Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?

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

---

(The heading above is a link to the archived RFC as it is significant and I'm assuming this will be discussed more while not cluttering the talk page with a 29 page discussion Phiarc (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC))

Same link: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? --N8_wilson 12:19, 20 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.

Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly version

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 would like to propose that the main map shown in the infobox be changed to the colourblind-friendly version.

• 
  Current map
• 
  Proposed replacement

The current map (on the left above) does not offer sufficient contrast for individuals diagnosed with tritanopia.
Although tritanopia incidence rate is about 1%, this highly visible article has been viewed 5,445,185 times at the time this was written, which means that we have likely served this map to individuals diagnosed with tritanopia more than 54 000 times. Of course, this number will only go up.
Per MOS:ACCESS, accessibility is a core WMF policy, and it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project". Based on this, I think we have a clear case for action to switch to the colourblind-friendly map.

Simulations of tritanopia:
Current whole page Just the image
Proposed replacement image

Please be patient as the tool loads, it may take a few seconds to be ready. Melmann 11:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong support - No love lost for a map with new colour schemes. The proposal works perfectly for everyone, a genuinely good change. PenangLion (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support with suggestion. This replacement looks a lot better. My suggestion is that there needs to be better contrast between "troop movement arrows" and the background colors, otherwise it is hard to see. If troop movements were, for example, black that would make them a lot easier to see. Another alternative might be to "outline" (any colored troop movement arrows) in clear black lines so you can really see these movement arrows. Or alternately still, just experiment with other "arrow colors", but always strive for strong contrast. Chesapeake77 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support IMO the new one looks a lot better, since there's a larger contrast between the occupied/non-occupied territories. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Looks a lot clearer to me (average sighted?) 51.6.155.34 (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support I hate the yellow on yellow. Hard to see, if not impossible, on mobile devices.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment, yes but I would also mention that the "grey" troop movement arrows are also hard to see. Better contrast there is still needed. Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

IIRC this was discussed on Commons after the first overwrite (c:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#Voting_on_two_color_schemes), and editors decided to keep copy A. Some colourblind people commented there saying the one on the right wasn't actually easier to see. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment, I do think its a good idea to have the advances/movements of forces in different colours, so readers can tell the forces apart, maybe not have red arrows on orange for the Russians and maybe blue instead of unclear Grey for the Ukrainians. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support per MOS:ACCESS though contrast in the movement arrows should be increased. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be a better option (option 1) per discussion below - #Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Weak support The gray arrows on cream background for Ukraine are much clearer than the current version, but are hard to tell apart from the borders on the map for people with normal color vision, as is the new icon assigned to the older bombardments. The new contrast choice for the Russian troops and Russian-controlled territory is also somewhat worse than the original for viewers with protanopia or deuteranopia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong Support for WP:ACCESSIBILITY, plus as someone with a type of colourblindness that doesn't affect the colours on the current map, I find the new clearer to read. --Inops (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Object One can discern the differences in gradient in the simulation of tritanopia version. It does not affect the viewing of the image. The orange subtlely resembles the color of the ribbon of Saint George, a Russian military symbol thus it would bring to the map a layer of unwanted meaning. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I've seen better suggestions, such as a light blue and red one or a white(ish) and black one. This suggestion sure is better than the green and orange one but I am not convinced that this is the best possible version we can come out with and approving this version already could make people stop proposing alternatives. Super Ψ Dro 09:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong Oppose It gives passive colors to Ukraine while making Russian gains seem overwhelmingly dominant. The current file is accessible to 99 % of the readers and the color blind accessible version already in the file page. Viewsridge (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Very Strongly Oppose – The proposed colorblind map colors aren't intuitive, and for normal color vision people, the contrasting is just terrible in some areas (such as grey arrows on a light background). The colors are jarring and even a little confusing, as some of the colors are too close to others, while the proposed colors make it appear as if Ukraine doesn't even hold any territory. The grey colors for cities is also terrible and difficult to distinguish against the background. Not only that, but the colors don't mesh well together and don't look nice. If we implement a colorblind-friendly version, I prefer a version that is close to the current version of the map. As a matter of fact, I would strongly oppose any proposed color scheme that bears little to no resemblance to the current colors. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also Very Strongly Oppose, LightandDark2000 has described the situation well. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• There is another discussion below on some proposals to use a similar coloring scheme to the current colors that is also workable for colorblind individuals. Please also have a look at that discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: My proposal is to improve the MOS:ACCESS now with what we currently have ready, not to select 'one final map to rule them all that nobody will ever be able to change'. If this proposal was to be implemented, it would be a step towards a better accessibility, and we can take that step now. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of better.
The community has been struggling to agree on a proper colour scheme that works for everyone, and in the meanwhile colourblind users suffer. Per MOS:ACCESS, accessibility is not optional, and since there is WP:NODEADLINE our colourblind users may be left in Wikipedia census process purgatory for weeks or months. I would see no reason why we can't implement this now, and then when the discussion yields the final set of colours, implement those.
Could you attempt to justify a 'very strong oppose' in the context of our MOS:ACCESS obligations and the reality that your discussion may not yield result anytime soon? Melmann 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I know that this is irrelevant now, given that the second, later discussion has clearly concluded in favor of one of the proposals there over this particular proposal...But...Let me ask this: Why should we do this? Why should we rush a discussion, when the policy you yourself cited, WP:NODEADLINE, states that there is no deadline for Wikipedia editors to complete an article or implement a change? Why should we prejudge the results of an open discussion when there is no way of knowing for certain exactly how it will end? And most importantly, why should we rush ahead with a controversial change that has divided the participants and attracted significant opposition, especially while the said discussion is still ongoing? If this doesn't breach WP:CONSENSUS, or at least the soul of the policy, I don't know what does. I will say that rushing ahead with a proposal with this much opposition would generate significant backlash, both on Wikipedia and on other sites that view our maps (such as Twitter and Facebook). I've seen color changes hastily implemented before on other, unrelated projects on Wikipedia in the past, in the name of MOS:ACCESS. While I will not explicitly say which projects are involved for those, let me just say that those attempts did not end well. They attracted significant backlash and opposition, both on Wikipedia and on social media. And there were even attempts to revert those changes outright on Wikipedia. If we move forward in such a hasty, ill-thought manner, as you are suggesting here, you will provoke widespread backlash over a map that's literally viewed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people each day. The fact that there is already significant opposition here to the proposal here means that it should not be implemented immediately, especially not with the discussion still in progress. I think that as Wikipedians, we have a responsibility to see a discussion through to the end before implementing a controversial or disputed change, based on the results of that discussion. We also have a responsibility, as editors of these articles, to ensure that while our articles are accessible, that the graphics and charts we use are also acceptable to most of our readers. WP:ACCESS is important, but equally important are the views of our readers with normal vision. You cannot stomp over the opinions of normal vision readers here in the name of WP:ACCESS, especially when there are better alternatives available. Both discrimination and reverse discrimination are equivalent evils that should not be entertained. Lastly, I will note that the proposals discussed in the second option below are significantly more popular than the proposal being discussed here, as the latter discussion ended in a snow closure. I think that the best course of action is to defer to the results of that discussion, rather than trying to overturn consensus or start more pointless color drama. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Greyshark09, Spesh531, Kwamikagami, Dawsongfg, RobiH, Outth, Eoiuaa, Kippenvlees1, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Fogener Haus, Physeters, Lx 121, Berrely, HurricaneEdgar, MarioJump83, Tradedia, Ermanarich, Brobt, CentreLeftRight, Wiz9999, Borysk5, Oganesson007, Nate Hooper, Rob984, Ceha, AlphaMikeOmega, WeifengYang, PutItOnAMap, TheNavigatrr, Beshogur, AntonSamuel, Paolowalter, Emk9, EkoGraf, Rr016, Tan Khaerr, Kami888, and MrPenguin20: I'd like to hear the opinions of other users who work on these maps, the map modules, or have participated in the map color discussions on Commons, as I think they should have a say in the matter as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Neither of the two. There are more color options being discussed on commons. RobiH (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, as there's already a more or less uniform design for conflict maps on Wikipedia which people recognize, at it's viewed by literally Millions. However, I agree that a change to a more colorblind-friendly version should be made, as has been suggested in another discussion below.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

weak support. I see merits for accommodation, though I think the replacement proposed is not the best. Though it would be helpful if the color scheme matches with other wikipedia war maps, for almost all other war maps, government forces are actually red, and rebel forces green. One can argue how applicable this is here, as Russian invading forces are in fact not rebels, and red is almost universally denoted across as representing Russian occupation (Liveuamap, military.net, etc.). Hence we might actually we might need other arrangements for this, one that may very well be used for precedence in mapping interstate wars (which in terms of wikipedia live mapping we don't have much historic precedence), which of course means that when we are literally establishing precedence, one that would be great to be accommodating. However, many above have pointed out the problem with the proposed alternative. Perhaps when a better alternative is proposed we should support it. WeifengYang (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose As a color-blind person I concur with @LightandDark2000:. EkoGraf (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong Support WP:ACCESSIBILITY is important for a global encyclopaedia. Kappasi (talk) Kappasi (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

support. I don't have anything particularly profound to say, other than that I think the new map looks nice and pretty. Nate Hooper (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Weak Oppose We don't really need it. The current map works fine, there's no need change it. Its an unnecessary change. CheeseInTea (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm kindly requesting for an uninvolved editor to review this discussion, and implement the proposal at Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox. Melmann 07:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• In the discussion at #Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg, there is a very strong consensus there for implementing option 1 as the preferred colourblind friendly version of the map. The consensus there would appear to make this discussion redundent? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. The snowball consensus at the second discussion makes this discussion obsolete, since they're literally discussing the same issue (but with different proposals). Also, it's very improper to request the implementation of a controversial proposal when there's clearly strong opposition or division regarding the idea, as I am seeing here. Such action directly undermines WP:CONSENSUS, if not the very heart and soul of the policy. People should not be trying to overturn consensus, just because they don't like how the discussion turned out. I agree that this discussion should be closed, as it has basically become redundant and has been superceded by the outcome of the second discussion below. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I would not imply any impropriety but the two discussions have occurred in near parallel and, the outcome below does have a clear implication to this discussion - that it has become redundant. I was simply giving notice that that there should be a "procedural close" of this discussion in favour of the discussion below. The topic may be controversial but I don't think that the close here would be, given the circumstances and how closely the page is watched. Cinderella157 (talk)

I was referring to the edit request just above an earlier comment of yours here, not your comment in the closure for the second discussion below. My apologies, if you thought otherwise. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:28, 25 April 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.

Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg

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.

---

Moved: was at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly version

• Comment: I think a much better proposal would be to use the colors I proposed on Commons, as shown below. One option [1] for making the Ukrainian territory a lighter yellow (my personal preference, I think), and another option [2] for making the Russian territory a slightly darker shade of pink (the closest option to the current colors and my proposal). Both of them have good contrast, are distinguishable both for normal vision and colorblind readers, and are similar to the current, widely-accepted map colors. Not only that, but these colors are more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Options 1-4 as being discussed (on the Commons discussion).

Option 1

	Land	Arrow
Ukraine
Russia

Option 2

	Land	Arrow
Ukraine
Russia

The colorblind simulations are in the respective links, so please have a look at those. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The images shown to the right depict the color schemes currently being discussed and voted on on Commons. And I'd prefer the first three to the proposal in question here. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Test map with blue (0099F7) arrows

Original colorblind friendly map color

I would much rather us stick with the status quo than switch to a new color scheme that is as jarring and unappealing as the proposal in this discussion, especially as it still has contrast issues. I'd even prefer one of the two map options I listed just above to the proposal (the current map with blue arrows, and the original colorblind-friendly map), but I prefer the proposed colors that I have laid out. Also, I think we could really use a color theory professional here, as the colors in the proposal were rather poorly-chosen. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Both options look much better than the White & Orange. Both of these choices look much more visually appealing to non colorblind viewers than the White & Orange proposal. I personally think option 1 is better visually, but it appears that option 2 would be better for colorblind viewers as it has a little more contrast. Physeters^✉ 21:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Greyshark09, Spesh531, Kwamikagami, Dawsongfg, RobiHi, Outth, Eoiuaa, Kippenvlees1, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Chesapeake77, Fogener Haus, Physeters, Viewsridge, Lx 121, Berrely, HurricaneEdgar, MarioJump83, Tradedia, Ermanarich, Brobt, CentreLeftRight, Wiz9999, Borysk5, Oganesson007, Nate Hooper, Rob984, Ceha, AlphaMikeOmega, WeifengYang, PutItOnAMap, TheNavigatrr, Beshogur, AntonSamuel, Paolowalter, and Emk9: Pinging other users with an interest in this topic, and those with experiencing in working with military conflict maps. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf, Rr016, Tan Khaerr, Kami888, and MrPenguin20: Missed a few. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment it looks ok for me but gray arrows look kinda bad. Beshogur (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 is my first choice I prefer this to the other proposals as it does the best job resolving the issue of contrast which is important. Plus the background color is better in Option 1 than Option 2 (brighter, whereas Option 2 is a bit dim). Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - I think this option satisfies all objections above, assuming it is correct to say that this version is still colorblind friendly. The lower contrast does not "make Russian gains seem overwhelmingly dominant". I also agree that the original proposal created MORE difficulty viewing it for NON-colorblind people, and option 1 does not do this. I approve, in general, of the goal to increase accessibility for colorblind users, but I also agree that the original proposal was not the best option to do this. I do think the new option 1 should suffice. Fieari (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I've split this discussion because it has nothing to do with the specific proposal listed in Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly_version. That proposal is about replacing the one file with a specific different file, and this one discussed details of a commons file, a discussion which should normally be had on the file's talk page, not here. Melmann 06:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 appears to be the best across the four simulations and for unimpaired vision. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 but perhaps with light yellow arrows instead of blue. Viewsridge (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 has the best contrast for the arrows, but all of them are great improvements in presentation. If none of them were used, the original colorblind-friendly one is also an improvement by itself and could be the main one. Rauisuchian (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option visually ok, if it helps colorblind too. Beshogur (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I do not see a version I particularly like here: for 1–3, the colour of the arrows is too different to that of their background, while for 4 it is too similar. Obviously, the arrows must contrast to the background, but this is weighed against the fact that a map is more intuitive when each side is assigned a single colour. Dark-red arrows on a light-red/orange background is a good compromise for Russia, but for Ukraine, blue on yellow and grey on beige are unintuitive and unsightly. Have white (#FFFFFF) arrows been tried for Ukraine? I imagine these would work well on either yellow or beige backgrounds. In general, I think the arrows would look best as a lighter/darker shade of the colour behind them. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 or the original colorblind-friendly version. Options three and four have a really unpleasantly strong yellow, I'd strongly oppose these two.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 As a colorblind person option 1 looks best-looking to me. EkoGraf (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1, including color mark change Per EkoGraf, and I think mark colors should be changed too, not just yellow but something other than that. Cyan or blue would be good MarioJump83! 08:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• I vote for blue arrows and against yellow (or grey) arrows. Tradedia^talk 21:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Going to be a bit WP:BOLD here, but can we close the voting on here (and wherever else votes have taken place)? Option 1 is a clear winner here, at least for being the colorblind-friendly color scheme (at the very least for arrows and territorial control). Does the "Air and ground bombardments" icon need to be changed? They contrast well with both the new Ukrainian yellow control and the Russian red (which is the same as the original). If there's an agreement on the other icons, then Option 1 and the Original need to be put up to a vote. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 05:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the voting is a WP:SNOWPRO in favor, somebody should close this. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 19:29, 23 April 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.

Structure for sections based on chronological periods, as per previous talk page discussion

Hi. Based upon the beginning of a new Russian offensive in the East of Ukraine, we will move ahead soon to create a new section for the current time period, based upon viewing this as a new chronological period of the conflict. This is based upon a consensus to structure the article sections on the conflict, based on chronological periods, as per previous talk page discussion. You can click the link to view the full discussion, which has now been archived. Anyone is welcome to comment, of course. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The previous discussion spoke of the Siege of Mariupol needing to come to a conclusion before discussing options, however, the siege has not come to an end. Your link above does not link to anything, and its not clear what you mean since the siege of Mariupol is still in progress. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

hi. I revised the link, in order to point to the correct section on the archived talk page. Actually, the talk page discussion related to the start of the Russian offensive in the east of Ukraine. I do appreciate your thoughtful reply on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You have just restored that missing link. The discussion there spoke of the advantages of waiting for the siege of Mariupol to be resolved, and the forces are still continuing the siege as of this morning in the linked Wikipedia article for the siege. The main editing for the new "eastern" offensive to which you refer has moved to the new article for War in Donbas were the details of this second phase of the invasion are being dealt with, and which I linked this morning. Since Wikipedia now has the new article for the War in Donbas, then most of the questions you previously asked seem to have been redirected there for current updates. The article here currently links the War in Donbas article as a continuation of the Invasion of the Southeastern front where you can find the link. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• That Mariupol remains under siege is not an insurmountable problem and probably not a problem at all (IMHO). Looking at the article there, siege of Mariupol#Final pockets fairly closely aligns in time with the broader change in tempo of a chronological "second phase" and could easily be massaged into a new section here. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157, thanks. yes, I agree. I am also going to ping @Jr8825, and @ErnestKrause, as they provided some very helpful input in the previous talk page discussion. if you could each please reiterate or indicate your opinions on this proposal for the article, as discussed in the previsous archived discussion, I would appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Based upon the beginning of a new Russian offensive in the East of Ukraine". What new offensive? I see only a continuation of the existing offensive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  as per the comment above, some individuals are asking "what new offensive?" I think this illustrates the need to structure this aerticle to delineate the curent new phase of this conflict.

  if you would like to have some references, no problem, here they are.

  1. Russia has opened a long-anticipated new phase of the war in Ukraine, launching its eastern offensive in a bid to seize the country's industrial heartland., NBC News
  2. Russia unleashes offensive on Ukraine, ushering in new phase of war, politico
  3. Russia begins large-scale offensive in eastern Ukraine, axios
  4. Zelenskiy: Russian offensive in eastern Ukraine has begun. UK Guardian.
  5. As Russia launches a new offensive, what did it learn from the first one?, April 19, 2022. NPR.
  6. Civilians flee eastern Ukraine ahead of new Russian offensive. UK Guardian

thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• All three editors seem in agreement that the siege of Mariupol should not hinder the refactoring of the section for the Second phase of the invasion. The appropriate start date for this appears to be the day 8 April that the combined forces were put under the change os a single general for the first time in the campaign, under General Dvornikov. Starting to refactor Invasion section according to agreement of all three editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok that sounds good. Thanks for your work on that, @ErnestKrause. Sm8900 (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Refugees section - forced relocation

The text in the refugees section currently says:

Thousands of refugees arriving in Russia appeared to have been forcibly relocated using 'filtration centers', evoking the memory of Soviet era population transfers and prior Russian use of such centers in the Chechen War of Independence to suppress evidence of war crimes. As of 8 April, Russia evacuated approximately 121,000 Mariupol residents to Russia, with some allegedly having been sent to work there. RIA Novosti and Ukrainian officials stated that thousands were dispatched to various filtration centers in both Russian and Russian-occupied Ukrainian cities, from which people were redirected to economically depressed regions of Russia.

References

A great deal of this should be "Ukrainian accuses" rather than WP:VOICE, while other parts don't appear to be in the sources/and or are editorialising (covering war crimes?). I can't read many of the Ru and Ukr sources so cannot fix. A similar text was copied to the Refugee crisis page, but much of it removed as WP:OR while other parts were altereed to Ukr claims. Pincrete (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Pincrete, thank you for sharing your point of view. However, changing the article to "Ukrainian accuses" doesn't seem to resolve the issue and seems to violate WP:VOICE. Perhaps in place of "Ukrainian accuses" we could use "it has been reported" which takes a neutral point of view in place of using the word "accuses" which is a lot more polarizing. This issue is difficult because there are a lot of strong opinions on both sides of this issue, it is an ongoing current event and it is polarizing. However, I believe we need to take a neutral approach in our editing. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No objection to "has been reported", "Ukraine accuses", was merely meant to make the point that at present it is almost impossible for any news source to verify many of these claims. Pincrete (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Crimea

I assume that the article describes Crimea as part of Russia. The infobox does not mention Crimea, but the lead says "the two occupied territories of Ukraine (Crimea and Donbas)". Some unification would be useful.

Some Tatars do not want to be conscripted https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3441479-crimean-tatar-leader-appeals-to-people-in-crimea-to-dodge-russian-army-draft.html

Conscription of inhabitants of occupied areas is, as far as I know, illegal. The same in occupied Eastern Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It is Elinruby (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I am writing to report the map that shows the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The names of the cities that are written in English are transliterated from Ukrainian and are spelled correctly. However, the names of the cities that are spelled in the Cyrillic alphabet are spelled in Russian and not in Ukrainian!

Please change the spelling of those cities whose names are written in the Cyrillic alphabet from Russian to Ukrainian.

Thank you! 188.163.232.130 (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This request should be handled on Commons at Commons:File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. The map has Russian translations but not Ukrainian translations. Glrx (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022 (2)

Add Denis Pushilin and Leonid Pasechnik, leaders of the DPR LPR to commanders Scu ba (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Denis Pushilin has a single mention in the body of the article and Leonid Pasechnik has no mention. Addition of either is supported by the body of the article (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Elements of "proxy war"?

Hello everyone, I'd like to bring up something that I think this article lacks, and that is the issue of this being a "proxy war". I've identified some sources that seem to describe this as a proxy war in some way:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-long-holy-war-behind-putins-political-war-in-ukraine https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-arming-insurgency-ukraine-mean https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-25/nato-us-in-proxy-war-with-russia-biden-next-move-crucial/100937196

The definition of "proxy war": https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/proxy-war

"a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers..."

Clearly, with NATO/US steadfast refusal to engage directly and materiel support for Ukraine, it's a proxy on some level. On the Russian end, it's less clear--Russia has historically been considered more of the "military superpower" over China, but with their (alleged) underperformance, and with the potential of becoming economically dependent on China in the face of Western sanctions, perhaps they are the ones fighting the proxy on behalf of the superpower? This article does not mention "proxy" anywhere. Allegedly, the Moskva was sunk by Ukrainian missiles...but let's not pretend that Western-made Javelins weren't crucial to many Ukraine successes. How would this get added? Also, I can't seem to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Metalloid (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea of this being a "proxy war" is part of the Russian propaganda and represents a strong POV. Perhaps a mention of it could be made when describing Russian propaganda efforts, but certainly not claiming in Wikivoice that Russia's brutal aggression on a neighbour is a proxy war. Jeppiz (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn’t advocate for calling it that, because it isn’t one. I was wondering if it would be helpful to discuss the debate over whether this is a proxy war. Lawfare is a far cry from Russian propaganda, and they’re game for at least discussing the idea. We haven’t even sold them MIGs (alternatively, they may be paperweights) due to fears of over-involvement. Providing small arms to the underdog defending themselves against a Goliath does not suggest nefarious proxy war geopoliticking, quite the contrary. Mentioning a proxy war in the way I envision would involve mostly saying why it isn’t one, per the sources. If you omit discussing this out of fear of parroting Russian propaganda, you risk creating a “forbidden fruit”. Noble Metalloid (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Its not a proxy was, as far as I am aware no RS has called it proxy war. Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

that isn't what was proposed Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

supporting country ?

In the table of the parties to the conflict there is Belarus as a supporting country, should the countries providing material support, including military support to Ukraine, not be included ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

sign your posts with four consecutive tildas ( ~ ) 50.111.30.135 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal above, all countries provividing weapons to Ukraine should be considered as supporting countries --93.42.36.160 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Need to include in the right square of the article the contries that are supporting Ukraine

Need to include in the right square of the article the contries that are supporting Ukraine, like is put in all other wikipedia pages on wars and conflicts. There are lots of them that are sending weapons, instructors, food, rations, blocking russian sales, etc. All of this is publicly known, verified by press reports of both sides of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.140.133 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If you mean the list of combatants, only those parties actually using weapons/fighting are listed. This has been discussed many times already.50.111.30.135 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. We put the list of supporting countries in the "Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article and there are plenty of other precedents Please note that we clearly label "Supported by:".

I think it's time to put it here too: 1) the Western support with weapons is substantial (especially as heavy weapons are now being supplied); 2) it is notable (WP:N) and there are plenty of WP:RS about the subject. Mindaur (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I support adding them as well. Super Ψ Dro 21:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"Supported by" is included under the belligerents section of many wars. See Nigerian Civil War for a clear example. The page for the Syrian civil war also includes this information. Not including it here is strange. 86.22.31.94 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, countries that provide full diplomatic support or send heavy weapons must be in the list. If not, the info is biased. 190.188.140.133 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

See #Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. The consensus was that countries supplying material or diplomatic support to Ukraine did not meet the threshold to be included in the infobox as "supported by", whereas, the direct access for conduct of the invasion provided by Belarus crossed this threshold. Countries supporting Ukraine is discussed at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military involvement and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Sanctions and ramifications. There is too much detail for this to be "summarised" and consequently, its inclusion in the infobox would fail WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly inconsistent with a wide variety of other Wikipedia articles on wars, and additionally whether the countries that would be in the infobox support Ukraine with lethal or non-lethal aid could be disclosed using parentheses. 2601:18F:681:7850:8068:AF36:22CF:56CB (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It is nonetheless the consensus here, arrived at after extensive discussions. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a mandate. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That is a dated discussion and a new consensus can overturn it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It is, but the discussion needs to be aware of the status quo and how the status quo was arrived at. Further, since it was the result of an RfC, any proposal to overturn the consensus should probably be made as an RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, Slatersteven, Cinderella157, Cinderella157: So, do we have a consensus on adding "Supported by" for Ukraine? The Western military support for Ukraine has ramped up to the point where it's becoming a game-changer [3][4]. Or, any volunteers to start RfC? --Mindaur (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue with including it. It helps the reader to understand just how isolated Russia is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I also support including it, specially now per the two citations provided by Mindaur. Super Ψ Dro 16:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, Slatersteven, Cinderella157, Cinderella157, Viewsridge: I created an RfC below. Somebody should close all other sections as it's getting indeed confusing. Mindaur (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Kherson‎#Requested move 24 April 2022

Please be notified of Talk:Battle of Kherson‎#Requested move 24 April 2022. It affects many articles related to the invasion. The proposal is to move from "battle of X" to "battle for X". Cinderella157 (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

External links

The external links to CNN, Reuters, etc seem excessive and UNDUE. Anyone can google to find these and they are not encyclopedic. Focus on the more necessary ones and try to cut the list to 3 or so. WP:NOTDIR and WP:EL both apply. I would be bold and remove, but I am not a regular editor and thought this might have been discussed? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit unclear what changes you want done. Do you mean unproperly cited references that contain only external links? If so, you can always just use a citation template to properly format them. Also, those sources you mentioned are reliable, per consensus. The list of frequently discussed sources pertaining to reliability, and the consensus of those, are at WP:RSPSOURCES. You also shouldn't try to "cut the list" like that and delete them, as WP:TSI is needed for veritability. However, you can WP:CITEBUNDLE (or see H:CITEMERGE). — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 18:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Page protection

I have now requested page protection, enough is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Supporting. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No fly zone

Should we change "NATO and its member states also refused to send troops into Ukraine as this would risk a larger-scale war,[353][354] a decision which some experts have labeled as a policy of appeasement" to "NATO and its member states also refused to send troops into Ukraine , or to establish a no fly-zone, as this would risk a larger-scale war,[353][354] a decision which some experts have labeled as a policy of appeasement.", as it is sourced already. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. Reason: The "no-fly zone" request is prominently in the first sentence at Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Ukraine, so mentioning it here is good. --User:Haraldmmueller 14:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. I agree with Harald's reasoning. UlyssorZebra (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

'No boots on the ground' and 'no planes in the air' is the consistent policy adopted throughout the invasion by supporting foreign governments. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll give till tomorrow if there are no obejcti0js I will make the change. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Post-invasion phase

So now that the Russian military objective has shifted towards consolidating gains made in Donbass and the south, should we keep limit the scope of this article to be just about the initial invasion and put the rest of it on Russo-Ukrainian War or should we keep adding to this article? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment that two articles, Russian occupation of Kherson & Russian occupation in Zaporizhzhia Oblast were created to contain some of that information. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Have they, they still seem to be attacking. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

International press seems fairly committed to reporting this as a first phase of the invasion followed by a second phase of the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

But not "post-invasion". Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Not 'post-invasion'. The langauge in the international press is all talking about the start of the second phase of the invasion which is expanding at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"Russian invasion of Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian invasion of Ukraine as it does not currently redirect to this page, and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hentheden (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Link to Russia in first word

The link to Russia in the article's first word was removed in this revision: Special:Diff/1084574301. This link should be present, as stated in surrounding comments. Okay420 (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The link has now been replaced in this revision: Special:Diff/1084740539. Okay420 (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Foreign support of Ukraine

It is absolute nonsense that we still have only Ukraine in the box. There is a massive ammount of foreing help coming from the west, both weapons and military intelligence. We should vote for this issue again, or change all the infoboxes of other conflicts. --Novis-M (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The section you are apparently referencing in the infobox is called "Belligerents". The definition of a belligerent according to Merriam-Webster is "belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war". From what reliable sources tell us, the nations at war are Russia and Ukraine, which also include pro-Russian separatists, Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR, along with support from Belarus (from which Russia invaded northern Ukraine). Nythar (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The publicly sending of weapons, secured from the governments of countries is clearly military support. If Belarus let russian troops to staged and cross the border but no intervened with it´s own military, is at the same level at western countries that deplete their own arsenals to transfer hot weapons to be used by Ukraine.

The list if only indicates "suport" to Belarus, is far away from the real word. 190.188.140.133 (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No. Allowing a state to use your territory for a war of aggression is an illegal act of international aggression, according to the UN’s definition. Allowing weapons transfers by commercial sale or donation is not, whether a party is at war or not. —Michael Z. 04:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to Frequently Asked Questions #2: "Can you add X country to the infobox because it is sending weapons to Ukraine?" Or the discussion here The topic has already been discussed numerous times. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we add a "Supported by" section to the Ukrainian side? Looking at Spanish Civil War I see that we include countries like Mexico in that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

While it is true the Spanish Civil War article has "Supported By" in its Belligerent section, current consensus on this article is to not include other nations in there. See Wikipedia:Consensus. Nythar (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is Chechnya not listed under the belligerents?

They were sent to Ukraine by order of their president, so they clearly should be listed. 87.50.178.158 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Chechnya isn't an independent state or breakaway region like the DPR and LPR; the Chechen Republic is a constituent part of the Russian Federation. Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

As per Guettarda, also discussed once more before. EkoGraf (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Low-yield nuclear weapons

The article contains the following sentence: "The use low-yield tactical nuclear capacity was originally discussed in the decade following the end of WWII by Henry Kissinger as a tactical weapon separable from the use of other atomic weapons in warfare." Emphasis is mine, and I initially thought this fragment should read "The use of...". That does not seem to fit the rest of the sentence, and I am unsure of what the best edit might be. TJSwoboda (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Your grammar is correct. Adding to the section. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

bio chem  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.30.36 (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What about it? Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Support of 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.

---

How are there no countries listed as supporting Ukraine? At least every country that has reportedly supplied weapons to the Ukraine should be listed there, shouldn't it? Alfield (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The infobox is only meant to summarize the key aspects of the article, not to be all-encompassing (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). So, whether support is included in the infobox is an editorial matter. There was an RfC on this that failed to reach a consensus, with opponents arguing it would make the infobox too large and would unduly imply too much involvement on the part of other countries. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Why not do it like the German Wikipdia? It indicates that the Ukraine recieves massive support and you can inform yourself about what countries are supporting UKR without making the infobox too large. Alfield (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason why other nations are not included in the Belligerents section is because current consensus is against doing so. This has been discussed multiple times previously. Nythar (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

You can add a single name in a single line in the infobox instead of dozens: NATO. But no, you shills adding Belarus for the lulz. 2.141.64.59 (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

We do not need 15 threads asking the same question. Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 27 April 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.

China's Nuclear Guarantee

The introduction mentions the Budapest memorandum, which is potentially pertinent to the section on the use of low-yield nuclear weapons - i.e. the potential use of "tactical" nukes which is currently getting press coverage.

What is not mentioned on this page is the Dec 2013 guarantee which China provided, as reported by the WSJ, the pertinent text of which seems to be: "China pledges unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the nuclear-free Ukraine and China further pledges to provide Ukraine nuclear security guarantee when Ukraine encounters an invasion involving nuclear weapons or Ukraine is under threat of a nuclear invasion,”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.14.20 (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a somewhat dated newspaper link you are presenting. China's position at present seems to be to decline making ciritical statements about the Russian invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Start date should be February 22, 2022

According to the article introduction, this is the day the Duma authorized military action against Ukraine and when Russia openly sent troops into the DPR and LPR. Both are and were internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:1B46:84AF:2076:510A:1837:33CF (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

On 24 February, Putin announced that he had made the decision to launch a "special military operation" in eastern Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently false claims about Ukrainian comments regarding Transnistria.

The article claims, that On 27 April, Ukraine stated it could "take control" of Transnistria should the Moldovan government request.. As source, it gives an article from the 23rd of April in which neither Transnistria, nor Moldova are even mentioned. This needs to be fixed as soon as possible, but I'm not allowed to edit the article.Liekveel (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a false claim. I simply forgot to add the source. The source that you mentioned has nothing to do with it - it refers to the previous sentence. Simply clumsly editing on my part.

YantarCoast (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I've just added the most recent reports on Transnitria involving explosions destroying broadast towers there. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian military occupation articles

Alerting editors that, as of this note, four of these articles have been created. Improvement is needed for all of them, and if needed, they should be linked into this main article’s text. I will be creating more for the other affected Oblasts, but for now, these 4 exist.

• Russian occupation of Kharkiv Oblast
• Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast
• Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast
• Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast

Elijahandskip (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

They are now linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

197.234.142.91 (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Nato and Australia and New Zealand Sweden Finland should be put as support for ukraine

This is already being discussed above, please comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, see FAQ #2. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

Can these all be merged into one thread, it's getting very hard to follow all these separate questions on the same thing? Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine

We already had several discussions on this earlier. The Western military aid for Ukraine (which now includes heavy weapons) has ramped up to the point where it's becoming a game-changer (WP:DUE) and there are plenty of sources on this WP:N: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. I think it is now time to revisit the decision and add "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox. Please also note that we have already listed such support in the Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. Let's first agree in principle, but, specifically, I propose to include USA, UK, EU, NATO and an interlink for other states. --Mindaur (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment WP:RFCNEUTRAL is a requirement, and it is not met here. Please reformat your opening statement to actually ask a question (and only that), not justify your position. BSMRD (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)