instagram and reading it! Their Instagram page is here: https://www.instagram.com/mil_ru/

I don't think they're giving a "definitive" meaning. It also looks like news sources have picked random pictures provided by the MOD and taken those to be "the" meaning. The MOD has listed many more: they can be browsed on Instagram but I have put a list together at https://twitter.com/TotallyNormalZ/status/1500910144896610309

Z/З (note not all of these replaced the З by Z, even if Z is pictured; sometimes the substitution happens in the hashtag in the uploader's comment but not to the words in the picture):

• ЗА ПОБЕДУ (ZA POBEDU=FOR VICTORY)
• ЗА МИР (ZA MIR)=FOR PEACE
• ЗА ПРАВДУ (ZA PRAVDU)=FOR TRUTH
• ЗАКАНЧИВАЕМ ВОЙНУ (ZAKANCHIVAYEM VOYNU)=WE END THE WAR
• In English: DEMILITARIZATION with Z highlighted
• In English: DENAZIFICATION with Z highlighted
• ЗА ДЕТЕЙ ДОНБАССА (ZA DETEY DONBASSA)=FOR THE CHILDREN OF DONBASS
• #героиz = "heroesz" (not used in any pictures but is used as a hashtag when several of the images are added: the z isn't substituting here, it's simply being added to the end of герои=heroes)

V/В (note not all of these replaced the В by V, even if V is pictured; as above):

• СИЛА V ПРАВДЕ (SILA V PRAVDE=STRENGTH/POWER IN TRUTH)
• ЗАДАЦА БУДЕТ ВЫПОЛНЕНА (ZADATSA BUDET VYPOLNENA)=THE TASK WILL BE COMPLETED (note this starts with З but is pictured with V, presumably due to В at start of ВЫПОЛНЕНА?)

Both Z and V substituted:

• V ОТВЕТЕ ZА МИР (should be В ОТВЕТЕ ЗА МИР, V OTVETE ZA MIR)=IN RESPONSIBILITY FOR PEACE (pictured with a Saint George's ribbon "Z")
• ZА ПАЦАНОV (should be ЗА ПАЦАНОВ, ZA PATSANOV)=FOR THE BOYS (pictured with a Z made from fingers)

Some of these are used more often than others. But if we are going to say what the MOD "officially" says the V/Z stand for, I don't think it makes sense to cherry-pick just a few of these. Surely the MOD itself counts as a reliable source for the announcements of the MOD (even if not much else!)? I'm starting to see journalists use the Wikipedia article to decide what the MOD "officially" say so just using media reports could get self-referential.

Away from the MOD, Z/Защита ("protection") often seems to be seen accompanying the Z symbol. And in Russian-language social media there is a lot of "Za Rossiyu", "Za Prezidenta", "Za Putina" (for Russia/the President/Putin). Finding reliable sources for this may be harder. With regards to the MOD, I believe the current state of this article is somewhat misleading and some mention of the many other abbreviations should be made. TotallyNormalZ (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. The za pobedu meaning was the first meaning posted by the Ministry of Defence, and it received coverage in reliable sources such as Novaya Gazeta, which the article cites. You raise a good point about the MoD posting alternative meanings later on; I see that the Russian Wikipedia article on this subject also mentions that the MoD shared different meanings on VK. Have reliable news sources reported on these other meanings so far? If so, we should cite those sources and incorporate them in the article. However, we do prefer secondary sources when possible, instead of interpreting the primary source social media postings by themselves. — Newslinger talk 15:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've added the word "initially" to the sentence "On Instagram, the Russian Ministry of Defence initially stated..." in Special:Diff/1075956506 to avoid any misunderstandings while we wait for additional secondary news coverage. — Newslinger talk 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Since "zadacha budet vypolnena" was a later addition, the "initially" is (trivially verifiably) factually false. But I appreciate the idea! To be honest I'm also uncomfortable with the word "stated" but I understand that the idea posting these pictures represented a kind of definitive statement is itself a claim that comes from the (cited) secondary source. I don't claim to have a good solution here on the wording but I do think it needs thinking about! TotallyNormalZ (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've changed "initially" to the actual date, "3 March", to be as accurate as possible. I've also changed "stated" to "posted" to be less definitive. — Newslinger talk 16:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Edited 16:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any that list the full set or anything close to it - there have been a bunch of articles recently, but it looks like many of them are basing their coverage of this aspect on Wikipedia's article, so it's getting a bit circular. At the very least, can the wording be amended to make it clearer the MOD started with "za pobedu" and added others later, so what follows is not as definitive a list as it sounds? It's also odd to list two for "V", given that there are fewer Vs than Zs in the complete list, and "zadacha budet vypolnena" was a later addition. I did wonder if the "statement of fact" provision of WP:PRIMARY would apply to a statement along the lines of: "On (a specified date), the MOD uploaded other images to its Instagram account featuring a Z and the phrases ....". But citing a secondary source would be preferable for a variety of reasons, not just to avoid original synthesis/analysis, but also Instagram pages are hard to link to and archive. These pictures were also being released through the official twitter account https://twitter.com/mod_russia which while still a long way from ideal would be easier to cite/archive than Instagram, but that account has been protected so the tweets are no longer visible. Some traces remain, e.g. https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1499655251892359171 is a screenshot of the 4 March "DENAZIFICATION" picture that's posted on the verified twitter account of a professional journalist. I appreciate that's a stretch. But we are starting to get into WP:CITOGENESIS territory, where "reliable sources" are starting to confidently state what the Russian MOD "claims" Z/V stand for, based on the Wikipedia article's partial listing, and despite the fact the MOD output nowhere claims any of these abbreviations to be the definitive or original meanings. TotallyNormalZ (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Seen your edit - great stuff, many thanks TotallyNormalZ (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

We're lucky enough to have the i newspaper cover the other meanings. Thanks for your transliterations, which I've used. While Wikipedia is limited to reliable sources and prefers non-primary sources, we can do a lot with the resources we have to make the article as accurate as possible. — Newslinger talk 16:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

In Russian langluage EVIL is pronounced ZLO (but written differently in their language) what is literally and practicly correct, Kremlin propaganda says that "z " is derivated from "victory" what is definite falsehood because the "victory" in russian language is pronounced "pobeda" has definitely no start with "z" neither has no "z" sound pronunced in it, Agneshka2022 (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Russian gov't did NOT in anyway claim that those were the meanings for the symbols. The symbol was appropriated outside of its original tactical meaning for propaganda purposes. Then they made a bunch of pictures featuring these symbols. Even then, from a grammatical standpoint it is impossible for these tactical markings to mean those things. They did not write Z in latin to be actually mean 3 in Cyrillic to be actually meaning 3a in short as in "for", to be interpreted to be possibly attached to a bunch of other words. Chokoladesu (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League

Hi Phiarc, I see that you've added List of symbols designated by the Anti-Defamation League as hate symbols to the "See also" section in Special:Diff/1075965296, but I can't find the "Z" symbol in the ADL Hate Symbols Database. Did the ADL announce something that I've missed? — Newslinger talk 17:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I added the see also to the ADL list not because the Z is on it (though I suspect it might just make it), but because of similar/related usage and users of Z compared to some symbols on the list. Phiarc (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Deleted in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z_(military_symbol)&oldid=1076026951 by User:sdrqaz Phiarc (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Merging Z campaign into Z (military symbol)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge it is Phiarc (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

---

The former is a small stub article which we can merge into this article and perhaps place a redirect, though I'm not sure if the latter is strictly necessary (is "Z campaign" a common term?). Phiarc (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see a separate campaign article being justified if there is an official named campaign from the Russian government using the "Z" as a propaganda symbol that is notable on its own. I haven't found enough news coverage of this yet, but things may change later on. When we don't have a name for the campaign, it's probably too early for a separate article. — Newslinger talk 18:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The propaganda campaign appears to be called "we don't abandon our own" (Russian: Своих Не Бросаем), which is also its slogan. It is also referred to with the hashtag #СвоихНеБросаем. The coverage in English-language media is still scant, but Russian media has already reported on it widely. The creator of the campaign is unknown, and the videos have high production values. The problem is that, with the recent Russian government crackdown on media, it's a challenge to evaluate the reliability of Russia-based sources right now. Tread carefully. — Newslinger talk 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - It seems like the symbols have the same meaning and the only difference is the context in which they're displayed. If it later becomes clear that they're somehow different, they could be separated again. Tisnec (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This article only exists because the recognition symbol Z started to be used for propaganda (while A, O, V, and X did not). It is the same subject. —Michael Z. 20:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support - It's a stub that is inherently intertwined with this article. Worthy of note, but no need for it to be a separate article at this time. If the section in this article becomes larger, I wouldn't be opposed to splitting it back off later, but for now I don't think there's enough things to say to have it be its own article. Fieari (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support – The campaign is just one aspect of the symbol's usage, and as of the moment it doesn't have enough distinct coverage to form its own article. Most news coverage (eg. The New York Times) treats them as two aspects of the same topic. ― novov t c 04:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support - the propaganda symbol only works within the context of its use as a military symbol. I don't see a good reason, to have two seperate articles for what is basically the same thing. --1234567891011a (talk) 10:01, 9 March 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.

"Z (hate symbol)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Z (hate symbol) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Z (hate symbol) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

One comment - where the article states "On the other hand, the government of the Czech Republic has classified the "Z" symbol as an equivalent to the swastika" There are no references that support that - if there is, they should be added.Mortymolander (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The article cited The Times (unpaywalled archive link) for this information. I've just added the Czech investigative website Neovlivní.cz as a second citation. — Newslinger talk 23:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"The meaning of the symbols is not unambiguously known"

Hi Tisnec, I see that you've recently added the following to the lead section in Special:Diff/1076233837 (additions in bold):

The meaning of the symbols is not unambiguously known; multiple theories have been advanced, both from inside and outside Russia. Outsiders have speculated the symbols are to help task forces distinguish themselves from other allied or enemy forces.

I've reverted this per the WP:BRD process in search of a more concise and accurate way to convey that no official definition has been announced. One issue with the above wording is that Sergey Kuvykin is a Russian veteran (i.e. not an outsider), and the "Military use" section states that his comments corroborated one of the theories. Do you have any alternative suggestions? — Newslinger talk 02:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Edited: 02:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not yet, and you make a fair point. I wasn't trying to endorse one interpretation, just make it clear there *isn't* only one interpretation while modifying the existing text as little as possible. It sounds like I accidentally ended up at cross purposes with myself. Tisnec (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead section is altogether too short for the current article length, and we should probably expand it to summarize the sections in the body. I think you were taking the lead section in the right direction, lengthwise, by expanding it. My immediate concern was that the German Wikipedia translation of this article had received a little bit of criticism for being too speculative when it was nominated for deletion (although there was consensus for keeping the article), and I didn't want this English Wikipedia article to give that impression. — Newslinger talk 02:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the header should mention something about the exact purpose of the symbols (in their original military context) not being public information, but I'll leave the page alone for now and look at it later with fresh eyes. Tisnec (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2022

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time. BD2412 T 04:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Z (military symbol) → Symbols of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – The article is not exclusive to Z, so it doesn't make sense to limit the topic to just one of these symbols. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 08:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Most of the sources available for this topic only mention the "Z" symbol, so even if this article is moved, it will continue to have a strong focus on just the "Z" symbol. — Newslinger talk 08:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support in practice, but I don't like the proposed title. It should be something more like "Russian military symbols of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". Super Ψ Dro 08:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The main subject is the politicized Z, and the others are incidental and only marginally used outside of military identification in the field. —Michael Z. 14:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment the current disambiguator "(military symbol)" is a rather poor choice. There's been many Z's used across the ages. While this article is focused on the symbol of the Russian invasion forces, and not such a symbol in general, or other symbols, like ones used by Ukrainians; but particularly on the variants of the Z symbol in 2022. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Alternative Suggest instead Z invasion symbology of the Russian forces in Ukraine. A different article should be written wbout Symbols of the Russian invasion forces during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine with the nice chart currently in this article, that should be split off. This article should focus on the "Z" and its variants, and its uses, originating from the 2022 invasion. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support As noted above, this article is not about the use of "Z" as a military symbol in general, but rather about a more special case, so renaming to something seems like a solid plan. That said, I'm more ambivalent whether the new name is as proposed (i.e. on the Russian symbology in general) or about the Z in specific as long as the title is aligned with the contents. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this specific move. I agree that it should probably be moved to something, as the article isn't about Z as a general military symbol, but the Russian one used this year specifically... but I think the "Z" is the primary focus and should be in the article title. I'm not sure what the best name would be. Maybe something like Russian "Z" (2022 military symbol)? That feels clunky too. I'm not sure what it should be, and in fact it took me a while to find this article in the first place because, honestly, how do you search for a Z? ...but that said, I still don't think it should be this. Fieari (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: The article is partially about the cultural impact of "Z" as a marker showing someone's support for the invasion, and partially about identification markers used by the Russian military during the invasion. Given that the article covers the first topic, that "Z" dominates all public shows of support (while "V" and "O" are rarely used in comparison), and that media coverage for the public support symbology focuses on "Z", it feels like "Z" dominates over all the other symbols, thus justifying the current article name. As for the article covering both topics, to me it kind of feels like splitting the article into two separate pages isn't particularly justified at this stage, and that it's better to cover these two within the one page since they're so intertwined with one another. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Russia has painted various letters on its vehicles, but only the "Z" has become a meme and pro-war icon, which is the main topic of the article. Smurrayinchester 12:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support I don't love the proposed new title, but it is certainly better than the current title. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, as per Benlisquare. I might support this if the new title were less wordy and vague than the one being proposed. There's a valid case for an article name that indicates this is a set of symbols, rather than just the Z, but the Z is the most recognized and commented-upon one so far, and the current article name is clear and unambiguous, if incomplete. Tisnec (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not only other "symbols" of the war have their own articles. The "Z" has a lot of meaning in the war both as an friendly-fire identification and a pro-war symbol.LordLoko (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Now that the war is in its 3rd week, the Z in the article title isn't really needed for subject identification.Ovioas,wo (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The suggested new title would be misleading, as this article is only (and should only be) about the Z symbol used by Russian forces (and supporters), not about other symbols and signs used in the Russo-Ukrainian war (on both sides), which have their own articles. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: The proposed name is too focused on actual military symbology. I think the article should be split into Z (pro-Russian war symbol) and Russian military symbols of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (or the like).--Blockhaj (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the only really notable symbol among all Russian symbols of the invasion. But we can briefly note other symbols here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support: The Z and boxed Z are just two out of several important symbols used by Russian military groups by sector inside Ukraine. The Z may be the most prominent to be featured as a pro-war symbol by civilians and government officials in subsequent days, but the others such as the V have also gained some level of symbolism separate from the military meaning it originally had. I'm not sure if the proposed title is the best fit, because it may be too broad and unspecific – the Commons category title "2022 Russian Invasion vehicle markings" may be more spot on – but the article is about much more than just the Z. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only the Z symbol enjoys sufficient popularity.—-安眠3 (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: The Z is by far the most recognizable of the symbols, and few of the other symbols are ever mentioned separately from the Z. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The only notable one is Z, the rest can be discussed in a small section of this article. If we move the article, its title will be much less recognisable. Wikisaurus (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: V, O, and enclosed Z remain arbitrary tactical symbols that do not warrant discussion in an encyclopedia — except to give context to Z, which has acquired additional iconic meaning. —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Z Outlawed in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan

The symbol was not “outlawed”. It was not permitted based on existing laws, the article makes it seem that it was specifically banned in the country which would be false. Add context. 173.71.144.242 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've changed "...Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have outlawed..." to "...Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan laws prohibit..." in Special:Diff/1076990378. Police departments from these countries issued new statements clarifying that they consider the display of the "Z" symbol on vehicles in public to be illegal after the "Z" symbol became more well-known. While the laws are not new, these interpretations of the laws are new. — Newslinger talk 01:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Meanings of Z and other symbols

The section on "Symbols" includes a chart claiming it is from the Armed Force of Ukraine. However, this image is actually from a telegram channel as noted in the referenced article, and contradicts most photographic evidence. My personal observations are as follows:

- "Z" is used by forces from Crimea. Separatists in Donbas also appear to use it, but that could be unofficial based on its popular symbolism.

- "🅉" is used by forces attacking Kharkiv

- "O" is used by forces attacking Sumy and Chernihiv regardless of origin - many of these come from Russia, and many forces from Belarus do not use this marking despite the chart's claim. Often filled with black and less ubiquitous than the "Z" or "V" markings.

- "V" is used by forces attacking Kyiv from the northwest (from Belarus). Often seen on airborne vehicles, definitely not Naval Infantry as the chart claims (why would they be attacking from landlocked Belarus?).

- "A" and "X" have no evidence of use

- All Russian helicopters I have seen are using green/brown camouflage, not grey as the chart suggests

Unfortunately, this is all original research so it can't help with the article.

Now for my personal speculation:

If you pause at the right moments in the full video of Lukashenko's map pointing (available at https://president.gov.by/en/media/details/soveshchanie-s-chlenami-soveta-bezopasnosti-i-rukovodstvom-soveta-ministrov-1646152770), you can just about make out the names of three "OTGs": "Vostok" (east), "Tsentr" (centre), and "Zapad" (west) which appear to correspond to "V", "O", and "🅉" respectively. Assuming that all three symbols reflect the names of the groups, "O" may be more of a bullseye representing "centre". "Z" in the south doesn't fit this theory though, and it's hard to say anything without a good look at the map there.

Seppiya (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The Zaxid.net article, which is the reliable source cited for this information, does not mention Telegram at all. Zaxid.net states that they obtained the infographic from a Facebook post made by the verified account of the Ukrainian Ground Forces. This is why this Wikipedia article attributes the list of meanings with the phrase "According to the Armed Forces of Ukraine". The {{Dubious}} tag should be removed because we can see without a doubt that the Ukrainian Ground Forces did publish this information.

Although we cannot cite original research, if you find any other definitions for these symbols that are published in reliable sources, you're welcome to share them so that they can be incorporated into the article.​ — Newslinger talk 01:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I was wrong about telegram; when I checked the article I'm 99% sure it cited this page https://vesti-ua.net/novosti/obschestvo/207577-chto-znachat-otmetki-z-v-o-i-drugie-na-tehnike-agressora.html which does mention telegram.

After a bit of digging the chart seems to originate from the charity Come Back Alive (https://www.facebook.com/backandalive/photos/2237131049777653) and was created by Nikita Titov (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4937222526344862&set=pb.100001714917168.-2207520000..&type=3) to accompany the announcement of their findokupant.com website (the UGF post mentions both, and they posted it 3 days before the UGF Facebook reposted the announcement. Interestingly Titov's version was slightly different). Most of the news articles are just reposts of the UGF's repost of that announcement post, so it seems they were more suited to spreading the word quicky than serving as reliable sources.

Template:Dubious states that it can be used "to question the veracity, accuracy, or methodology employed by a given source" or "to alert editors that additional sources need to be found, to ascertain the statement's validity" so I think it could stay in this case (I'll let more experienced editors decide).

The information in the chart contradicts all evidence, so it seems wrong to leave it up with no disclaimer, but without good sources what can we do? Seppiya (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We have no means of determining the actual meanings of the symbols. This article describes the statements that relevant parties have made (including the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Russian Ministry of Defence, and commentators in reliable sources) and properly attributes the statements to these parties. Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth, and the claims in this article are fully verifiable. The methodology of Zaxid.net (using a verified account operated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine to determine that the Armed Forces of Ukraine made a claim) is sound.

Per WP:TC, "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with an article, or a method of warning readers about an article." Since this article already conveys the best information in reliable sources that editors have found about the symbols' meanings, and no policy-compliant improvements to the article's description of the symbols' meanings have been identified, the {{Dubious}} tag does not belong in the article. — Newslinger talk 04:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The statement that the Ukrainian Military made this claim is in no way dubious. Even the person who placed the tag doesn't think that the Ukrainian Military didn't say this, they just don't think the Ukrainian Military is correct. I'm removing the dubious tag now. Fieari (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree the definitions for the symbols are far from correct. There has been no evidence of X or A being used, and V is absolutely not marines. The Chechen forces however, have been documented using V as they have been inserted from that region. I do not expect the Ukrainian military to be "debunking" what it said anytime soon, so leaving this up indefinitely might not be good. If any source can prove that these symbols mean what is described (which they can't) only then it should stay. Chokoladesu (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source that states that the information shared by the Armed Forces of Ukraine is wrong, please share the source so that it can be incorporated into the article. — Newslinger talk 04:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a video from Battle Order, a well known Youtuber who publishes videos relating to military history and organization etc. He knows what he's talking about and is a good source in my view https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMh6Ml329VU Chokoladesu (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

With very few exceptions, a youtuber is not considered a WP:Reliable Source for wikipedia purposes, regardless of how much he knows what he's talking about. Basically no self-published sources are considered reliable for wikipedia's purposes. The publisher must have an established editorial oversight with a history of reliability and fact checking. Alas, a youtuber who knows what he is talking about about does not have anyone performing editorial oversight on him. Do you have a reliable, published, edited source? Fieari (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked my Ukrainian guests staying with us and without hesitation they said that Z just stood for West, or, more precisely, Western Military District, and that it had been that way from before the war and before the Russian MoD subsequently propagandised it. They thought that all the hidden meanings we were reading into it were highly amusing. Yes, Latin is frequently used where an easy symbol is needed, even on compass roses. They said there is another Latin letter for the forces in eastern Russia that I forget, and it just means East. Sometimes, the most obvious explanation is merely common knowledge and consequently has no reference to cite because it wasn't worth formally setting out. There is value in recording the history of what Z has subsequently come to mean, but regarding its origin, perhaps we are being a trifle over speculative? Anyway, it makes my guests laugh, and there is value in that. Ex nihil ^(talk) 11:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article: Another interpretation for "Z" is the Russian word for west (Russian: запад, romanized: zapad), to designate the Western Military District or west-bound infantry, with the "V" symbol similarly standing for the word for east (Russian: восток, romanized: vostok). Kleinpecan (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Russian invasion symbols.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Russian invasion symbols.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the Z,O,V symbol meanings as they've been more accurately determined over the past three weeks.

I was unable to post this edit as a new user due to the Unicode Z icon within. Can someone please post the information I've posted below, under the "Symbol" sub-header and below the content regarding the infographic shared by the AFU, but above the text about "Operation Z"? Thank you.

This infographic was found to have inaccuracies, particularly the 🅉 (enclosed in square), as video and photographic footage has shown vehicles with the markings attacking specific areas of Ukraine.

• Z: Attacking South-East Region such as Kherson, Mykolaiv, Mariupol. Deployed from Crimea / Rostov oblast, Russia.
• 🅉 (enclosed in square): Attacking Kharkiv / Sumy oblast. Deployed from Belgorod Oblast, Russia.
• O: Attacking Chernihiv Oblast. Crossed border at Senkivka, Northern Ukraine.
• V: Attacking North-west Kyiv Oblast. Deployed from Mazyr District, Belarus.

Border footage of 24 Feb confirms vehicles crossing from Crimea had a plain Z painted on them, vehicles leaving from Belgorod had a 🅉 (enclosed in square), and vehicles crossing from Belarus had white and black O markings on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarBravo129 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That looks like it could correspond to the four military districts identified at the end of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Invasion and resistance. Do any reliable sources make this connection? —Michael Z. 13:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

This video presented on https://www.battleorder.org/post/russia-z is used as a source for most of the Symbols-section. Their About-page reveals that they "provide value far and wide, from wargamers looking to make their play more immersive to warfighters who need to know how their allies and rivals fight." They also offer paid membership. Is the video considered a reliable source? --Dr-Victor-von-Doom (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems unreliable to me. We should replace it with a better source ASAP, or if we think the information it is citing is flat out wrong, we should trim the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The claims in this video are cobbled together with some information obtained from NBC and CNN, resulting in the assumptions currently made in the Symbols-section. This also applies to File:Russian invasion of Ukraine - military symbols.svg (WP:NOR). Please also see bottom of above section "Meanings of Z and other symbols". I have removed the content for now, it can come back once acceptable sources are available. --Dr-Victor-von-Doom (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This information was confirmed through hundreds of photos over the span of the first two months of the invasion. Since the re-shifting of forces, it is no longer accurate and there is no definitive meaning to the symbols aside from identification of friend or foe now. OscarBravo129 (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify. The gamer post is bogus info. The detailed write up of Z V O above is what was confirmed through hundreds of independent photos / videos. OscarBravo129 (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Z has nothing to do with Nazism and this is a bogus view. Article should mention that this is false, and does not originate from Nazism symbolism.

Z stands for victory or zapad (west). It should be mentioned that the false equivalent with Nazism is baseless as Z looks nothing like the swastika and Station Z has nothing at all to do with the symbol. Probably the saddest grift I have seen to compare the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BritishToff (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC) (user blocked)

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2022/03/nazi-inspired-symbol-used-russia-war-against-ukraine-finds-way-downtown-murmansk 'bogus' is your opinion.Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/z-is-the-symbol-of-the-new-russian-politics-of-aggression Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_SS_Polizei_Panzergrenadier_Division#/media/File:4._SS-Polizei-Panzergrenadier-Division.svg “Great minds think alike"Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Firstly thats a Wolfsangle which is used by the Neo Nazi Azov Battalion not a Z. Secondly that looks nothing like the Z symbol. BritishToff (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The article states, "A number of critics have described the 'Z' as a variant of Nazi symbolism, with some comparing it to the swastika; the symbol has been pejoratively nicknamed by some Internet users as the zwastika", which is supported by the cited reliable sources. The claims are properly attributed in-text. Which reliable sources indicate that this is a "bogus" view? — Newslinger talk 14:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Children in 'flash-mobs'

At least one case of hospice children making Z [1], another one of kindergarden [2]. Different cases than described in the text.Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC) https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/17/in-russias-pro-military-z-campaign-children-are-placed-front-and-center-a76976 Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"Z" and Fascism

a wolfsangel

Is the "Z" symbology being used related to the Wolfsangel ? Either as part of the "anti-fascist" drive, or in and of itself a symbol of fascism ? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Not in direct usage, but simply because the two look similar. The Russian Z is used in militant nationalism against Ukraine.

Considering that Putin's dictator-like rule and militarism is also considered as "fascism", it may be subjectively counted, although it is not "officially" fascist by the Russian government. We still need the general consensus of the Wikipedia community before we can conclude whether it can be labelled as "fascist" or not.

PulauKakatua19 (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Some relevant quotes:

“Many in Russia and abroad have grown increasingly concerned about the often aggressively brandished symbol, which they see as a fascistic emblem of state-mandated blind loyalty and a militarized society. Political commentator Vitaly Portnikov labeled the Z symbol a ‘stylized semi-swastika’ and other commentators have taken to referring to it as the ‘Zwastika.’”[3]

“longtime Russia observers such as the New Yorker’s Masha Gessen have noted that the Z has quickly come to symbolize Russian hyperaggression, if not outright fascism. “Over the course of a few days, it had come to stand for loyalty, devotion to the state, murderous rage, and unchecked power,” writes Gessen.[4]

“How Russia’s ‘Z’ symbol could become the next swastika: It may be just a letter to us, but the simple three-line icon has been appropriated and subverted into the emblem of a propaganda war”[5]

 —Michael Z. 17:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Michael, PulauKakatua19, is not better the more accurat subsection Z (military symbol)#Analogues and influences? unfortunatly, with no references for now. You can help. DayakSibiriak (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of the Z being inspired by those symbols from any Russian military sources, so I am not sure. I don't think these may be a valid comparison in this article.

PulauKakatua19 (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe at this stage limit the heading to Analogies with wikilinks in the text? Influences really need to be based on sources. DayakSibiriak (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Triangle

Anyone seen any reliable sources that talk about a triangle symbol on Russian vehicles? I saw a picture at the beginning of the war of a vehicle marked in this way. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Triangle with two lines. https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-crisis-what-are-the-mysterious-markings-appearing-on-russian-tanks-12549698 Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Oleg Shupliak Art 2022.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2022

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Z (military symbol) → Z (Russian propaganda symbol) – Describing this merely as a "military symbol" does not give adequate context; i.e. that this is a pro-war symbol used by Russia, not merely a military identifier. QueenofBithynia (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I think the symbol now has pro-war associations, it was originally created by the Russians as a military symbol to mark various divisions (akin to Invasion stripes). I would therefore still class it as a military symbol but refer to its subsequent use in pro-war advocacy in the article.78.18.230.248 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I am not sure that the symbol is one of "propaganda" - E.g. presenting a tilted/distorted image to support a view. The OP might have more accurately presented it as a "pro-war" symbol, which is I think how the Russians are increasingly using it? However, I still think that the Russians painted tens of thousands of Zs (and Vs, Os, etc.) on their vehicles for military purposes, and I think the article could do with more content on the military theories of the symbol (for which there is a lot of RS out there). 78.18.251.161 (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• support the article focuses mostly on it as a pro war symbol—blindlynx 14:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's primarily a military symbol that got co-opted by propaganda, and not the other way around. Perhaps the different uses can be split to different articles.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Its origins and primary use is as a military identifying symbol. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support  There are several military recognition symbols, but the defining characteristic and reason for the notability of this one is its propaganda use. If it weren’t, we probably would not have this article. —Michael Z. 00:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Support it is only partially a military symbol anyways. Got co-opted into propaganda and will likelty be remembered more in propaganda. NATO Joint Military Symbology is an example of proper military symbols by contrast Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 04:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - primarily notable as war propaganda symbol.--Staberinde (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - As mentioned before, it was originally created as a military syimbol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:248:F670:500:CDA:A583:4AB:A9C7 (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. As mentioned, it is used as a military identification symbol for the invasion, that was its purpose. It also later became used as a pro-war symbol too, both promoted by the government and used as genuine symbol of support, this was by chance. Still a military symbol. New title suggests otherwise. Mellk (talk) 15:55, 1 May 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.

Repeated removal of Black Sun (symbol) from "See Also" section

Having noticed that a symbol used by the opposing Ukrainian Azov Battalion (and in fact also by members of Russia's own Wagner Group) was not linked here, I added it. Imagine my surprise to find an editor (@DolyaIskrina:) remove it not once but twice, claiming that its inclusion was "name-calling" (the rather garbled "Black sun is only associated with this page via name-calling, which we on wikipedia do not participate in") and as requiring a citation ("Please provide a citation before implying that a Nazi symbol is germane to this page. Do not WP:EW follow WP:BRD").

This same editor then went to Black Sun (symbol) and removed the "see also" links to this page and to Rashism (diff). Now, while this edit summary and others from this account imply that this editor's native language is not English (and, typical of—oh, just as an example— Russian speakers who speak—or translate text to—English as a second language, it lacks definite articles), but that's not the issue here: What's more of an issue is propaganda-sounding edit summaries like "Roshism and Z military symbol are not related to this symbol. Unless you can explain how they are related other than the desire to call Russians Nazis, there is no reason to link them".

Now setting aside everything else, the reasoning behind the "see also" is straightforward: They're symbols used by two opposing forces, and therefore perfectly appropriate for a "see also" section on each article. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it to talk. The connection between Black Sun to the Azov Battalion page is not based on good RS. You were reverted on that page twice now in regards to that issue. Please read WP:EW. But there is at least a bad source linking it to that page. On this page, however, the only connection is your claim that they are symbols used by "two opposing forces." That is WP:SYNTH. You need a citation to connect them. You have no citation. It needs to go from this page for sure, and I will discuss with you on the other page. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself with WP:SEEALSO—these are related topics, just as outlined there. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What a strange see also section. What does Black Sun (symbol), list of symbols, rashism, Where have you been for eight years?, and white-blue-white flag have to do with military vehicle markings? I was expecting this section to be filled with something more like United States military vehicle markings of World War II or invasion stripes, but even that's a stretch since that's a war that was 80 years ago. Honestly unless convincing arguments are made I think it'd be reasonable to delete the entire See Also section. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

As anyone with even the slightest familiarity with this use of this symbol during the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine is aware (or anyone who has read this article's introduction), this symbol has become far more than a vehicle marking: It is now a nationalist symbol used by the Kremlin, to the point where it is regularly equated with the swastika. See also links to rashism and Black Sun (symbol) are perfectly appropriate, as listed at WP:SEEALSO. These are related topics—and we're not here to shield our readers from them. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There is zero link between Black Sun and Wolfsangels and the Z military symbol. Please stop inventing connections. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The link is that they're symbols used by opposing militaries and both are widely associared with fascism. It's pretty obvious and fully in compliance with WP:SEEALSO. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I personally think the rashism link makes sense because, as you say, the Z symbol has become a Russian nationalist symbol. It's an iffy call, but that's the side I would land on. However, there is no connection established by reputable sources between the Z and the Black Sun, which is a Nazi symbol. bloodofox, the distinction that you are not getting is that nationalism does not equal nazisim does not equal fascism. We can't go around slapping Swastikas any any old military operation war without good citations. Per:WP:SEEALSO "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." How would you briefly explain the relevance? "SEE ALSO:Black Sun, because both sides are associated with fascism, and this is also a fascist symbol"???? Do you not see how you are just slapping a swastika on an already highly controversial and inflamed situation? If you can't find a citation directly linking the Black Sun to the Z, it must go. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with DolyaIskrina , and left the rashism link on that basis, however, the Black Sun and others are too much of a stretch (and making connections that are POV). 78.18.251.161 (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing POV about the fact that both symbols have received major media attention because of their high visibility during the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. And this is exactly why one would expect to find the Black Sun liked in a "see also" section in this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The Z has received media attention. The Black Sun has not. What's more, equating the Azov Battalion with all of the Ukraine and equating the Wagner Group with all of Russia is not good practice. Those are not the sides. Those are military units of varying degrees of legitimacy over their history. There are extremists of all stripes in every army. It's a propaganda technique to try to make the cherry-picked parts tarnish the whole. That's just my opinion. The quickest way to shut me up is with citations. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The Black Sun has received major media attention and played a significant role in Russian propaganda surrounding the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, which is discussed over at Black_Sun_(symbol)#Neo-Nazism. By way of the use of this symbol, the Kremlin has attempted to portray the Ukrainian forces as a whole as neo-Nazis. I suggest you read further into this topic, starting with our coverage on the aforementioned linked article. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I had reservations about just slapping links on the article without annotation or discussion in the text, but this discussion has convinced me that it is a bad idea because it risks equating these as equal opposites.

They’re not “used by opposing militaries.” These are not opposite equivalents, and should not be presented without context.

On the one hand, the Z is officially used by Russian military, Russian state media, and in various Russian demonstrations, such as by Russian athletes who get banned from sports for it. It’s a symbol of the war against Ukraine, and commonly interpreted as a fascistic symbol of the Russian state.

On the other, the black sun was removed from the Azov volunteer battalion’s insignia after it was de-politicized and integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard as Azov Special Operations Detachment, and may continue to be displayed by some individual Ukrainian fighters or members of the political Azov movement as an expression of far right-associated paganism. And it is also used as the official insignia of a Russian overtly neo-Nazi subunit, Milchakov’s Rusich company of the PMC Wagner mercenary organization. —Michael Z. 18:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I have removed several "tangential" See also entries. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I have also helped to clarify the structure (and headings) of this article; it has been put together in parts, understandably, but probably needs a top-down re-write. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source for meaning of symbols

This zaxid.net article may have some material we can incorporate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not accurate infromation. These symbols don't represent individual unit but rather, the axis of attack. For example: "V" was used only during the battle of Kiev and at the nothern axis of attack. The only exception of this is with the 3rd corps and their "O" in an upside down triagle, no other unit uses them.

The thing with these markings are that they are just there to distinguish their troops and equipment. I don't think that they wanted to make sense with them during the beginning Shhssh (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian response by adding cross symbols

Recently, around September 2022, Ukrainian online users started putting up short crosses in their usernames, such as on Twitter. Some answered that they did this as a response to Russians adding Z symbols, related to the Cossack cross used by the ZSU.

I need time to find the source for adding the cross symbols, but can this info be confirmed into the article?

PulauKakatua19 (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that a simple white spray painted cross has been used as a recognition symbol by Ukrainian forces on captured Russian equipment lately. —Michael Z. 06:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Inverted Delta Omega symbol of the Russian Central Military District

Good morning everyone! Here: [6] We can see the inverted Delta Omega symbol of the Russian Central Military District operating in the North-eastern part of Ukraine. IMHO a graphic version should be done and added to the page. Thank you. Nicola Romani (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we look for a better source than Twitter? Twitter is WP:SELFPUB so unreliable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Of course, here we are: [7]; [8]; [9] Nicola Romani (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence

Have anyone noticed that the letters used from the Russian military match with the initials of the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy, I find this quite interesting. 207.35.0.18 (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The See also section

Why is Za dom spremni and Wolfsangel included in the See also section? They were removed formerly but added back in these edits: 1140740073 and 1140946414 . The former is a Croatian fascist slogan from World War II, which has no relation to Russia or Ukraine, and looks like it is included simply for the fact that both topics begin with the letter Z and were used by Slavic countries. The former is a Germanic symbol that happens to resemble the letter Z, though it is associated with Nazism (and interestingly enough is used more widely by Azov Regiment, which is on the Ukrainian side). The inclusion of the Wolfsangel is somewhat excusable given the resemblances of the symbols, but even then it gives off agenda/narrative-pushing WP:SEALION vibes. I do not think these topics belong in the See also section, as there is no really relevant relationship. I have gone ahead and removed them from the article. Unless there is an especially compelling argument to justify their inclusion, they should not be included. 129.97.131.0 (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Properly designating what the markings are used for.

A video by "Battle Order" titled "How Russia's 'Z' is REALLY Used (Invasion Markings)" should serve as enough of a reminder on what parts of the front those markings were mean't to designate. I don't know why this was removed from this page a year ago. AlexGuy117 (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Dartz

This luxury armoured SUV's company Dartz case is peculiar (posing as Latvian, as this article states, they are very connected to Russians). So the case here is although they issued statements to remove Z logo, as of 5 May 2023 they clearly still market many Z engraved luxury items interspaced with guns on their webpage... Lets do not make mokery of our Wikipedia. I propose to keep mention of them, but to also point them out as such fakers.

There is also an interesting case of coincidently issuing Z line of jewelry by Louis Vuitton... IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Trivia

"VOZ" symbols can be seen as initials's transliteration of Ukraine's Supreme Commander–in–Chief - Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy (Володимир Олександрович Зеленський). 212.142.68.54 (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• DSHRG Rusich patch during 2022 Ukraine war.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Reference use of red "Z" by Wagner during their mutiny

During the ongoing Wagner Group mutiny, their vehicles have shown to be sporting a red coloured variation of the "Z" symbol as can be seen in the images in this CNN article. I can't edit, but this should be referenced within the article. AsyarSaronen (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

PLEASE ADD:

The Z symbol is composed of two number 7s stacked, one of them upside down. This represents 77 years since Victoria Day and the defeat of Nazism. Pregnantembryo (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Source seems to be one individual's analysis, with no evidence to show it more than a coincidence. WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2023

Extending the “Business” section’s 3rd paragraph:

In the first day of the same month, Telegram renamed its web client WebZ to WebA claiming that it was done after [[April Fools' Day]], but it was thought that it was related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://t.me/webachannel/50|title=Welcome to Telegram Web A – a brand new messaging app named after the most important day in a year – April Fool's day.|date=13 August 2023|website=Telegram}}</ref>

— Roj im (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Can you provide a source supporting that "it was thought that it was related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine"? The one provided doesn't support that claim. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 09:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Please replace File:Wagner armed rebellion vehicle marking Z.png with File:Wagner armed rebellion vehicle marking Z.svg Rainbowlack (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

'Z' symbol used by Israeli military

It appears that Israel's military are also using the 'Z' symbol. It does not appear to be related to Russia's use of the symbol.

Source: https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=93b4260bf9aa40dfb1a6cf46e6a6e6bb&mediatype=photo DONAL HUNT (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Not true. There's been loads of documented history between the two countries. This comment should be removed for disinformation. 2001:EE0:1A14:5160:393C:4915:F186:FE05 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Additional source explaining it's use: https://html.scribdassets.com/5erfrppy803jjt4s/images/70-b30cf62ef8.jpg (sourced from https://www.scribd.com/doc/209958246/Merkava-Siman-3-Merkava-Mk-3-in-IDF-Service-Pa-Bookos-org) --DONAL HUNT (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)