Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine

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

---

The heading above is a link to the archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022.

See also earlier RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022.

Both RfCs were closed with "no consensus". Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

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

RfC about inclusion of "Peace efforts" section

Should this article include a "Peace efforts" section? If a "Peace efforts" section was to be added, which form should it take? –LordPickleII (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Background: This article (2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) included a section titled "Peace efforts" until 11 August 2022, when it's content was moved to the newly created 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions. There has been a main article about the peace talks at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations since 8 March 2022.

Explanatory note: This RfC is composed of two questions, but each is considered independently of the other; so a reply to Question B does not imply that the editor supports Question A. The options suggested for Question B are only initial forms, to be later built upon if neccessary.

Question A: Should this article include a "Peace efforts" section?

Question B: If a "Peace efforts" section was to be added, which form should it take? Option 1 or Option 2 (see below)?

Option 1 (previous version, until August 11)

Option 2 (newly suggested)

Main article: 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations Peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine took place on 28 February, 3 March, and 7 March 2022, in an undisclosed location in the Gomel Region on the Belarus–Ukraine border, with further talks held on 10 March in Turkey prior to a fourth round of negotiations which began on 14 March. The Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba stated on 13 July that peace talks are frozen for the time being. On 19 July, former Russian President and current Deputy head of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, said: “Russia will achieve all its goals. There will be peace – on our terms.”

Main article: 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations Peace talks led by Turkey were held between 28 February and July 2022. As of July 2022, peace talks were frozen indefinitely after the failure of both parties to reach a settlement. On April 9, United Kingdom's then-president, Boris Johnson, visited Kiev during the second phase of the peace talks without informing the Ukrainians in advance. On 5 May 2022, Ukrainska Pravda, a Ukrainian newspaper, published an article that it claims to be cited by sources close to Zelensky saying that the British prime minister brought two simple messages. The first is: "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with." And the second is that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not." Fiona Hill, a veteran US diplomat who served as the US National Security Council’s senior director for Europe and Russia in the Donald Trump administration, published an article on the Foreign Affairs saying that Russia and Ukraine could have reached a peace agreement in April, according to which the Russian forces would withdraw to the pre-invasion line and Ukraine would commit not to seek to join NATO, instead receiving security guarantees from a number of countries. Hill wrote that the "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith." Experts, such as John Mearsheimer, think that the collective west's goal in the Russo-Ukrainian war is "the conflict will settle into a prolonged stalemate, and eventually a weakened Russia will accept a peace agreement that favors the United States and its NATO allies, as well as Ukraine."

Please voice your opinion below. –LordPickleII (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• No to question A not a section. See the reasons in the threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Can you maybe format this to more clearly indicate on which question you are commenting? Just so it is easier for the closer to evaluate later. Also, it would be helpful to give a very brief overview of your arguments again, as this is not a vote, and the closer might not be able to find all previous points made in the other discussion(s). And again, you may (but don't have to) also voice your opinion on the Options for Question B, even if you don't think we should have a section. Think of it as chosing the "lesser evil", only for the case that consensus would develop to include it. –LordPickleII (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have said no to a section, how much clear can I be. I am not going to give my support to something I do not support. If this RFC assumes the answer is "yes we must have a section" it is badly flawed and should thus be withdrawn. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I guess it was clear enough, but anyway thanks for amending. And no, you don't have to vote on the second question. I am just hoping enough people oppose Option 2 so it never happens (tbh I'd rather have no section than it), but I think you have made your point clear on that below. –LordPickleII (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: would you mind briefly summarising the reasons why you're against a section? Alternatively could you point me to which parts of the above discussions are relevant? It'll save me some time trying to understand your argument by scrolling through the rather large discussions further up the page. Jr8825 • Talk 16:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I can add no more to what I have said in two threads above. I see no reason why we need this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not particularly helpful! Skimming through the above threads, am I right in understanding your argument against a section on peace negotiations is 1) that this article is only about a specific "military campaign", not the war itself and 2) that the negotiations are unimportant because they failed? Jr8825 • Talk 17:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to not create another cluttered RFC with umpteen responses for one post. But OK, I oppose this as this article is about the invasion of 2022, not the wider war, and yes also because they failed, so have had no impact on this invasion. Nor do they tell us anything about this invasion, and any context would best be covered in the other articles. Moreover, it is unlikely that these will be the last negotiations and (even if we accept their presence here) only the last one is really relevant. It is better covered elsewhere, with a see also here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I've continued this thread below in the new discussion section as there are things I'd like to discuss in more detail without crowding out other editors' opinions. Jr8825 • Talk 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose option 2 as a violation of NPOV. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: Support. My primary reasoning is that per WP:SS, this is expected and allowed, and we have Template:Main to link to the main article. The counter-argument of "content should not be duplicated" doesn't make sense to me, and I know of no guideline or policy that would confirm it. And per WP:CORRECTSPLIT, point 6.: Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article.

My secondary point is that while the underlying conflict is older, the invasion is definitely the newest development. Peace talks only really happened because of it; and now the article is on the main page "in the news". Per WP:AUDIENCE (and WP:RF), people come to this article first, and expect a good overview. They currently would have to scroll down to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Reactions, then out of the 6 (!) options given click on 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions, and then scroll down again to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions#Peace efforts, from where they are finally pointed to 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, the main article. Far too complicated, as the question of peace is an obvious and acute one, not a side note to be discussed only for the underlying conflict.

Question B: Option 1. I strongly reject Option 2 as a gross violation of WP:NPOV, as it distorts the facts through WP:CHERRYPICKING from only parts of a few (reliable) sources, while completely ignoring most others. It does also not align with the main article, and so would violate the summary that would be expected. Editors may have suggested it in good faith; but it basically repeats Russian propaganda efforts that "the West" had prevented peace.

Option 1 on the other hand is what we have had before, and for a long time; it is concise, neutral, and gives a good overview. –LordPickleII (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: The last sentence of Option 1 should be struck, as per Mx. Granger, since with it it reads slightly biased as well. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the fact that Option 2 is kind of cherry picking but I think that the article isn't satisfying the NPOV in the first place. It already chose its position in this issue, picking a side and picking on the other. All the details aren't attributed to the RS as it should. It doesn't represent multiple POVs. Treating Kremlin announcements as disinformation and fake news snd conspiracy theories while the American government's as solid facts. This violates Wikipedia's five pillars. This isn't right. This is not what Wikipedia is made for. Wikipedia is not a propaganda arm for neither sides. I think we all, as Wikipedia volunteers, should respect the reader to make their opinion on the matter by complying with Wikipedia's policies. It's for the reader to pick the side they feel is right. Not us to play their mind by twisting facts to pass our agenda because we think it's right.

By adding this section I tried to represent the other side's POV. And I'm keen to hear your thoughts to improve it. Thank you for voicing your opinion. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE and also Boris Johson is not (and never was) president. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the Eastern world pov a minority and extraordinary view? There are only two sides in this fight, the west and the east, how is the other side a minority? Formal governmental announcements aren't extraordinary. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We aren't to decide that the Western governmental claims are solid facts while the Russian's and Chinese are not. One either equally treat all governments' announcements as facts or fake news. But to treat the side that one agree with differently and say that all other POVs are extraordinary then claiming that they are trying to avoid making false balance is an utter cherry picking and a fallacy. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There are only two sides in this fight, yes; but we are on neither, we are Wikipedia. As for POVs in the press, there are several: US, European, Russian, Indian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, etc. We do not chose to simply represent the Russian POV because they deserve it. "Not us to play their mind by twisting facts to pass our agenda because we think it's right" – I think that is exactly what Option 2 does, so I somewhat agree with you. Also, this RfC is not about the aricle in general, but about the section, specifically. We cannot achieve a balanced view by presenting one POV in parts, and another POV in others. We need NPOV everywhere; Slatersteven correctly pointed to WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is policy. Feel free to vote for one of the options in Question B, but maybe better give the reasonings in your own vote, not in a reaction to mine (it's more difficult to check later). –LordPickleII (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

To add, option 2 only gives the Russian side, so violates NPOV. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2 you object that the article isn't satisfying the NPOV, but I think you're misunderstanding how the policy works. In a nutshell, Wikipedia policy is that we accurately summarize what Reliable Sources say about a subject.

Government controlled news in countries with low press freedom range from dubious to totally unreliable. Russian news organizations have long been established as not Reliable - for good reason. NPOV is that we address all significant views roughly in proportion to their presence in Reliable Sources. If essentially no Reliable Sources report some Russian claim, NPOV is that we do not report that claim. If substantially all Reliable Sources reporting on a Russian claim present it as a false claim, then NPOV is that we present it as a false claim.

If anyone attempts to argue that substantially all Reliable Sources are wrong, biased, or part of a conspiracy, then under policy that is an argument that we must accurately summarize that wrong/biased/conspiracy content. If anyone wants to argue Russian News sources are Reliable, Reliable Source Noticeboard is over here. However I doubt people at RSN are going to be friendly to another frivolous waste of time on that subject. Alsee (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Question 1: support having a section for peace negotiations. We do need a section to summarize the long main article. Readers need this section to decide whether they are interested in reading the main article or settle for the summary in this section.

Question 2: option 2 Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. To both options. There are already two articles on Wikipedia which contain this information at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions#Peace efforts and also at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations. It appears redundant to add a third copy of the same material for a third time at Wikipedia in this article. Does Wikipedia need a third version of this section already existing on two other Wikipedia articles. The present article on the invasion is already over 400Kb in size and super-adding a third copy of the same material in such a large article seems a poor choice. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Peace negotiations aren't "reactions" to the invasion. The brief summary at the reactions article (identical to option 1 presented here) should be added here and removed from there. The peace negotiations article is the WP:SPINOFF article that we're looking to summarise in the appropriate "overview meta-article" (to use the wording of the guidance), which in my view is this one. Jr8825 • Talk 10:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: Support. It is standard to summarise a sub-article in a main article about a subject, just like Zaporizhzhia#Russian_invasion_(2022) in Zaporizhzhia, which is a summary of Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast (needs updating). This RfC was called because one editor used abstract arguments against including a section summarising peace efforts. Another editor argued that the peace efforts aren't going anywhere (true, but besides the point). As we enter into the next (and hopefully, final) phase of the war, peace efforts are becoming one of the main issues that sources are reporting on this subject, and that's why we should include them in this article.

Question B: Option 1 is better than Option 2 because the commentary about Boris Johnson is unwieldy and polarising. As Ukrainians, we don't need a Brit to tell us that a peace deal with Putin isn't worth anything, and the earlier claim that we came close to an agreement with Russia in Istanbul [1] was reported as refuted by insiders [2]. I think the commentary from Hill and Mearsheimer belongs more in the main article, and they should be called commentators, not experts. I also think there should be a sentence about Zelenskyy's call on Putin for direct talks, which the Russians have dismissed. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: Strong support. Per WP:SS and WP:SPINOFF, this article is a high-level overview of the invasion and efforts to negotiate an end to the fighting are an important aspect of the topic; a brief section summarising the negotiations (providing an overview of the content at the sub-article) is therefore essential for our readers. This is what hatnotes such as {{main}} are for. There are perennial problems about the overlapping scope of this article and Russo-Ukrainian War, but that's outside the remit of this RfC, and this article remains the main place for content relating to the intensification of the conflict in 2022.

Question B: Weak support option 1, which I think is a suitably succinct summary of the main points, although the text shouldn't be seen as locked-in by consensus, rather as a basic building block. However, I believe the Bucha massacre should be mentioned, as I recall a number of RS stating that its discovery was a significant factor in the breakdown of talks. Strong oppose option 2, which has pretty serious WP:WEIGHT issues to my eyes. In particular, far too much emphasis is put on Johnson's actions, based on one Ukrainian source, which goes against the wider coverage in international press that I've read, which doesn't put anywhere near as much emphasis on Johnson's individual role (and as IntrepidContributor's points out, it could also be seen as devaluing the agency Ukraine has in making its own negotiating decisions, based on an exceptional claim without exceptionally strong sourcing). Additionally, the opinions of two commentators, a U.S. diplomat and Mearsheimer are undue. (I don't recognise the diplomat, but Mearsheimer holds minority views on the conflict, such as arguing NATO was largely responsible for the war, and therefore again due weight applies here – Mearsheimer's analysis is noteworthy but not suitable for a brief, broad summary of negotiations, it is only suitable for the main article on negotiations, and should be given coverage proportional to more mainstream analyses. Jr8825 • Talk 16:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: no opinion. I can see arguments for including this, I can see arguments for leaving it out. It ultimately led to nothing, after all.

Question B: support option 1. Option 2 is too long, it implies that Boris Johnson stopped Kyiv from surrendering (excuse me, "ending the bloodshed"), and I see no reason to give Mearsheimer's opinion so much prominence when he's basically been wrong about everything. He continues to claim that Putin doesn't want to take over all of Ukraine when that is exactly what Putin says he wants and completely ignores the fact that Ukraine is a country with agency and security concerns of its own. He can be included in some sort of "reactions" article where we give the "it's-Nato's-fault!" crowd's opinion, but certainly not here in the main article.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Changed vote on Question A Per Cinderella157, this deserves at most a very brief mention in passing, not a dedicated section. If we're including one though I still prefer option 1 for question B.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Where else in this article would you summarise the negotiations? I don't see any existing section where a brief summary would logically belong. Jr8825 • Talk 10:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: But have you actually read those guidelines? Both WP:SS and WP:SPINOUT explicitly suggest we need a section, not the opposite! See below for quotes from them. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: support, as the peace process is a key part of information about the conflict. Question B: neither option is ideal. Both seem to have cherrypicked quotes that display editorial bias. As a starting point, I would suggest using option 1 but without the last sentence. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I can actually see your point about the last sentence. Yes, it should be removed; better to just have the bare facts, and not any statements and opinions. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• No both as written. It would appear to me that some editors forget that we should be writing in summary style and that when we have a sub-article dealing with a particular aspect of content, detail like when Putin last farted and what Zelenskyy had for breakfast belongs there. The main article need only mention in passing a WP:SPINOUT - which it does without the need for a separate section. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: what's your view on including a brief negotiations section generally (Question A)? Jr8825 • Talk 10:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Was I not sufficiently clear in saying "No both"? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  ok how about you calm down? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: I only asked as I thought you might be responding to both of the options presented for Question B, rather than both questions. I don't see why summary style/using sub-articles means we shouldn't have a section summarising negotiations. If anything, I see it as a reason for having a brief section, as it ties together this article with the spin-off much better than relegating it to a "see also" link: the guidance at SPINOUT says "when you split a section from a long article into an independent article, you should leave a short summary of the material that is removed along with a pointer to the independent article". Regarding excess detail, this article currently includes miscellaneous minutiae such as the sale of 18 "CAESAR self-propelled howitzer systems, mounted on the Renault Sherpa 5 6×6 chassis" (I'll have a go at cutting the foreign military sales section soon, if nobody else does first, as it's a section I've highlighted in the past, too). This reminds me of the earlier discussion we had regarding the background section; it was sliced up and squeezed into a couple of sentences in order to save space even though there's plenty of less important fat to trim elsewhere. There's plenty of room for cuts that will provide space for a brief summary of the efforts to make (and occasions when) negotiators from both sides sat down. Jr8825 • Talk 13:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825: I was just about to write the same, about the SPINOUT quote. Not that you can't be against it, Cinderella157, but your argument seems self-contradictory, with the policy you cited stating that we need such a subsection. This is the same for WP:SS (summary style), which you alluded to, but not linked. Quote from there (specifically WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE): Longer articles are split into sections, each usually several good-sized paragraphs long. [...] Ideally, many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections. And also: In the parent article, the location of the detailed article for each subtopic is indicated at the top of the section by a hatnote link such as "Main article", generated by the template {{Main|name of child article}}. (my emphasis in bold). This is exactly what's being discussed here, whether or not we should adhere to that. Article size is a concern I understand, but every pointer to policy or guidelines I have seen brought up seems to only support the opinion for a section. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Supporting Cinderella and Slatersteven on this. Wikipedia has multiple tools and procedures for dealing with this type of situation. Wikipedia does not need to re-duplicate articles three times in different places merely for the sake of making redundant copies with pointers and redirects to the same information content. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Err... no offense @ErnestKrause, but would you consider acknowledging the points above? Wikipedia has multiple tools and procedures for dealing with this type of situation – yes, those we pointed to above. If you can point to a different guideline that supports your view, it would help your cause! It's a little irritating to constantly hear "clearly, this should not be done", when we clearly have guidelines that disagree. That was a similar issue in another RfC I started, where people would give their opinion, without being able to back it up. You guys have had some valid arguments otherwise, but "article content must not be duplicated" is a really weak one at present. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Err... fully supporting Cinderella and Slatersteven on this. Both of them have articulated on this issue clearly and straightforwardly. Possibly you should re-read their statements which are really strong in comparison to your weak reading of their well-stated and well-directed points. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The various guidance being cited would assume that a spinout article has been created from a section of the main article that has evolved to be of substantial size. This is not the case here. 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations was created here on 8 March 22. This version of this article (the main article) immediately prior to that creation has no such corresponding section and doesn't even mention the talks as far as I can see. The advice is not consistent with the particulars of this circumstance. Perhaps we should refer to 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations as a spinoff rather than a spinout. If one were to summarise 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations into this article it would read: Unsuccessful peace negotiations were held at A [place] from W-X [dates] and B from Y-Z [or similar]. In the greater scheme of things (this, the main article) these efforts to date (by virtue of their lack of success) are litte if anything more than a footnote and should be trated here accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Why must the peace efforts be successful in order include them as a section here? It won't be possible to lift the sanctions (on which we have a section) until Russia signs a peace deal with Ukraine [3], so it is not a minor detail. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Thanks, I can actually follow your argumentation here! I still don't quite agree, but it's a lot more helpful also for other people to have it spelled out thus. –LordPeterII (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question B: Oppose Option 2 as against WP:NPOV, not reflecting WP:RS consensus, and excess usage of "commentators" per MOS:QUOTATIONS -- Rauisuchian (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: No per Cinderella and WP:PROPORTION. The failed peace talks were not significant enough to warrant a section the article. I'd suggest a single sentence along the lines of "Unsuccessful peace talks were held between Russia and Ukraine during February and March." instead. Details like the locations and dates of the talks, the number of rounds, comments from either on whether they were open to more negotiations, etc. don't add anything important; the talks didn't produce any results and until another round of negotiations happen there's nothing new to report.

Question B: Weak Support for Option 1 As mentioned, I think the detail's excessive, but if we are going to have a section it's an alright summary. Oppose Option 2 on NPOV and WEIGHT grounds. I agree with Jr8825's explanation of the problems with that option. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Another argument claiming that the the "failed" peace efforts are a "minor aspect" (per WP:PROPORTION) when we have a huge amount of published material on the subject, including the widely reported statements from Putin, Lavrov, Nebenzya and Gatilov dismissing the possibility of a deal. There was also the alleged Abramovich poisoning during the peace talks in March, which gained very wide coverage. Either editors haven't read the WP:PROPORTION guidance, or the published material on the subject. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously take this with a pinch of salt per WP:GOOG and the impracticality of doing a more scholarly ngrams test, but a Google trends comparison of different aspects of the Ukraine war does show strong demand among internet searchers for information on peace prospects. Jr8825 • Talk 11:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

RaiderAspect, can you please answer the previous two objections? Thanks.Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question A: support, I fully agree with Mx. Granger (and others). The peace process to negotiate an end to the fighting are an important aspect of the topic. And that it is standard to summarise a paragraph in a main article about a subject with the relevant link. Question B: It doesn't matter so much now, it can be agreed later. I was mainly concerned with returning to the state before the paragraph, which was there for almost entire existence of the article, was removed without any agreement by the two users. Anyway, I think that both have cherrypicked quotes, it would be better with just the facts (like that the negotiations were for now suspended).Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support for Question A, for Option 1 and Oppose for Option 2, as expressed by other editors. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support for Question A: I find correct to cover the attempts to find a diplomatic solutions and it is correct to insert a brief summary in this article. Regarding Question B, I prefer Option 1 : I prefer to stick to facts and leave out comments and conjectures P1221 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support for Question A: I'm not in favour of either version as the summary does not cover any of the reasons and the changing events that stalled the talks. There were statements by both sides as I remember. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Support for question A with weak support for Option 1 though I imagine more information would be added to it in the future. In general I think it's a good idea to have at least a small section in war articles discussing meaningful peace attempts. BogLogs (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'd like to discuss the objections to a "peace negotiations" section that Slatersteven raises above, namely: (1) "this article is about the invasion of 2022, not the wider war", (2) "they failed, so have had no impact on this invasion" and (3) "it is unlikely that these will be the last negotiations". I'd like to offer some responses and hear others' opinions on them.

Regarding (1), this article already covers the broader aspects of the war since 24 February (e.g. foreign support, humanitarian/economic impact, global reactions). Its scope is more comparable to our article on 2003 invasion of Iraq, a distinct stage of intense fighting within the broader Iraq War, than it is articles on military campaigns within consistently intense wars (e.g. Operation Barbarossa). The 2003 invasion article covers the prelude, legality, looting, responses etc.; equally, negotiations to end the current fighting in Ukraine, which briefly made up a significant part of media coverage of the invasion for a period of a few weeks, seem within scope here. I recognise the distinction between this article and Russo-Ukrainian War is currently ambiguous (a point I acknowledged above), but that's a topic of discussion for another time – we should be making a decision based on this article as it stands, and the negotiations we're discussing were uniquely in response to the 2022 invasion: negotiations revolved around the occupation of large parts of Ukrainian territory and were very different in substance to previous negotiations centred around the War in Donbas, for example.

Regarding (2), I think if we apply the 10-year test it's likely future readers will want to know about the failed negotiations that took place early in the invasion but quickly broke down for various reasons (accusations of Russian bad faith, anger after the Bucha revelations). The previous negotiations are a part of the history of the invasion, even if they turn out to be a relatively minor part; for example, their failure may represent a moment when it became clear the invasion was developing into a longer-term conflict. They may also impact future negotiations.

Regarding (3), I think the best option is to write a summary of the peace negotiations that took place that we can then adjust when future negotiations take place. It's impossible to predict when and how this might occur, but we can easily reduce the coverage of the previous negotiations to something like "early in the war, a series of failed negotiations took place etc. etc., after XX/XX/2023, negotiations were reopened". Keen to hear others' responses to these points. Jr8825 • Talk 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have said all I wish to say above, and have no more to add. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Polls

@ErnestKrause, the Reaction section did not mention the Russian people's reaction to the invasion, which is essential for both, making a balance to the said section in order to satisfy the WP:NPOV and to add an essential addition to the article's content. The articles, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions and Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, are both unrelated to my edit. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I doubt your first source is an RS. Your second source is a Blog. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh? How is it that Radio Liberty isn't a RS?

The second source belongs to London School of Economics , meaning that it's not a self published source. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does, as its a blog, blogs are blogs. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG are acceptable sources. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not a "news organization". Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

its a blog, blogs are blogs.

Not all blogs are treated the same. News blogs are acceptable sources because their "writers are professionals." So we can say that research organizations' blogs are acceptable sources too since their writers are professionals.

But if you're not OK with that we can cite the individual sources that LSE used in their article. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Note, as seen here: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/about-europp/. They only publish pieces from people with expertise in the area, and submissions are reviewed by the editors. The editorial team are all academics in political science. I think it's fine as a source. Tristario (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

LSE Blogs are good, but should points should generally be attributed in-text to the author of the blog, as it's their personal view as an expert. Jr8825 • Talk 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed Tristario (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think given that polls showing the level of Russian support for the invasion have received a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources, it's WP:DUE to include in the article, but it should be briefer, and within the reactions section.

Radio Liberty is generally a respected source and I think acceptable for this purpose. The LSE blog is also not the same as a self-published source, and even it was, they're subject matter experts. I would prefer sources such as the NYTimes or BBC though Tristario (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Radio liberty is not used as a source. Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

+1 support. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you support? Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Support for Slatersteven on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, Slatersteven asked what you support, not who you support. Wikipedia editing is not based on voting and this is the second discussion I've seen you engage what looks like that. If I see you engaging on the talk page in this behaviour a third time, I will report it to the administrators and request your removal from this topic. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably another source can just be used then, I don't think that's a big issue. Radio Liberty does not operate in the west so people largely only associate it with its cold war origins and the fact that it's funded by the US government. However, in my experience, its quality is on the level of a WP:GREL source. I have had a look at the reliable sources noticeboard archives and have not seen any substantive objections to its reliability besides the fact it's funded by the US government. Tristario (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Then link to Radio Liberty, and not svoboda.org, which appears to be the website of Svoboda (political party). Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

svoboda means liberty in a few different languages. The political party is named after the word for liberty. Svoboda.org is the website of radio liberty Tristario (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So which countries version is this? Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

svoboda.org is the russian version of it Tristario (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it, this seems to be the link Radio Liberty gives https://www.rferl.org/Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That's the english language version. Look at this: https://www.rferl.org/navigation/allsites. It's on that list Tristario (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

(For anyone observing this discussion, this is the edit being currently discussed) Tristario (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There are already several articles on Wikipedia showing the Russian people's reaction to the invasion, so I'm not sure why the exact same thing should be in the main invasion article. Various opinion polls are used by the Kremlin in its propaganda campaign, which is also why opinion polls are allowed in Russia, unlike independent media. During the Iran-Iraq War, when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, no one cared about opinion polls in Iraq because it was seen as Hussein's propaganda. Why is Putin's propaganda so important? There is a dictatorship in Russia, everything is decided by a narrow group of people led by Putin, all the media is controlled by Putin's regime and Russians are informed only about the Kremlin's version of events, people can be imprisoned for up to 15 years for criticizing the war and the Russian army, for spreading so-called "fake news". According to some sources, in telephone polls, a high percentage of people polled don't want to answer questions about the war in Ukraine or President Putin, because these are topics that are subject to prosecution in Russia, so the question is whether these polls can be trusted, even if it's from Levada. It should definitely be mentioned in Wikipedia, but why in this main article? --Tobby72 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

We won't say the exact same thing, we provide a briefer summary of those things in this article. And we can include caveats as reported in reliable sources. I don't think this talk page is the right place for a discussion about details of authoritarianism and propaganda in Russia, and I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion about that. Ultimately that's irrelevant, we'll just say what the reliable sources say. Tristario (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Kremlin propaganda? What are you talking about? You mean we should hide any information that is used by the Russian side (or any side you don't like) even if it's 100% true and satisfy Wikipedia's rules and policies and mentioned in multiple RS? Your argument is not adequate and doesn't make any sense and therefore is not considered.

AND the Russian protests are used by the western probaganda and its already mentioned in the main article since forever and no one said it shouldn't be here. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There is No consensus for your edit earlier today in the main space for this article on the Talk page here which is still in progress. You have been contacted by two editors on your Talk page regarding this matter and associated edits you have made. Establish consensus on the Talk page here prior to further edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, your response to Editor:Super ninja2 proclaims a consensus based on a number of editors and like the rest of your posts in this discussion, it did not make any substantive argument for or against the content. Please put a stop to this behaviour lest I take it to an administrator noticeboard. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind a summary of polls on main article pages. The problem is when they are conducted under autocratic regimes, when there is a clear self-censoring effect. I cleaned up a sloppily written attempt which made it clear that a) under the Putin autocratic regime, accurate polling is difficult, b) I inserted 'polled' and 'surveyed' to stress that this was the opinion of those polled, not the general population, c) I made clear that the polls covered the period just prior to, and just after, the invasion, i.e., implying they may not represent present opinion. I suggest my revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1112295639&oldid=1112281240&diffmode=source)is an adequate starting point for further revisions. Full disclosure: I have Rus ancestry, I have visited Russia several times, I was director of a social survey center conducting public polling in countries with both autocratic and military regimes, I have a relationship with a UN peacebuilding NGO, and I have worked with one or more militaries. Johncdraper (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you given any thought to adding your insights about this to the section on Polls in the reactions article at Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It seems that making note of some of the problems with reliability in polling would be useful in that Reactions article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As I've said I think we should be include polling in this article however it needs to be briefer than what attempts so far have done, this article is not the place for an extended discussion about polling in Russia, and it also needs to comply with WP:NPOV Tristario (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I have made this edit which is briefer and includes some of the caveats that people are concerned about. It could probably be expanded on and updated a bit. Tristario (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I like Johncdraper's longer version for the Reactions page and your summarised version for this page. It can be expanded and updated as public sentiment in Russia becomes clearer. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you think there should be a section specifically just for polling on this page? I can't make up my mind for that Tristario (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It can be a subsection of the reactions section. IntrepidContributor (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable Tristario (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It is so short. The article is so long and contains details on every aspect including a section about foriegn protests which is not directly related to the war. So why this section has to be brief?! If anything, the section about foriegn protests is the one that has to be removed. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It's in a good shape. I agree on this version. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Super ninja2 was it necessary to delete the summarised version instead of trying to expand it a bit with some context? Some editors oppose including anything, and some oppose including too much, so a summary seems like a good place to start. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right. Feel free to undo my edit and I will try to expand it to add more context. THX for your note. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with IntrepidContributor that JohncDraper's version should be adopted. I believe that given the context of the issue, the depth of the article a more detailed version should be included. This perspective gives justice to the topic and I don't see the downside of more details. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a more in depth version as long as it sticks to the kind of summary style this article is for Tristario (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

As discussed here I've added the information about the polling back in, for people to expand or otherwise make adjustments to. Tristario (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this question at present. Make consensus on Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause This was what was suggested, and no one objected to it for over a week. If you wanted to object to including this, you had over a week to do so. What is your objection to including at least a brief mention of polling in this article? As I said people can expand and adjust it Tristario (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Both Slatersteven and myself are not supporting this edit as stated above. Make consensus on Talk prior to further edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven has not objected to including a mention of polling in this article. He had some issues with the sources and we discussed that. What is your issue with this edit? Tristario (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause Do you still object to the inclusion of any information about polling in this article, and if you do, what is your rationale? Tristario (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause You might also want to read Wikipedia: Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" Tristario (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy for Support and Oppose comments is that they stand for the duration of the discussion taking place. It is not a matter of the 'most recent comments' approach which you appear to be wanting to apply. You need to follow WP:Consensus and reach consensus on the Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest reading through the page you just linked because your understanding of consensus is wrong. Reaching consensus is a natural process where people continually move the discussion forward and attempt improvements and changes which address or make a compromise with other people's concerns, based on policy. It does not mean absolutely everyone that was ever involved in the discussion needs to explicitly agree to a particular edit before that edit is even made. Tristario (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be no added support for your edits and you appear to be edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article. If you continue edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article without consensus then any editor can submit your name for edit warring. Both Slatersteven and myself are opposed to your edit. Your edit is reverted following Wikipedia policy for edit warring. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven did not object to the inclusion of information about polling in this article, he had some issues with the sources, and we discussed that. @ErnestKrause You are the only person objecting to any inclusion of information about polling in this article, I haver repeatedly asked you what your rationale is for your objection, and you have not explained. Besides you there is broad support on the talk page for at least some information about polling in the article. You are the one editing against consensus.

Not that consensus is not a unanimous vote. You cannot simply say "I object" and then refuse to ever explain why. Note on WP:TALKDONTREVERT it says "arguments like 'I just don't like it' carry no weight whatsoever" Tristario (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to try writing a couple of sentences on Russian polling that you would accept, even if to state they are unreliable, and why? Johncdraper (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct the list of Beligerents on Ukrainian side.

Ukraine is being provided with Heavy weapons from the NATO alliance. They should be mentioned under the list of beligerents. 2401:4900:4A61:9C7F:1:0:57F3:8ADA (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainians also use US satellites to aim artillery strikes. It's not just weapons provided, even if you ignore the US being behind Maidan to begin with 94.189.193.233 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

USA provides satellite imagery of Ukraine to Ukraine: not an act of war. “US being behind Maidan”: Russian disinformation, and irrelevant sour grapes. —Michael Z. 17:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No its is not an act of war, and MAidan was years ago. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think, NATO is not actually sending Ukraine anything that is extremely useful. I suppose You could add USA, but the whole NATO is a bad idea Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The 'foreign support' section is a bit problematic

This articles is about the Russian invasion in 2022. But the foreign support section covers NATO support from 2014-2021, that support came in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and foreign support in Eastern Ukraine at the height of which Russia regular forces and offensive platforms were deployed inside Ukraine. Due to the scope none of the later is covered here and thus might seem to someone unfamiliar with the topic that NATO was supporting Ukraine while Russia was a natural observer. --Nilsol2 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The issues of NATO relations with Russia and NATO relations with Ukraine are two separate questions. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: Ukraine supported by NATO (and others)

It just seems odd that the infobox lists "Ukraine" alone as a belligerent. NATO ought to be listed as a supporter as it is providing everything short of direct military intervention, i.e. billions upon billions of dollars of no-strings-attached military aid, both direct and indirect, providing intelligence, military training, etc. Not to mention Ukraine is now officially seeking NATO membership. One might even suggest listing every nation sending aid to Ukraine, as the amount is truly colossal. Many billions of dollars of direct monetary aid as well as military hardware, from a host of countries. What are others' thoughts on this edit?

Sources:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3173378/11-billion-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-announces-further-1-billion-in-military-support-to-ukraine#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20leading%20the,other%20than%20the%20United%20States

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/military-support-ukraine-2054992 BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top - this has been discussed before. — Czello 20:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Then lets having it again, because I can't find a comprehensive discussion in the near-infinitely long archives, and there seems to currently be considerable desire to denote more than nothing in the infobox with regard to Ukraine's foreign support. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The FAQ links to the discussion: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 7#RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I read the discussion. Sure, many countries are sending aid but the idea that NATO (let alone countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, and the Baltics) aren't "supporting" belligerents at this point is, IMHO, completely ridiculous. So while listing individual countries is excessive, NATO is most certainly a supporting belligerent. 2600:6C40:467F:D7DA:B57A:FD94:1305:FFE5 (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If we have NATO as a co-belligerent, then this would imply that Russia is not only fighting against Ukraine but also against NATO and the West, which would further underline the Russian propaganda and that would be unacceptable. 2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:805A:D21B:A275:B046 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Does it further Russian propaganda to say which countries are proving support to Ukraine's defense? And even if the answer is yes, if it's the truth as an encyclopedia shouldn't we state it as such? As Russians will continue to make baseless claims regardless why not accurately explain what is happening? BogLogs (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The article has a major section about support: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement. It would further Russian propaganda if we listed states under “Belligerents” in the infobox that are not. —Michael Z. 19:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

What a ridiculous argument. Russian propaganda should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is included in a Wikipedia article. NATO is quite plainly offering enormous military support to Ukraine. Your suggestion of not including NATO in the infobox because of perceived "Russian propaganda" is a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Buzzlightyear99 here, it would be good to at the very least discuss changes to the infobox to include countries which support Ukraine. Since the previous discussion the amount of support has vastly increased and has been shown to be decisive in Ukraine's defense and counter offensives. BogLogs (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

NATO is not involved in Ukraine. The war is outside of its jurisdiction; it is not what NATO is for and not how it is set up to operate. For NATO to make any comment on Ukraine would require all its member countries to agree but no statement has been made and you will not find a citation to that effect in order to include that idea in the article. It is a very important distinction to make between the individual actions of various countries that happen to be members of NATO and NATO deciding to take action. If and when NATO gets involved, this will be abundantly clear and will be a gamechanger. Let us hope that they never have to. Ex nihil ^(talk) 21:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point. It is true that there has been no formal comment by NATO announcing joint action (certainly not anything along the lines of sending formal armies, thankfully!). That said if that were to happen NATO or any countries sending forces to fight would be belligerents and we would likely have to change the article title to WWW3 if we still have the ability to do so. The argument here at least for me is that given the amount of war materiel support given by NATO, or at the very least the NATO countries that are clearly sourced as providing large sums of that aid, should be listed as supporters of Ukraine's defense. BogLogs (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

No, because giving aid for a proxy war isn't the same as declaring war and being in a war. Andre🚐 03:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and you are indeed correct giving aid is not the same thing as declaring war. In fact I think no war has been declared since the end of WW2. But this kind of materiel support deserves some kind of mention. This is the most similar situation I could find with support drop downs in the info box etc etc. Soviet–Afghan War. I think it would be a good model for this page but I welcome other ideas and points of discussion. BogLogs (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

One of the main sections is “Foreign involvement,” right there in the table of contents. Very easy to find for anyone seeking it. For someone who wants the top of the article to prominently advertise NATO as “belligerent,” this would be creating a WP:NPOV problem.

Incidentally, there have been well over a couple hundred conflicts since WWII, but just over a dozen declared. See Declaration of war#Declared wars since 1945. —Michael Z. 19:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The total in that list is 17 declarations of war, which seems notable. The key phase "conflicts since WWII..." should say something about Pearl Harbor which set a standard for 'acts of infamy' for subsequent generations. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It says something about the Nuremberg trials, which were history’s first trial, convictions, and hangings for the crime of aggression. A declaration of war is legally a confession to the crime. —Michael Z. 19:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)f

The Wikipedia article for casus belli states that there are three exceptions as follows: "In the post–World War II era, the UN Charter prohibits signatory countries from engaging in war except: 1) as a means of defending themselves—or an ally where treaty obligations require it—against aggression; 2) unless the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation. The UN also reserves the right to ask member nations to intervene against non-signatory countries that embark on wars of aggression." It would be nice if someone would update these other articles from time to time. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Well I stand corrected on declarations of war among quite a few states (Can always learn something new everyday!). A number of the following points given seem quite unrelated to the discussion at hand. The question still stands and will probably be asked here again and again again, Is Ukraine's material support by other countries of such an impact that it deserves to be mentioned in the infobox similar to that of other articles. As the war, and the international politics surrounding the war, is so deeply effected by this aid I would certainly think that it should be listed clearly in the infobox. BogLogs (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Literally in the first line of the first source I provided (the official NATO website): "...NATO and Allies continue to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence." Ukraine is supported by NATO, if the previous statement plus the hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid was not enough to convince you. It does not get any more straightforward than this. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The United States alone has allocated aid worth $65 billion, over ten times Ukraine's pre-war defense budget and on par with the entire annual military spending of Russia. This includes economic assistance, massive amounts of arms, training, supply lines just outside of Ukraine's borders, and intelligence sharing from American aircraft conducting surveillance. To not list them (among other countries) under a "supported by" line, when every other article on this wiki (e.g. Iran-Iraq War) gives that distinction to any country that so much as sent a truck full of grenades to a belligerent, is absolutely ridiculous.--Nihlus1 (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• The primary question is whether this (an extensive list) should or should not go in the infobox, noting that there is a section of the article dealing with foreign aid of various types, where prose can capture the nuance of the nature of the aid that cannot be done in an infobox. There have been two RfCs on this already, closed with no consensus. Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE but determined by strength of argument made against objective criteria (WP:P&G). Given that the RfCs are relatively recent, the question to be asked is "what in P&G has changed such that we are likely to arrive at a consensus different from the status quo?" The answer is, nothing. Continuing to discuss this is just a WP:BIKESHED. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  The infobox is one of the first things readers will see and effects the overall picture of the rest of the article (WP:BIKESHED was an interesting read but I'm not sure it applies here). If the question really simply boils down to is the article improved by including the countries that clearly support Ukraine in the infobox or not these other articles may serve as a good comparison: Korean War, Crimean War, Yom Kippur War, Russian Civil War. Would those articles be improved by removing supporting information from their infoboxs? Of course the reader could go deeper in the articles to find more but clearly the supporting countries listed in the infoboxs are well justified. A similar feature in this article's infobox, listing supporting countries, would be a big improvement to help readers understand the situation as they begin to dive into the article. BogLogs (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2022

Could someone add {{Anchor|Casualties}} to the section "Casualties and refugee crisis". This section was renamed this morning, which has broken a load of section links, e.g. the "see the casualties section" note in the infobox. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC) 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 13:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Hello, folks,

I just came across Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian invasion of Ukraine and thought I'd let editors interested in this subject know about it. Looks like a one editor WikiProject right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a very short page; do you have plans to expand it? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Russian commander

A Washington Post article[4] reports that the overall operational commander of the Russian “special military operation” was Alexander Dvornikov (April–May), Gennady Zhidko (May–June), and Sergei Surovikin (from October 8). A number of other Russian military appointments and firings discussed too. —Michael Z. 03:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Similar and analogous reviews of the Ukraine high command are also published. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine not supported by NATO?

Infobox shows no support from NATO/USA/EU for Ukraine and it seems that it's intended. Are there any reliable sources confirming that in fact there is no support for Ukraine? Mintus590 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

See talk page threads above, and FAQ, and the archives. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page; it's been decided by consensus not to include NATO. — Czello 11:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

No boots on the ground from NATO on Ukrainian soil. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's a source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18023383 Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

The material on Darya Dugina is on the Wikipedia page for her. Should this material be covered as part of the Rearguard action on Crimea and the Russian mainland, or should it be excluded from the Invasion article. It appears to have taken place in the transition between the second phase of the invasion and the third phase of the invasion. It is also discussed in the Wikipedia article Killing of Darya Dugina. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Was it part of any rearguard action, if so by who?

Also how is this section even about a RearGuard as these attacks occurred long after Russia's annexation, surely they are counter-attacks? Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Also how would an attack in Russia be a rearguard action, as it is not a result of Ukraine retreating? So even if we have the bomb attack on Ms Dugina it is a counter-attack as well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The rearguard action refers to actions taking place behind the front lines of the 2022 Russian invasion as summarized in the Wikipedia article for Dariya Dugina stating: "Darya Dugina, daughter of a prominent pro-Putin follower, was killed on 20 August 2022, when her car exploded on Mozhayskoye Shosse in the settlement of Bolshiye Vyazyomy outside Moscow around 9:45 p.m. local time." The allegations of Ukraine involvement are also covered in that Wikipedia article. It seems there are many reliable sources for this and that it should be considered for inclusion in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not what rearguard means. A rear guard protects the rear of either a retreating or an advancing force. As Ukraine is neither advancing towards, nor retreating from Moscow, or any other part of Russia the attack on here can't have been part of any rearguard action. At best (and we would need serious proof of this to include it here) it would be part of an asymmetric warfare action. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

'Assymertic warfare action' might be a little unconventional for Wikipedia readers who can read the general Rearguard action Wikipedia page if needed. More directly, though, what do you think of just calling it 'retaliation' or political counterattack. It seems that either of these might work in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Becasue it implies Ukraine did it, ther is no evidence they did. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclining to think that a better section title might be something like "Counteroffensives in Crimea and within Russia," or something like that. The material on Darya has been extensively covered in the international press with dozens and dozens of articles referring to Ukraine involvement; too many RS from major newspapers to fully exclude from the article. Maybe try your own wording for including some version of the Darya edit. The title to the section would look better in another format since your reference to "Rear" does not sound especially encyclopedic. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Rearguard action or not, I think a very brief mention is WP:DUE, along with a mention of the New York Times report that says the U.S. intelligence believes some elements of the Ukrainian government are responsible and that they would have opposed it had they known in advance [5]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

crimean bridge explosion

"In October, After the signature of the Russian-Crimean bridge under an unprecedented attack." I believe there is a minor error here, could anyone fix it? Fivehundredgrams (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, we do not know it was an attack. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree - Couple of things here. What does the sentence mean '..After the signature..'? Needs a rewrite I suggest. There is a heading 'Rear action in Crimea' and this material really belongs there where there is a brief summary. It's duplication. I'll do it at some point.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Careless smoking, you think? Reliable sources report that it was an attack. —Michael Z. 02:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Need to follow RS on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Not all do [[6]], it being a Ukrainian attack is unconfirmed.. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t say Ukrainian attack. Your source doesn’t even consider possibilities that aren’t an attack, like an accident or something. I haven’t seen any that do.

I guess it doesn’t hurt to leave it open and say “explosion” when we don’t know the cause, but it would also be irresponsible to give the impression that it might be anything other than an attack, and I don’t have a problem with implying or assuming that the only likelihood is an attack. —Michael Z. 17:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is even if we accept it was an attack, by who? Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And according to this [[7]] it might have been an accident. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Causality update

The Moscow Times reports that "over 90,000 Russian soldiers have died, cannot be accounted for, or have suffered such serious injuries that they are unable to return to service". This should be added to the causality estimates.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/10/12/over-90k-irrecoverable-losses-suffered-by-russian-soldiers-in-ukraine-istories-a79070 81.225.32.185 (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What is missing

Good morning. IMHO We need two separate pages regarding:

• Targeted killings listing people like Valery Kuleshov, Dmitry Savluchenko, Serhii Tomko, Darya Dugina, Sergei Gorenko and many others occurred in the occupied zones or outside Ukraine (or even their attempts by partisans) I think is needed.
• War on cities with the several attacks (and/or retaliatory attacks) occurred to the civilian cities (Mariupol theater; Vuhledar; Kramatorsk; Zapo; Odessa; Kiev; Lviv… and on Russian hand/side like Donetsk; Belgorod etc.) or their infrastructures (Markets; Hospitals; Electic power plants, Railway stations, bridges [eg. Zatoka Bridge ([8]) targeted at least 8 times] etc.) and the use of ballistic missiles (Tochka-U, Iskander) or Kalibr cruise missiles (Moldovan Airspace violation and consequent official protest), use of Iranian drones (renamed Geran 2).

Thank you. Nicola Romani (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• We need sources saying these were proven attacks. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• You appear to be editing without reliable sources to draw your conclusions. You are also not answering Talk page comments, while at the same time commenting on other threads on the same Talk page. You need to follow RS, and I have given multiple reliable sources for my edit. I request you explain why you are reverting without any reliable sources, when I am presenting multiple reliable sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Which sources say she was the target of a Ukrainian hit, not "unnamed intelligence sources", a clear official statement? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources making this report. Russian diplomatic officials have made this claim, and Estonian diplomatic officials have gone on the record as denying it. Also, Ukraine has put forward diplomatic officials to deny the claim made by Russia. Just read the Wikipedia articles for Darya Dugina and Killing of Darya Dugina. Regarding the Crimean bridge incident, I'm not sure what your issue is? What are your reliable sources saying was the cause of the bridge incident? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, it is a claim, not a fact. So we can't say it is a fact, only a claim, an allegation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

[[9]], it has not been confirmed what caused it. So we can't say it has been confirmed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Well we can easily solve the issue using Alleged targeted killing and so on. Moreover War on cities is a fact, nobody else own Kalibr SLCM cruise missiles except Russia. Nicola Romani (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We seem to be having confusing issues here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Then, check the correct section you both were editing/replying to each other before. Nicola Romani (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We have two separate questions asked in the OP, then we have comments about the editing of already existing sections, and not in the creation of new articles (the OP,s question). Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There are two sections now for dealing with this. If Nicola would like to add further edits to the 'Russia' section such as the one about Rostov, then I'll try to support here: [10]. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Add Syria to Russia's "Supported By" section of belligerents infobox

It has been well documented that Syrian mercenaries, and regular military units of the Syrian Army (The 25th Division to name one), have been deployed to and experienced combat in the Kherson region. Syria itself has been added to the infobox of the Kherson Counteroffensive, so it would make sense to add it here similar to how Belarus has been added. DragonLegit04 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

As long as there are verifiable sources to back this up this would seem to be a good addition to the infobox. BogLogs (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If it can be shown that regular military units (not mercs) have been deployed, yes we can add them. But we need to see some RS saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The reports appear to be somewhat isolated in the press such as here: [11]. Is the mainstream press covering this story about Syrian troops with RS? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of War talks about this, including Syrian régime cooperation in recruiting. These reports include reference links to their sources.

• March 11:[12] “The Kremlin announced plans to deploy foreign fighters, including up to 16,000 Syrian fighters, to Ukraine”
• March 13:[13] “Ukrainian intelligence provided further details on Russia’s initiative to deploy existing pro-Assad units to Ukraine and recruit additional Syrian and Libyan mercenaries on March 13”
• March 14:[14] “Russia continues to face difficulties replacing combat losses and increasingly seeks to leverage irregular forces including Russian PMCs and Syrian fighters”
• March 17:[15] “The GUR reported that the Russian military ordered its base in Hmeimim, Syria to send up to 300 fighters from Syria to Ukraine daily. The GUR additionally reported that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has promised to recruit 40,000 Syrian fighters to deploy to Ukraine. The GUR reported Russian authorities are promising Syrian recruits that they will exclusively act as police in occupied territories.”
• March 23:[16] “Russian efforts to bring Syrian forces into Ukraine may be encountering challenges”
• March 31:[17] Plenty in this item.
  • “Russia is attempting to redeploy Syrian units with experience working under Russian commanders to Ukraine to mitigate high Russian casualties”
  • “Russia began a redeployment of Wagner units and their Syrian proxies from Africa and Syria to Ukraine in early February‚”
  • “Russian forces are redeploying within Syria in order to recruit and mobilize additional Syrian fighters for a second wave of reinforcements [to deploy to Ukraine]”
  • “Russia is leveraging its pre-existing relationships with multiple pro-regime units to coordinate the recruitment and select individuals from these units with combat experience”
  • “Finally, Russia is attempting to recruit and train a wider range of pro-regime Syrian fighters”
• April 20:[18] “Ukrainian forces reported the presence of small numbers of Syrian or Libyan mercenaries fighting in Popasna (eastern Ukraine), likely individual recruits fighting under the umbrella of the Wagner Group rather than larger units”

 —Michael Z. 16:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

When (and if) official Syrian units are deployed we can add Syria. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Boots on the ground in Ukraine appears to be the decisive factor here. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I am against this. If the NATO member countries that have provided hundreds of billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine, proving a decisive factor in the war thus far, are not mentioned the infobox neither should Syria for sending a handful of mercenaries that will prove inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)