Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Azov Battalion putting lard on bullets

Should the info on Azov Battalion coating lard in bullets targeting Chechen muslims that was posted on the National Guard twitter account be added to the article? or wait until it is properly reported in the media.-UtoD 20:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait to see if it's picked up by a number of secondary WP:RS, which might indicate its notability. Jr8825 • Talk 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like baseless, lazy propaganda. Every war since the British in India has always had reports of Muslim personnel being shot with bullets coated in some form of pig fat. It's the laziest and most "phoned-in" made up story in history. It should not be lent any credence at all.Jersey John (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The video was distributed BY the Azov Battalion. It's hardly a made up story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbrettcooper (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, and I also fail to see how it would not be undue anyway even if true, its one unit targeting another in a war involving 100,000's. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Whether it's made up or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is supposed to present information as reported by notable sources, not report things itself. If the pig lard on bullets story isn't being reported by WP:RS, it's a non-issue as far as Wikipedia is concerned. John Bullock (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It has been picked up by Al Jazeera and Vice which I believe is WP:RS enough to be mentioned. As the post is made by the official Twitter account of the National Guard of Ukraine I believe it should be mentioned somewhere. -UtoD 17:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, and I also think my initial response thread (made when events were fast unfolding) was wrong. Given the scale of the invasion, isolated incidents such as this are not significant enough to be included here. At most, they might warrant mention on articles with a narrower scope. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:SUMMARY. Jr8825 • Talk 07:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?

Should the individual countries that are supplying arms be added to the infobox? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Update : several users rightfully asked what sort parameter I would suggest. I suggest adding the collapsable parameter "Arms suppliers" (cf. Korean War, etc.). - LouisAragon (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Arms suppliers" isn't a parameter. You're suggesting using the belligerent param |combatant2a= with {{collapsible list}} (and I'd note that collapsed lists do not work on mobile, they auto-uncollapse, so this is going to extend the scroll length by several scrolls as well). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

How is there not a WP:Skin auto-collapsing on mobile :/ Maxorazon (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom. There are dozens of WP:RS making world headlines for more than a day about the millions of dollars worth of (lethal) weaponry that are being sent to Ukraine. In fact, this very article includes numerous of these RS already.[1] In addition, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia which likewise list arms suppliers in the infobox, such as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and First Nagorno-Karabakh War (FA-class). Thus I don't see why this should be an exception. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, the FA-class article you reference didn't have arms suppliers at the time it was promoted to FA, plus its current title is probably OR. The 2020 article is not the best example to use either - I remember closing an RfC on that article where the majority position was not policy compliant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support countries have been sending hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment, including lethal weaponry. Even though they aren't committing their armed forces, their assistance is vital to the Ukrainian war effort. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, just supplying or selling weapons (like by Turkey) does not make any country a belligerent in a military conflict. Secondly, what exactly list of countries do you suggest to include? This is a long list, and they must be explicitly named in the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, per comment by ProcrastinatingReader, one needs multiple RS saying that "country X is a participants of a war against Russia", not that "country X delivered weapons to Ukraine". Claim that delivering weapons makes country X a participant of the war against Russia would be WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: UK, Poland, Germany, Netherlands, etc., cannot be labelled as "belligerents" by any reasonable definition. Any of them would deny that they are participants in a war against Russia. The claim needs to be contextualised and explained, which is best done in the body (incl the lead), lest people start thinking half of Europe is at war with Russia, which would be quite problematic indeed. I also think it's an excess emphasis on Western military involvement; the equipment I'm sure is valuable but as the Ukrainian President said they're defending Ukraine alone and, absent further context and considerations (best done in the body, as infoboxes are space-limited), that does seem correct. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support obviously - only if USA is at the top of the list. Let the peacekeeping friendly USA take the spotlight with the peacekeeping friendly Russians.Maxorazon (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - most articles have countries that sent support to any belligerant in the infobox, so i think that it would make sense for it be the same here. EpicWikiLad (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - this is a significant part of the story. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 00:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support if they can be reliably sourced or are otherwise notable for inclusion. --lomrjyo (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. per My very best wishes and ProcrastinatingReader. Much of NATO and the EU as well as the US is selling or giving weaponry, or has done so. Any list would be absurdly long and fail to give context. The infobox is not the best place for this information and supplying arms certainly does not make a country a 'belligerent'. Even with more 'normal' wars, this would not be done ordinarily. Of course this is a significant part of the story, but that story is not simplisticly reducible to an infobox list. Pincrete (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Question and alternative How big is this list going to be? An extensive list would not fit with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An infobox is intended to be an "at a glance summary". Bloating an infobox with extensive and intricate detail defeats the purpose. Also, the infobox detail must be verifiable and supported by the body of the article. I am not opposed to such inclusions subject to the preceding. However, I am almost certain that such a list would quickly become inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The alternative is to place a note that would direct the reader to a section in the article eg - See section Foreign military support to Ukraine for countries that have supplied material aid and arms to the Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

PS adding what would be an extensive list becomes a matter of WP:ACCESS. Collapsed lists do not display as collapsed on mobile devices. Consequently, a mobile user must navigate past a bloated infobox to even get to the second para of the lead. Links to a section and, even better, to an article are the best options to indicate "support" from the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support The arms shipments and now calls for foreign volunteers is not an isolated incident and appears to occur on a continuous basis, with vocal government support from the supplying nations. The inclusion of individual countries supplying weaponry appears in other major conflict pages including the Vietnam War and Iran–Iraq War. This precedent, in conjunction to the ongoing aid, provides added weight that such information should be added to this conflict. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment, good point. I'd add the Korean War article might be a good guide for layout.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 05:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, very good find. I like how it is broken down into sub-categories. ElderZamzam (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support per precedent and if reliable sources indicate the arms support is related to the invasion. Suggest adding the European Union. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support but only if they are clearly indicated as providing arms and not as belligerents. A separate portion of the infobox would be helpful if the infobox can be tailored that way. (Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly analogous to the "supported by" section in the Iran-Iraq war infobox. Meets the H:IB criteria for infobox inclusion. 李艾连 (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Robert McClenon. Peter Ormond 💬 07:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support Although I suggest the title be called Arms Suppliers unless countries are not providing support beyond supplying weapons. Viewsridge (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• General support - This is common practice and actually communicates something important about the conflict appropriate for a summary, though if need be make it a collapsible list or direct it to a section (and inevitable new article) on "Foreign support for Ukraine" or something. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the belligerent section should’t be included in any form the name of countries which are just selling weapons to one or even both factions, without fielding any soldier nor shooting any bullet. The process is just a supply of weapons, no different from what always happens between countries. The said countries are not involved in the conflict, nor have received any aggression from Ukraine or the Russian Federation. The fact that military competence is the cornerstone of statehood and sovereignty shouldn’t be a push for including as participant in a war every country that has shown preference or hatred for a determined part in conflict. --Foghe (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Copying my statement from the previous survey. Only entities participating in combat operations should be included as belligerents. I understand the desire to include ever more information in the infobox, but it is one area where we should be ruthlessly prioritising. Too many conflict infoboxs end up overburdened with minor details, and it simply distracts from the essence of the situation. Ukrainian is at war. NATO is not. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems you didn't read the RfC. I never mentioned NATO. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I did. However my position that only entities participating in combat operations should be listed in the infobox applies just as much to the Netherlands or Estonia as it does to NATO. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support As long as it is material support and not merely diplomatic. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of countries (may be around 40) have provided some support that was not merely diplomatic, including imposing sanctions, even Switzerland. And even Finland promised to supply weapons. Sure, this should be noted on the page, but listing all of them in "belligerent" section would be misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support They are included in similar articles so I don't see why this should be an exception. The supply of (at least) hundreds of millions of $ worth of military aid is not a "minor detail", especially when you take into account Ukraine's yearly military budget of around $5 billion. Qowert (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose under the basis this should be elaborated on beyond a simple infobox mention. The International reactions section would, I believe, be more appropiate, and enable more contextual elaboration. Calling them belligerents is a bit overboard though, even if it is for organizational purposes. Mooshua1857 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't go in the infobox; it would lead to infoboxes that are huge and useless for... well, most wars. For example, 1948 Arab–Israeli War correctly does not include Czechoslovakia as a belligerent on the Israeli side, despite their arms support for Israel being so huge and significant that there's an entire article on it at Arms shipments from Czechoslovakia to Israel 1947–1949. And that's correct: for basically every single Cold War conflict, we'd have a useless infobox of half the countries in the world if we adopted such a lax standard. Now, if something like armed Ukrainian insurgents start operating out of Poland with Polish support, then we can talk... but not merely arms shipments. (Canvass warning: saw this RFC on a neutral request for comment at the WP:DISCORD.) SnowFire (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Relevant, suppliers are partial belligerents in all cases, and main belligerents in some ( Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy war.)
• Acceptance criteria would include:
  • Listing the countries as arms suppliers
  • Listing the countries as supporters
  • Listing the countries individually
  • Listing the countries under groupings (like NATO)
  • When combined with other reasons, and if this extends over time, listing the country as a main belligerent. --TZubiri (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• 'Support As previously mentioned by others, this adds to the value of the article, is important information and it demonstrates which countries support the Ukraine by action and reflects values exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support if we're listing them as arms suppliers and not "belligerents". I myself came to this page to see who had officially sent Ukraine lethal aid, it would have been useful information to have clearly listed. I don't support them being listed as belligerents, however. NATO nations are going to great lengths to avoid ending up at war with Russia, and while I personally don't understand why shooting a Russian plane down is a declaration of war but funnelling weapons to Ukraine and explicitly trying to bankrupt Russia are not, that appears to be the reality of the situation. John Bullock (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Provisional support (edit: on reflection, I now oppose adding this per Lyndaship's point about the difficulty of distinguishing what level of support warrants inclusion and the concerns about mobile accessibility raised below Jr8825 • Talk 08:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)) - while it's useful information to show, as many point out above, arms suppliers shouldn't be listed below (i.e. within) a "belligerents" section/header, like the Korean War example given above. Either {{Infobox military conflict}} needs to be adjusted to allow for a dedicated section, or the | combatants_header = parameter should be used to change the section name to something broader than "belligerents". I oppose adding it if neither of these changes are made, as it'd be inaccurate. Jr8825 • Talk 11:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support infobox, so long as it is clearly not under "belligerents". Belligerent has a very specific meaning, and supplying arms does not make one a belligerent. It is however, useful information that would be nice in the infobox (preferably in a collapsible form so it doesn't take up too much space). BSMRD (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support as nom.--BlackShadowG (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest speedy close to RfC, overwhelming support. Viewsridge (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter how much support a proposal gets if it's not feasible (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). As already pointed out, these infobox sections auto-expand on mobile, which is how 70%+ of readers will see this article. An "arms supplier" list of 40+ anything in an infobox would render the mobile infobox unusable, so it's a non-starter. Infoboxes are not for every single true fact, just the ones short enough to be summarized. (At best, we could have a "see section/list" for Arms Suppliers that was an internal link.) SnowFire (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

    would render the mobile infobox unusable Not just the mobile infobox, but the article in general. The infobox, which appears after the very first paragraph, goes on forever (on mobile devices) if it's too long, and it's a heck of a scroll to get further down to even the second paragraph of the lead, even though the actual summary of the events is contained in the lead and not in the infobox. So a lot of people might just not, and that means they're deprived of actually useful information. It's considered a given in web development at this point, to design for mobile devices first because that's how most people consume information these days; I feel like the same principle should be applied to editing Wikipedia articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• support I want to know it, in addition to arms dealers. also those who put sanctions on Russia as it this war is more than just Ukraine now, but that's an opinion. as for the arms dealing it's not just selling there is a fair amount of just throwing weapons at them and telling the Ukrainians here use these. or that is what it looks like.... i could be wrong I don't have proof on hand.Bruvlad (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. A pointless bewildering of our readers. The epitome of what shouldn't be in an infobox. Refer readers to the text, or a separate article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's my perception and many readers' that the rule is actual belligerents are listed directly in the infobox, and material support goes into a "supported by" list. Pretty much every article does this in some way, and readers are able to make this distinction that while the US may not be directly fighting Ukraine, they're a participant in the war in the sense they're sending lots of weapons. I can see the argument that this is technically incorrect based on the definition of belligerent, but the fact is that pretty much all the Wikipedia articles on wars list the countries actually fighting and then provides "supported by" in a separate list within the infobox. This isn't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm advocating encyclopedic consistency with how pretty much all the other articles on wars deal with this issue. If we're going to change this, this should be both a global change and done after the top 6 most viewed pages on the English Wikipedia aren't related to the current conflict. [2] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is how things work..... that is two sides getting arms from other countries. Definitely not worthy of being included under belligerents. This paramater was taken out years ago...so we dont list 100 places in the infoboxMoxy- 00:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Significant material support is important to mention. Also per the arguments put forward by User:Chess and User:Ingenuity. --Inops (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Arms suppliers are not belligerents. This will just clutter the infoboxes and detract from the readers' understanding. Arms and equipment are often secured from many neutral countries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Arms suppliers, especially of defensive equipment, are definitely not classified as belligerents. Involved parties in infobox must be extremely clear. Tellarin (discuss) 01:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose frankly, this is pointy nonsense, and a rabbit hole that would severely bloat the infoboxes of almost all modern conflicts. Mention in the body is all that is needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not against naming supporting countries per se if they are actually notable, but it's difficult to say whether supplying equipment by itself is worth mentioning. Maybe in huge quantities, or in combination with other gestures or actions that, taken together, might be significant, but otherwise it's debatable. CurryCity (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose mention in prose (if adequately sourced) but it's too much detail for an infobox. Think we're going to hit a problem here defining just what level of arms supply qualifies Lyndaship (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There are way too many countries and individual donations to keep the list accurate.Mozzie (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, because now there is a dedicated article. P1221 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit: I would support however to add a link to that article in the infobox P1221 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose - Infoboxes should be summaries of key points about an article, not a replacement for the article itself. Additionally, adding these countries with only minor roles to the infobox would overplay their role and minimize the efforts of the actual belligerents. Finally, this would set a bad precedent for other articles' infoboxes. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Would add clutter for little benefit. Infoboxes are meant to be a simple summary of key facts, and the more facts you try to squish into them the less useful they get. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support as it is already done on conflict pages --Spafky (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Note: this RfC differs from the one above, in which the inclusion of NATO as a group was specifically discussed. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• I feel that the RfC question should specify which parameter will be used to add this information? I am inclined to support the inclusion but not if the supplying countries will be listed as belligerents in the conflict.--John Cline (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• @John Cline: Thanks, yeah. Suggesting the collapsable parameter "Arms suppliers". Will add that to the description of the RfC. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• BlackholeWA mentioned in a previous section the idea of a WP:VPPRO to better define belligerence in armed conflict infoboxes. I think that wikipedians should not be comfortable stating that only direct armed forces on the ground can be qualified as belligerents. I am a supply chain advisor and know that, for one soldier firing a rifle on the front, there are 10 other soldiers providing for him in the background. Ensuring the supply chain of war - as far as simply financing the operations, is belligerence in my eyes, and tracking the chain of responsibility up is beneficial for a wider understanding of the reader. The risk is WP:OR, and turning to geopolitics, then philosophy, then void. But some wise geopolitics coverage cannot hurt. I think that this deserves a systemic discussion and attention. Maxorazon (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a bit moot – even if you have experts saying that belligerence means what you say it does (so it isn't OR), Wikipedia is for readers (WP:RF/WP:AUDIENCE) so we should be using words in layman's terms, as they're commonly understood. My concern is that many people may take "belligerent" to mean "someone involved in a fighting". Jr8825 • Talk 12:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is how I think, proposed infobox to the left should look like, with a collapsiple for arms support, and note describing what arms have been provided by the countries. Viewsridge (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice job. I vocally disagree with full alphabetic state. I can find another wikipedia article if you want as precedent, but sorting by descending order on the budget of supplies is mandatory in my opinion. Maxorazon (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I dropped off a neutrally-worded notice of this RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC_@_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_No._2. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Also, while I'm here: I stated my opposition above, but if this RFC is seen as passing anyway (which I would not agree with), having a mobile-readable infobox is required, not optional. I would humbly suggest that a simple link to Military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or an internal-link to the relevant section of this article ("Foreign military support to Ukraine") would be better - just one line. Even if this is decided to be pertinent to the "belligerents" field of the infobox, it's simply not feasible to list so many countries. Note that the infobox at, say, World War I cuts off a "full" list of Allies and Central Powers and simply has an "and others" link at the end, and that's for countries that are non-controversially part of the Belligerents field. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are two issues here. The first is about recording foreign support to the Ukraine. I am not arguing against that. The second is where and how it should be recorded. The responses don't necessarily distinguish the two issues. There is some perception that the infobox is the best and perhaps the only place to do this. Such an extensive list is contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Bloated infoboxes help nobody. Even in the body of the article, such an extensive list details would be a disproportionate section. List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War is perhaps a better article to link to. It currently lists (almost exclusively) aid provided leading up to and subsequent to the invasion. There is a discussion to merge this with Military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is also a suggestion to rename this to better reflect that it is primarily focused on recent aid - leading up to and subsequent to the invasion. Linking is much better than bloating the infobox in the first instance and the article in the second. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

PROPOSED INFOBOX
Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War
Date 24 February 2022 (2022-02-24) – present (2 years, 4 months and 2 days) Location {{{place}}} Status Ongoing (list of engagements · control of cities · timeline of events)
Belligerents
Russia  Donetsk Republic  Luhansk Republic  Belarus	Ukraine Arms Suppliers: Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Spain Sweden United States United Kingdom

The phrase "Ukraine agreed to abandon its nuclear arsenal" oversimplifies and misrepresents what really happened

There's a lot of discussion around what Budapest really means. Here is the expert consensus, as I understand it:

- While physically there were nukes in Ukraine, they were controlled by the Soviets. It was more akin to U.S. weapons stationed in European countries

- Ukraine tried to convince the nuclear operators to defect and did some saber rattling around taking the nukes

- If they had taken the nukes, they would have had no way to use them or maintain them and the fissile material would have expired

- In return for not turning it into a bid deal/inconvenience, they got some concessions in Budapest

- Ukraine never had a clear path to becoming nuclear armed, nor did they ever really start on that path

- This false narrative around Ukraine having once been a nuclear state is being used by Putin to, in part, justify the invasion - he's pointing to the threat of a nuclear Ukraine

Here are a couple blog posts by reputable though opinionated arms control experts. They point to underlying scholarly sources which I don't have access to but you could take a look to confirm what they're saying if you have access to those journals: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/207316/ukraine-and-the-1994-budapest-memorandum/ https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-in-ukraine/

I would suggest changing this to say simply that "After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine and Russia maintained close ties. In 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on the condition that Russia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) would provide assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. Five years later, Russia was one of the signatories of the Charter for European Security, which "reaffirmed the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve".

The article on Budapest provides adequate context for the memorandum and properly explains this issue.

李艾连 (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about Ukraine or the Ukrainian SSR? If the former, then it retained the formal rights to do whatever it wanted with the nuclear arsenal provided after USSR dissolution (since Russia nullified its debts). If the latter, then indeed it had no control over the said arsenal, but neither did Russia prior to 1992 because none formally existed. Putin said nothing about this arsenal in his address, he referred to the current weapons that Ukraine had been stocking up since 2021. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

李艾连, the summary is extremely simplified, but absolutely accurate, while your account has some inaccuracies. Ukraine had declared itself a non-nuclear state in its 1990 declaration of sovereignty. There were no Soviets after Christmas 1991. Fifteen new states legally owned all assets on their own territory according to the principle of uti possidetis juris, and some of them negotiated a consensus that the Commonwealth of Independent States would control their use. Experts speculate that Ukraine, which had built the rockets and guidance systems, may possibly have been able to gain control over the launch with enough money and time, or may have been able to dismantle the warheads to use or sell the material. I haven’t ever heard anything about nuclear material expiring, Ukraine subverting operators, or rattling sabres: it merely negotiated security guarantees. The Budapest Memorandum was a not a ratified treaty, but it was a reaffirmation of binding obligations in the UN Charter, and agreements in the Helsinki Final Act. Good on you for mentioning the OSCE Charter, and I believe the Paris document is also important and relevant (or is that the same one?). —Michael Z. 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

：：Thanks for the responses - I'm certainly far from an expert, just glad this is being considered by people who deeply know the history (as it seems you do). 李艾连 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think one could probably write hundreds of words on counterfactual scenarios, but there's arguments on both sides on whether or not Ukraine would've eventually gained control over their nuclear weapons or the legal issues involved. That being said, perhaps a better intro would be along the lines of: "After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine was left with physical control over 1/3 of the USSR's nuclear arsenal, although Russia inherited the nuclear codes necessary to operate the weapons. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give their nuclear weapons to Russia by signing the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances..." so on and so forth. I think the context that Ukraine didn't have the ability to immediately use the weapons is important and this would summarize that without going into the thorny legal issues. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Unacceptable state of Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

The quality of the historic and geopolitical perspective given to the reader on the current event is that of a British tabloid, a reddit thread, a twitter post: unacceptable for a worldwide encyclopedia. See also #NPOV issue: background should cover natural gas disputes and #Right_to_adversarial_arguments.

This Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War Wikilink is in fact a redirect to Historical_background_of_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine, which is far as general as the previous claim, and is in quite a poor state. I am dedicating time today to improving the subject, help welcome. Maxorazon (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

En:wiki is not a worlwide encyclopedia. It is a english language encyclopedia, striving what every good encyclopedia tries to do in its own language. Or, en:wiki is not the united nations of the Wikipedia's. --Robertiki (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct... I have made progress in understanding, but this is a complex, multi-scale, multi-faceted, multilateral conflict in which I know nothing about. Ideally someone tri-lingual EN/UK/RU would achieve the synthesis! I can't read Cyrillic and am not native in English... I can give some sort of a crucible, a wiki portal, for others to iterate upon, synthesizing the various aspects that I found to this conflict.

My report after trying to map the galaxy of articles and dive into the history is that: there is no such article as Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War today. It is split across a dozen articles. The synthesis history background of the war is hard to write. I propose with the above to create a Portal for the aspects of the conflict in the Russo-Ukrainian war, which would point to geopolitics, economics, such pending historic background... along with maintaining all the templates including the latter. What do you think? I will give it another day. Maxorazon (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. One main pain-point that I keep stumbling upon is that this conflict is a civil war too. There is extremely little mention of it around the corpus as far as I saw. Maxorazon (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually not so much... Maxorazon (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The article reads like Western propaganda. It exclusively relies on reports from Western media, which have uncritically reported the fake news spread by Ukrainian propaganda and have rarely, if ever, reported that the initial news were exposed as fakes. Western propaganda has spun the narrative to justify the existence of Neo-Nazism in Ukraine - a well-documented phenomenon. It is rather ludicrous to claim that just because Putin is himself using the Neo-Nazism in Ukraine to forward his interests, the threat of Neo-Nazism itself is wildly exaggerated or doesn't exist. Neo-Nazi groups and other extreme right-wing nationalist groups are integrated into the Ukrainian military-security apparatus and exert a significant influence on Ukrainian politics and society. Their claims that they are fighting for 'white Europe' and 'European civilization' against 'Asiatic Russia' is a classic Nazi trope.

For some reason, the article goes to great length to completely whitewash the Ukrainian side and NATO from all responsibility fro the conflict in Ukraine since 2014 and lay the blame on it solely on Russia. Reollun (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yugoslav Wars

• Early reports declared it the largest conventional warfare operation in Europe since World War II.
• Yugoslav Wars--Мечников (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic conflicts are not conventional warfare. Yugoslav Wars are not an attack by one sovereign state on another sovereign state. K8M8S8 (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, ethnic conflicts are conventional warfare. What do you call Russians and Ukrainians fighting if not ethnic conflict? Two ethnicities are fighting. Secondly, Yugoslav wars were not only civil wars and they involved recognised sovereign nation states fighting, see for example Battle of Vukovar (Republic of Croatia vs Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). Melmann 11:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

the Ukrainian forces have a lot of russian etnicity persons. It's more hard problem--Мечников (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

About half Ukrainians are Russian-speaking. And they are fighting against Russian troops for Ukrainian independence. Many Russian citizens support Ukraine in this conflict. It's not ethnic conflict at all. I believe that Russo-Ukrainian war is the war between two concepts of statehood: Putin's concept of dictatorship controlling kleptocratic elite and disempowered population through exploitation imperialist ressentiment, on the one side, and the concept of democratic regime where population have possibility to influence on policy, on the other side. It doesn't mean there are no kleptocrats and oligarchs in Ukraine; the concept of statehood is just marking a vector of development. Putin's vector of development leads to medieval state with nobles and serfs, modern Ukrainian vector leads to state where citizens have rights and their opinion has matter. These two concepts of statehood can not coexist peacefully, these concepts are existential enemies. That is the real reason of Russo-Ukrainian war, this isn't about nationality. K8M8S8 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The breakup of Yugoslavia was became in early 1990s. So Yugoslav Wars in 1990s was a war between sovereign states already. It's non-obvious phrase to put it mildly. It's need to write it more understandable --Мечников (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Breakup of Yugoslavia put the matter of borders of new countries. Yugoslav Wars were wars due to the border disputes. Russian-Ukrainian border was not disputed (see Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty), and the main objective of Russo-Ukrainian war in general and 2022 invasion particulary is de facto liquidation of Ukrainian statehood. That is why I really don't want to compare Yugoslav Wars and Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russian invasion can be compared with German invasion of Poland in 1939 or any other war of conquest aimed to total control over victim of aggression. K8M8S8 (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. But the text in the introduction of the article should be as clear as possible. They should not be ambiguous. What is the "largest conventional warfare operation"? The largest in terms of human losses or territory? This needs to be more specific, more understandable text. --Мечников (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Yugoslav Wars", as in more than one. This is one war. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven - Could you please stop interjecting with ill-informed comments all over this page. Two of the Yugoslav wars involved tens of thousands of deaths each, and one of those - Bosnian War - involved the worst loss of life on European soil since the Second World War. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is nowhere near this scale at this time. It may, sadly, become comparable if this continues for months or years. But please, if you don't know what you're talking about: don't comment. Aside, this has also been discussed in two separate sections and it has been pointed out that neither of the cited sources support the statement as is in article. I was under the impression that it was changed to conform with the sources, but apparently this hasn't happened. Pinging Pincrete who noted this issue originally. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm seeing now that a third source has been added that says 'largest conventional military attack'. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That source is actually a US defence dept spokesperson, … so not a wholly neutral source. Bosnian War deaths were finally settled at around the 110,000 mark, so by that criteria, Bosnia was much bigger (and longer) than anything which has happened yet in Ukraine. Though then, numbers of conventional heavy armoury was probably less and troop figures may have been lower. My biggest concern is not so much whether our piece of 'headline-ese' is true or not so much as what does it actually mean? An inter-state war is not the same thing as an attack and is not the same as a ground war (which is what the other sources refer to) and how conventional is Ukraine - civilian militias in urban areas? The issue has already been raised twice in other sections above. There are all sorts of criteria by which Ukraine may be the biggest incident since WWII as far as W Europe is concerned, since unlike 'suppressive' incidents like Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the 50's and 60's, this is not re-establishing a Warsaw pact authority, and is potentially very destabilising, since this affects all of the EU and NATO directly, but at present our text is just fairly meaningless IMO. Pincrete (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Mostly agree here. The “largest” claim - in any form I’ve seen cited reliably so far - is non-specific, subject to a wide array of misinterpretation, and possibly - though not certainly - represents a non-neutral interpretation of events (WP:NPOV). It’s headline-y in the lead (see WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:PUFFERY) and should probably be moved to a less prominent position and contextualized based on source material. Though I think most of us know this already, it bears remembering that what we should not do is edit/replace it with a similar claim that constitutes any degree of WP:ORIGINAL research.

@Mr rnddude: I went and dug up that third source you mentioned because it showed that one of the earliest mentions was by a "senior [US] defense official." As Pincrete rightly noted above, this isn't a completely neutral source. When I included it, I only changed the article text to reflect that the statement was an early report (rather than verified fact) but made no further edits. That might be why you didn't initially notice a big change.

As written currently, one other concern is that the statement in question kind of sandwiches some bits about the Crimea annexation and seizure of Donbas. It's easy to misread the last sentence as a characterization of one of those events rather than the 2022 movements. IMO it's another reason to move this bit somewhere else entirely. --N8 18:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bosnian war involved 400,000 combatants (being generous), the Russian invasion of Ukraine involves over 1,000,000. I would argue that makes it bigger.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There are many criteria by which Ukraine might be seen as more impactful/dangerous/bigger than anything else since WWII, (more troops/armaments/more deadly arsenal?), but if we don't understand this claim, isn't it bit pointless? More heat than light? Pincrete (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

One of two near duplicates discussions: See Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 4#Largest European ground war since WWII?Pincrete (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

An-225 loss in infobox should be removed

The An-225 was not operated by the Ukrainian military, (rather by a civilian airline) so it should not be recorded as a equipment loss in the infobox Chokoladesu (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Source for it not being party to the conflict? Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/antonov-an-225-largest-plane-destroyed-ukraine-scli-intl/index.html Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Good enough, it's not a military casualty, maybe put it under civilian as it seems to be noteworthy. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done removed from infobox. I didn't add it to the civilian section, although if others think it's important they can do so. Jr8825 • Talk 07:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

uhh... anyone? Chokoladesu (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• I also think it should be removed. It's owned by a civilian corporation. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

WELL ABOUT AN225, First it was not totally destroyed, it is damaged by explosion inside Hanger, this also partially damaged also. The Aircraft seems still standing, according satellite pictures. SO IT IS NOT LOST --90.186.219.179 (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (6)

Hello! Would the information below be relevant to Section 6.2 Economic Impact?

South Korea's SWIFT ban against Russia is expected to immediately impact roughly 8 trillion won (approx. $6.64 billion USD) worth of shipbuilding contracts Korea already has with Russia along with Korea's car exports. South Korea accounts for roughly 40.6% of all automobile and automobile-related parts imported by Russia and maintains a vehicle factory in St. Petersburg. There are also South Korean home appliance, parts, and plastics factories located in Russia which are directly affected by the ban and expected to report losses. South Korea's national carrier Korean Air is considering cancelling direct flights between Incheon and Moscow, possibly as early as March 3rd.

On February 28th South Korea announced it will release some of its strategic petroleum reserves in an attempt to stabilize global oil prices as well as considering the option to re-sell LNG to Europe as part of "international efforts to support Ukraine" ("우크라이나를 지원하기 위한... 국제사회와의 공조"). South Korea is estimated to hold the world's 4th largest strategic petroleum reserve

222.99.95.163 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

It would take me a while to implement this correctly without some level of proficiency in Korean. But I noticed the Korean Wikipedia article on this topic is much less developed than the English one - and also doesn't appear to be edit protected as far as I can tell. If you (222.99.95.163) happen to know Korean, please consider contributing directly there also. --N8 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done: likely too much detail for this article. International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War might be a better home. Jr8825 • Talk 07:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory Pages Regarding 'Nazification' accusations.

From [2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Russian accusations and demands|this section]:

>and no far-right candidate won a single seat in the Verkhovna Rada, the national legislature

But one of the sources in that section:

>one far-right party, Svoboda, is represented in Ukraine’s parliament

The two facts appear contradictory, or at least 'sneaky' ('sneaky' as in, "It's technically true because one is referring to the Rada, while the other is referring to Svoboda"). When I first read that section, I thought there was _no_ representation of the far-right in government.

In general, is there a better way that paragraph on far-right nationalism could be written? Because to an outside reader, it's very confusing. On the one hand, it sounds like it's trying to completely dismiss the far-right nationalism claim (to quote the section as of writing this, Putin was using a "false 'Nazi' narrative"), but many of the links and citations have something that seems to back up little bits of that particular claim (this link in the middle of that section gives me a lot of troubling cognitive dissonance and confusion). Perhaps to try to keep it NPOV, not directly contradict other articles in Wikipedia, and strike a middle ground here, it would be more appropriate and fit the available source material push the wording and tone to say something more like "While Putin's points on this particular matter do have some basis, analysts have found them to be greatly exagerrated?" That way, the section isn't contradicting itself so much? Fephisto (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion of Ukrainian nazification claim is being made in a shallow and biased way, for two main reasons. First, it is biased toward the (common in the West) view that nazists persecuted only Jews, or that Jews were the most numerous victims, which is factually false. Shallow because, acknowledging that invocation of Nazism is somewhat exaggerated (but not false, anyway), one must take into account the historical fact that German forces at Word War II killed soviets indiscriminately, leading to the (documented) worst genocide known to mankind [3]. For Russian people, many times Nazism echoes as Russophobia. Despite Putin's populistic move, it shall be acknowledged that the existence of russophobe active militias officially supported and paid by Ukrainian government [4], whatever their size, is a fact (not a fake). The use of Wolfsangel logo is not a coincidence [5]. In the context or Russian-Ukranian war, the continuous support of far-right, russophobe groups against the Donbass separatists is viewed inside Russia (by many but not all) as something quite similar in essence to the Nazi assault to soviets - a move to annihilate the Russian people (and by extension, Belarusian, since they were also victims of Nazi genocide). Finally, everything must be viewd in the context of the historical division of east Ukraine and central/west Ukraine; it is not possible to understand what "Nazism" means for a Russian or a russophile Ukrainian without understanding the dynamics of the internal Ukrainian divisions and the historical context of WWII's Soviet genocide. The western view of the Nazism is completely distorted in this regard. That said, one must also acknowledge that Putin's move is a populistic one; however, what is being claimed here is not a dispute of opinions, but a more comprehensive and factual expression of the context that dictates the historical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.255.226.128 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

In the current context, the term "Nazi" is a defamatory label. Without going into details, the correct applicable terms would be "Neonazism" and "ultranationalism", see eg. Category:Neo-Nazism in Ukraine.

P.S. the article says there is no widespread support for far-right ideology. That's correct. However neonazis are well-organized minority, and armed, too, therefore I can readily believe they are used as a brute force by some groups. Funny thing, some time ago I have read about clashes between neonazi groups, because they were hired to defend interests of different oligarchs :-) On a more serious note, neonazis were used to quash protests by small businesses and independent businessmen (ФОП - a cyrillic abbrev; there is ukwiki page uk:Фізична особа-підприємець with no link to enwiki, which would be translated as "natural person-entrepreneur" or "individual-entrepreneur). Loew Galitz (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that this "russophobia" train of thought is a driver for Putin indeed, when he talks about denazification. On top of the disinformation spread that Ukraine is actually run by neo-nazis. Stalingrad is only what, 400 kilometers away from Donbass? So it is very far fetched from him, but seeing Ukraine trying to recover Donbass can be seen as a sign of aggression to the heart of Russia, in my opinion. But WP:NOFORUM, let's source... The general omerta from Europeans on the involvement of US in the Ukrainian conflict does not help :<, see my RfC about NATO. Maxorazon (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be said that Nazi influence is exaggerated, but cannot be dismissed entirely. Azov has state sanction; it is an official part of the Ukrainian National Guard. Also, the increasing rehabilitation of the UPA, an ultranationalist guerilla group during WW2. While not Nazis they were fascists who committed pogroms against Poles, Jews, and Russians and sometimes collaborated with Germany. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Our article isn't misleadingly worded, it's factually incorrect. The tl;dr of how the Ukrainian election system works is half the seats are first past the post elections in single member constituencies, like the USA or the United Kingdom. Everyone in a certain region votes for their regional representatives. The other half of the seats are allocated by party-list proportional representation where everyone chooses one party to vote for on a national level. The seats are then allocated so that every party that gets votes over a certain threshold (5% in Ukraine) gets a number of seats proportional to their vote totals allocated to the "party list" of candidates they want elected (see Elections in Ukraine).

What happened in this particular example was that Svoboda combined their list with several other ultranationalist parties to do better in the party list part. While they didn't get above 5% nationally, they did win one seat in one of the first past the post constituencies, specifically constituency number 83 where Oksana Savchuk won most of the votes. [6] It's only technically true because the united party list didn't win any seats, while a person representing Svoboda won a seat. Also, the source that NBC links to support their claim [7] says nothing about Svoboda. On the other hand, our recounting of this claim is demonstrably false, since we omitted the "coalition" part. I'm going to cut that part out of the article per this discussion. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A note on recentism

Just a note on WP:RECENTISM: as a current and ongoing event, there is a lot of recentism in this article. I'll quote from the page itself:

Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. This can result in, among others:

• Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens.
• The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.

There is fertile ground for editors to try to improve the article in this respect. Especially in the invasion section, all through the article editors are inserting content for individual incidents without an overarching historical narrative structure. This is causing the article to miss some key ideas, such as the stall of the Russian army, its failure to meet its strategic goals, etc. If we can start to get on top of this now, it will require less work to shape the article in future.Mozzie (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, recentism is not always bad, unless it falls into WP:TRIVIA/WP:UNDUE. When the dust settles, we can always summarize/split the article. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

failure to meet its strategic goals - and what are these goals? I see none in the article. Are there any RS about these goals? I say the strate goal is to revive the New Novorossiya ("New New Russia") project, see Novorossiya#Impact in modern times. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that WP:TRIVIA is about not creating lists of trivia in articles (this was common a long time ago) and is not about isolated trivia in general. It's a common misconception. In any case I'm more talking about having a well structured article over a large scale, and not individual bits of information.Mozzie (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. Still, WP:UNDUE holds. In any case, The article is not so bad so far. Isolated facts go into daily sections. I am pretty sure we have detailed sub-articles for various wars. The first thing comes to my mind for comparison is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave the impression of disagreeing. Undue is absolutely very important, and the two really go hand in hand. But a lot of undue stuff is small jobs, as opposed to the really big job of shaping the article correctly, and that's what I'm trying to seek some consensus on here, because otherwise it will probably be reverted.Mozzie (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree strongly, and I would add it as one of the issues in the 'looking ahead' thing I tried to get at in another section. One important thing on these articles is that constant trimming of RECENTISM is done (i.e. go through with a WP:10YT outlook and remove any trivia, outdated details, or news-y things). A lot of people tend to add content but less remove stuff that should go. I think if we can get a hold of that, it's easier to reorganise the information and reorient it in terms of the bigger picture. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Great feedback. I very much agree re lots of people adding content and few trimming it. Thanks Some good pages that are about ten years old are Russo-Georgian War and War_in_Donbas and 2003_invasion_of_Iraq. I guess at least in the invasion section, We can make sections on initial attacks as that is the worst for now: the main battles: Kyiv, Kharkiv and any others? Maybe the battle for air supremacy...Mozzie (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Fake news

Surely we dont need to list numerous fake news generated by propaganda from both sides, but definitely something must be written about this, because this war is notable for its information warfare.

• BBC: Ukraine invasion: Misleading claims continue to go viral. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to say that misinformation on social media has been off the charts for this conflict, there must be some mention of this in the article, backed up by RSes.171.49.209.33 (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There are also separate articles for Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and Russian–Ukrainian information war which are proposed to be merged. The only current links to these appear to be from the "see also" text immediately under section headings at § Russian accusations and demands and § Media depictions. There are more textual references to mis/disinformation in the article however and it's possible several of these could be phrased to reference one of those other articles. --N8 13:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

could put it in the casualty stats as well, as almost everybody, even wiki, have biases. we try here but as for say fox news or cnn may not try so hard, and the kyiv independent and Russia today are actively fabricating or spinning things. so I think it should be placed anywhere logical; however ,yes I'm countering my own argument, there are rules against over linking even internally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruvlad (talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please consider adding a cultural sanctions section

There is rightly a lot of coverage of economic sanctions but zero mention of cultural sanctions, which arguably are not much less impactful, especially in the context of "sport washing".

I can start the ball rolling with these two:

- On the 28th Feburary 2022 Fifa and Uefa suspended all Russian football clubs and national teams from its tournaments and competitions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/60560567 - The FIA cancelled the 2022 Russian Grand Prix https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60523049

Oiona (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Oiona. You might also consider adding this information at Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis § Civil society which does not currently have edit restrictions. --N8 13:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Tensions in Ukraine as background for the conflict

The Russian government uses the tensions between pro-Russian and Nationalist groups in Ukraine and how the Ukrainian goverment handled this as part of their justification for the war. Think "Odessa massacre", the supposed involvement of nationalists in Kyiv, and the failure of the Ukrainian judicial system. This needs to be explained in a section, everything else will promote an incomplete understanding of the ongoing events. --Jazzman (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, but please see WP:NOFORUM ... Maxorazon (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This is however no original research but an aspect reflected in the media ([8], [9], EDIT: [10], [11]). --Jazzman (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Isn't it time to add EU as a Belligerent on the Ukrainian side in the infobox since many countries are sending weapons (with EU support)? --Semsûrî (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that's considered an act of war. It could be put down as support if there's consensus for including supporting actors. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I do find it strange this article doesn't have a "supported by" section in the infobox while Russo-Ukrainian War does. Perhaps it's just because it'd largely be a duplication? Then again, that assumes that the list of countries which showed support before the invasion is the same as after. — Czello 10:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Its not though, as we have now a huge list of traditionally neutral countries that are sending aid (Finland for god's sake). It would almost be easier to have a list of countries not sending aid. But that (ironically) is an argument against adding them, the list would be huge, and might clutter up the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That's true, and we already have #Foreign_military_support_to_Ukraine and #Ramifications to cover this. — Czello 11:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because the EU is an intergovernmental organization that works on "foreign" policy only with the unanimous concordance of all 27 countries, which lacks. Bulgaria, Ireland, and Hungary have all denied supplies to the individuals in power in Kyiv. Saying "the EU" is a simplification of a complex reality which must not lead us to forget who is legitimately in charge of armies and military policies, namely only sovereign states. --Foghe (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The EU says that it is providing arms to Ukraine "For the first time ever, the European Union will finance the purchase and delivery of weapons and other equipment to a country that is under attack.". This is reported by many many sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. etc.). Do you have a source that actually disputes this? 217.28.13.237 (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus

Belarus going to invade ukraine, and cutting of poland 217.171.226.115 (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

source? Maxorazon (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are 2 totally conflicting articles from today.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belarus-leader-says-minsk-wont-join-russian-operation-ukraine-belta-reports-2022-03-01

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/belarus-troops-ukraine-join-russia-invasion-president-lukashenko-army-1491050 ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

With both only being claims but one side or the other. When third party RS say "Belarus has invaded Ukraine" we can add this, otherwise it is just speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-belarus-invades-ukraine-second-26348732

https://www.politico.eu/article/belarus-russia-war-ukraine/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belarus-ukraine-russia-war-putin-b2025596.html

The same. Ukraine claims, Belarus denies. But we can reflect these claims and denials in the article. K8M8S8 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done that. Seems like the usual confusion tactic Russia has also been deploying; staunchly denying something before doing it hours later (though will wait for an RS to say that before saying it in exactly those words). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Bulgaria is not sending arms to Ukraine, said PM Kiril Petkov. There are sources of his statement. Nix3214 (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

According to Reuters, they are sending both humanitarian and military aid.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 04:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The source says that Bulgaria will send military aid... P1221 (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Timestamp for Military Situation map

The description below the map currently only shows the date, but since the map is being updated so regurlarly, may I suggest that the time also be added? -- Sentimex (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sentimex. I think timestamps would be great for a news site that strives to keep readers up to date with the very latest information. If that's what you're looking for check out sites like BBC's live coverage, or AlJazeera, and a variety of others. For this map specifically, you can see the time (and description) of each update at mw:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg under "File history". For the purposes of this article I think it might be best to leave timestamps off if only to help emphasize to readers that Wikipedia is not news. After all - we do eventually expect that the regular updates will slow down or stop altogether. In the meantime, the {{current}} tag at the top of the article should also help readers understand that the information will be volatile for now. --N8 14:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Thank you for your very detailed reply! -- Sentimex (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

N8wilson What about including timestamps for each frame in the animated map then? Since there are multiple frames in a single given day, that seems like an appropriate place to include timestamps? -- Sentimex (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this seems really helpful Sentimex. Timestamps would help clarify the pace of events. I don't know how to got about it but I like it. --N8 15:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems the animated map has been removed as per one of the discussions. Should we still make the suggestion to the creator to include timestamps when the animated map is to be included in the article after the war? -- Sentimex (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

FAQ

In order to allow us to remove comments asking very basic questions, I think a FAQ may be in order. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I started a basic FAQ based on the two most frequent things I've seen on talk so far. Feel free to add more, but IMO we should prioritise issues that keep coming up (ie, more than once or twice with obvious results), lest the FAQ become too long and nobody reads it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Online and Cyber Warfare

Thinking of adding a section titled Online and Cyber Warfare for the nonlethal tactics being used by either side - Ukraine's IT Army, Anonymous, Russian's attacks, misinformation wars, etc. Anyone feel this would work? Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 13:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me if the information can be properly synthesised and verified, though I'm fairly inexperienced so I don't think my vote should count for much. -- Sentimex (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Infob0x

Should Lukashenko be added to the commanders section of the infobox? Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Are there any Belarus troops? If no the just the same we may add USA to combatants, because LOTS of materiel and instructors. Witout this Ukraine would not have any force to stand. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

EU fighter jets donation

Slovakia and Bulgaria are rejecting that the countries will provide fighter planes to Ukraine. Poland refused to confirm or deny.--Znuddel (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it did fall apart. All Ukraine needs is about a half dozen A10 Warthogs to turn that 40 mile long convoy in to the highway of death and end the war. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

They would face massive Russian anti-aircraft measures. But that's neither here nor there - this is not the place to discuss such things. WP:FORUM. Also, looks like it is proceeding: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-fighter-jets-ukraine-russia-invasion-b2025470.html

Depends whether or not the rocket fuel has already been pawned for vodka, anyhow yes WP:NOTAFORUM I'll stop. That aside I don't think it is going to happen. The twitter is from Paul Mcleary who is a defense reporter for Politico. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Update Bio of Animated Map

The note below the animated map depicting the Invasion of Ukraine states:

"Animated map of the 2022 Russian invation [invasion] of Ukraine over time. Currently goes to February 28th. Should be updated every day as events unfold" -MaitreyaVaruna

However, the animated video goes to March 1st; it states "1 MARCH (UTC+2)." If possible, could we update the summary below the video? --MateoFrayo (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The animated map needs some work. Right now it just plays through every version of the map, leading to Russian lines expanding and contracting and repositioning erratically. IMO it should likely be taken out until we can establish a clearer timeline of events. BSMRD (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@BSMRD: @MateoFrayo: do you know the people involved with creating the main map? They are probably the best sources to know which version is best for which day in the timeline MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Maersk suspend shipments to Russia

Addition to economic ramifications.

"The shipping company, Maersk, has suspended all shipments to Russia, excluding foodstuffs, and medical and humanitarian supplies."Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/maersk-suspends-all-container-shipping-to-russia FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Laurel Lodged. Two other places this edit might also be appropriate are International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § Non-governmental organizations, non-political groups and individuals or Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis § Civil society. There may be others as well. --N8 23:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

the oblasts

look I'm a stinky american could we get links to the oblasts when they are mentioned same with the cities. Yes it's me being lazy not wanting to spend an extra 45 seconds to look up where they are on the map. I would be bold and do it my self however this article is under reasonable protection, if its done thank you if not... oi Bruvlad (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the general issue is MOS:DUPLINK prescribes that things should not be overlinked. But in this article, with how it's currently being used by its readership, it's reasonable to think (even more-so than normal encyclopaedia articles) people will read some parts and not others, so IMO this article is a good case to ignore that particular MOS guidance for now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree. In the circumstances, it's a reasonable exception. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

"... even though NATO's ballistic missile defence is not directed against Russia..."

In the lead, this seems to rely exclusively on a page from the NATO website. I don't really see any mention about this in Der Spiegel ref. Can a better source be found for this? I am sure there would be something else other than NATO website. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As Mandy Rice-Davies said, "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?". Delete it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Article about refugees?

Hello, on German Wikipedia we are working on an article about refugees from Ukraine. Are there plans for such an article in English? I would like to help translating sections. Ziko (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ziko: I just created this draft: Draft:2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis. Feel free to translate what you have to there. I’ll add additional material. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Graphic videos and pictures

Hi there,

I wanted to discuss the issue of graphic content on Wikipedia. Some of the images and videos show graphic content on this page or related pages. At the Battle of Kharkiv (2022) shows a woman with her leg blown off and many numerous dead civilians. Personally I find dead bodies less graphic than a living dismembered person. I think these videos should be treated with caution and perhaps are best not linked on any of the main articles since we do not know who may be watching them and they can come with little warning. I could not find much policy on them but thought I would ask here first since there is more traffic. Words in the Wind(talk) 17:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

War is hell and Wikipedia isn’t censored. Thousands will be left maimed by this war. The images should be seen. Thriley (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy = WP:NOTCENSORED · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

From ed.confl:

As for me, still remember the capture of Saddam Hussein on a video, whom to blame, my photographic memory, or, the editors who published the video? Anyway, removed File:Russian shelling of Kharkiv, 28 February 2022.webm ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 17:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Such video clearly belong to pages. If an attack was in fact horrific (as it was), that must be reflected in text and images. This is nothing special. There are iconic photos and images about the Vietnam war, for example. Same will be here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Horrific things can be noted in some warning, but they can't be a reason to delete relevant content. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No, of course you do not expect an article on a war to contain only child-friendly pictures. If you have problems with this, maybe you could work through the democratic process of wikipedia and try to change WP:NOTCENSORED into something more censorship-friendly instead. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleague, I do not know who are you answering to. I never denied this. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sneeuwschaap: I know, I should have made a new bullet instead. But when i realized my mistake i thought it was not big enough to fix.. :) · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would give WP:NOTCENSORED a careful read which refers to Wikipedia:Offensive material that clearly states though Wikipedia is "not censored" it does not favour offensive images over non-offensive images. The video can remain in the Commons link but given the stub nature of the article there is no need to shoe horn this video in. There is no need to turn Wikipedia into a replacement for Live Leak or Kaotic video databases, purely for salacious reasons that "war is hell", which is clearly obvious. Words in the Wind(talk) 18:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, the video is not gore, it shows the reality of russian shelling of civilians. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree as well. I'm not sure how including the video is favouring offensive material over non-offensive material. I think this sentence makes more sense in regards to something like graffiti. You can easily illustrate an article about graffiti using a non-offensive image rather than use an offensive image. I'm not sure how we can convey the reality of the situation if we censor bits that we find offensive. RicDod (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think the video should remain. I'd also challenge the use of the word gore, gore is something you find on 4chan it is the grotesque for the sake of the grotesque, this is fundamentally different. The video shows the reality of the situation as it currently stands. The situation in Kharkiv is horrendous, and so it appears. The video isn't linked for some sadistic thrill but to show the events that are unfolding. I'd go further and say that if we were paint a white washed picture of the situation as if suffering were not present then we'd be guilty of WP:POV. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• The video should remain. WP:NOTCENSORED applies but not Wikipedia:Offensive material for the reason already made clear by RicDod. Shoestringnomad (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Another vote for the videos to remain for all of the reasons stated above. The videos are factual depictions, and we should have as much of them linked in the articles as possible. How anyone feels about them shouldn't be any concern to change something factual. -- Sentimex (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Banning independent Russian media

Prosecutor-General of Russia demands to ban Echo of Moscow and Dozhd. Sites are already blocked by Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media. K8M8S8 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

The slab of land south of Volnovakha-Polohny is in Russian hands

Russia controls everything there and around it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk) 10:54, March 1, 2022 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

206.174.216.170 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC) This https://imgur.com/rQ0FHiS ?

A diagram is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

I just would like to thank all the writers and administrators of this article. Perfectly presented and developed, exalting the freedom to share true information.

With gratitude,

Lucas Lucas B. Lestido (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lucas B. Lestido well said. came here to say that. 51.155.195.31 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's all buy a big fat round of imaginary beers after this is over for everyone who is contributing to this article in such a timely manner to make it as detailed as humanly possible. This article shows that there is still hope for humanity! I just wish I could help out. -- Sentimex (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing Russian Air Force

Useful source? "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add Ford withdrawal

Source: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2022/03/01/ford-suspends-joint-venture-operation-russia/6982264001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAPwiki (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia state media prematurely declared victory, hailed 'new world' in now-deleted report

I think this 2022, March 1st article from Fox News (which is also verifiable on the Wayback link in the article) is an interesting insight into Putin's objectives/motivations. The article is Ukraine War: Russia state media prematurely declared victory, hailed 'new world' in now-deleted report. Worth adding? 78.18.240.139 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It's worth adding but use this source, Fox News is not a reliable source https://mil.in.ua/en/news/brave-new-world-of-putin-an-article-by-the-propaganda-publication-ria-novosti-which-was-to-be-published-after-the-occupation-of-ukraine/ MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That is useful, and note that outside of politics, Fox News is considered an WP:RSP (ie good source). 78.18.240.139 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It also should be noted that even on politics, there is no consensus that Fox is unreliable.JMM12345 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

Hello from Korea! I have an update on sanctions against Russia announced by the Korea. Can we please add this new information to section 6.1 Sanctions? I hops this information can reach those suffering from war disinformation campaign before Putin bans wikipedia... ㅜㅠ

On March 1st South Korea announced it would stop all transactions with 7 main Russian banks and their affiliates, restrict the purchase of Russian treasury bonds, and agreed to "immediately implement" and join any further economics sanctions imposed against Russia by the European Union. 222.99.95.163 (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Civilian casualties "Per Russia" missing

I realize this number may be 0 or minimal, but their denial should be documented, no? 216.193.170.144 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to add figures that countries are reporting, they should be realistic and the countries should be trying to track them. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We can't add it without a source. Do you have a source that states what Russia thinks civilian casualties are?JMM12345 (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

Use of Voice of America

While I don't necessarily view the content of the videos posted here as suspect, I don't think Voice of America as a source should be used here. Would Russia Today also be used in the same way? Voice of America is a state propaganda agency.Rando-user-here (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

VOA content alongside content from the State Emergency Service of Ukraine should be removed. This is solely due to the fact that the media is watermarked. I have not encountered any other major conflict that relies on media that is watermarked so heavily. I am under the impression that such content is frowned upon, in line with WP:WATERMARK. ElderZamzam (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would not compare VOA to RT, since the latter has a history of consistently publishing outright disinformation and fabrications and whose editor-in-chief supports and is backed by the Kremlin in every possible way. VOA is perhaps not the best source to use though. Mellk (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rando-user-here I see no difference between RT and all western-driven media.

Page size

The page has finally reached a size that some content should be split/removed. Right now it's at around 90 KB of prose, and increasing quickly. Right now the "invasion" section is by far the longest, with the 24 February section alone at >40000 bytes. The reactions section is also fairly long. Are there any other sections that can be condensed or split? >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Shortening the reactions and moving more to International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a good idea. I do think the 24 February section could be shortened. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No need for WP:HASTE. The subject is rapidly evolving and natural subtopics may become more apparent with time. Let's see where things are at in a few months. VQuakr (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A natural spinoff is "Timeline of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", where all daily sections must go. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it already exists: Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine. Most of the content from the invasion section could be split there. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The page should become as big as Russia itself 93.170.84.242 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Russians taking Kherson

Multiple though unconfirmed reports have come out that Russian forces seem to have entered and taken Kherson

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-forces-have-entered-kherson-says-ukrainian-official-2022-03-01/ https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-03-01/russian-forces-have-entered-kherson-says-ukrainian-official https://twitter.com/Caucasuswar/status/1498789059124158467?s=20&t=SuxwZwWHIXAsilpVDzihbw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Why British English?

Why does the page use British English (and the talk page has the banner saying so?)? The first instance of the article used American English and according to WP:ENGVAR and MOS:ARTCON, this should not be changed without a reason. This should be reverted back in compliance with Wiki policy. Eccekevin (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The initial revision was a WP:SPLIT from 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis which uses British English (see Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wether or not it was a split does not matter. The original page as written/split contained American English. And WP says that there should be a socifci reason to change styles, which in this case there is not. WP don’t say anywhere than the style or English should be inherited from other pages. Eccekevin (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It isn't American English. The original revision contains the word "recognized", yes (currently present in the original article too), but it also contains "authorised". Clearly the issue is just that we've moved past the days where people spend extortionate amounts of effort standardising English varieties within articles, so you end up with inconsistencies. Regardless, the original revision can't be called American English, both in isolation and by considering the fact that it copies content from an article explicitly labelled as being BE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Consistency is one thing, but the template should be removed because, even if the article is written in BE, there is no requirement nor strong reason why it should,. That template is reserved for articles that have a clear reason for being AE or BE. Eccekevin (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

What argument would there be for US English? Precedent seems to be the only reason applicable either way.Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Airspace ban map

The map associated with said likely needs an update. The USA is the next nation to do so. Source.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 01:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone got it. Thanks!--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Second Cold War

The article, rightly, listed in the See also section is in serious need of updates concerning recent events. Any assistance from contributors on this article would be great. Thanks!--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some contention over whether or not the article should even exist. I support its existence, but should that issue be clarified first, so that we can then move on to discussing how the article should be structured, which would facilitate other users contributing to the article? Perhaps we could initiate a discussion on its talkpage? -- Sentimex (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"New" news is old news.

In the article, it is said, "On 2 March, guerilla hackers in Ukraine pledged to fight Russia through cyber-attacks." This is old news. The media covered this and annoucements were made on the 25th. Yet, it is in the article as happening now. Even in the citation, it is treated as not-so-recent. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

I have uploaded an image for the Propaganda part of the image. The file is Ukraine propaganda on twitter.PNG and is a screenshot of the official Ukraine Twitter account. The account can be found here and the tweet can be found here. KaptianKharisma (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That image is not uploaded in Wikipedia or WikiCommons, it is non even clear if it is free to use... P1221 (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kyiv

I think including information on the Ghost of Kyiv would be a very interesting addition to this article. Although most of the information currently presented is still uncertain to be fact or propaganda, our collection of media does play a significant role in the interpretation of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardenclyffe2302 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is getting pretty long as it is. We're going to have to trim and cut. This article can't include every single thing from this war. Ghost of Kyiv is on Kyiv-based subpages and that's where it belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It is linked in the template at the bottom of the page (and all those related), for whatever it is worth. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 04:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia taken down?

I'm watching NBC News Now after the 2022 state of the union right now, and a reporter on location in what appeared to be Ukraine said that Wikipedia was being taken down in Russia. I did a quick search and the only thing that comes up is Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia which took place in 2012. Keep an eye out for RSS about this.

I was also wondering earlier today if we should be making lists of reactions/sanctions on Russia by individuals and private companies. Apparently the pornhub ban was a hoax, but I've heard legitimate stories about Visa and Mastercard, semiconductors, BP and Shell, ice skating events, Warner Bros. film releases and others. I also see that Russia itself is blocking twitter and Facebook, and facebook and tiktok are blocking Russian media.

I just think at some point this project can expand to include lists of such actions in the same way that these three lists were made about the George Floyd protests. Something to think about. Hope it helps. Kire1975 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is this article on RT Russian media watchdog warns Wikipedia over ‘Ukraine invasion’ entry, a deprecated source WP:RSP. Rusty5231B (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps that's it. I seem to remember the reporter stating it was the other way around. Wikipedia would be punishing Russia by taking itself down, but that really wouldn't make sense after some contemplation. Hopefully, that's all it is. Thanks much. Kire1975 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We discussed it on current talk page (see "Blocking Wikipedia in Russia"). Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media is furious about Russian version of the article and wants to block Wikipedia. The technical aspect is that blocking of one article means the blocking of whole Wikipedia (Russian, English, Ukrainian, Spanish and others Wikis). K8M8S8 (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything recent on Talk:Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia. Kire1975 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems we should update the article Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Request addition: Convoy stalled, "literally out of gas" and having difficulty feeding their troops.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1083733700/russias-40-mile-convoy-has-stalled-on-its-way-to-kyiv-a-u-s-official-says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/01/ukraine-convoy-stalled-heavy-fighting/

Intralexical (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Have tactical or battlefield nuclear, chemical or bacteriological weapons been detected on the Russian convoy approaching Kiev? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Offensive Splitting Discussion in Progress

I am notifying editors that there is a split proposal occurring for the Kherson offensive. Feel free to participate in the discussion on the talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis

The article for the 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis was recently created. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022 (2)

Technically, on a historical base, this is a confrontation that goes on from 2014 between 2 nations, so it is historically more correct to call it "Russo Ukrainian war" and not "Russian invasion", but this is a simple technical observation of a history appassionate, that can't do much compared to a general opinion of ignorance, so in this case we should change the name to the 2nd Iraqi war to us invasion of Iraq? 91.80.25.59 (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done There's already an article about the Russo-Ukrainian War (as well as a campaignbox template for it), this is just one aspect of the conflict. Aluxosm (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Spelling

There is the spelling mistake in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the subsection "Censorship and propaganda" - Poskomnadzor instead Roskomnadzor. Also, you can use the name Russian communications and media regulator to avoid a tautology. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces enter Ukraine from Russia, Crimea, and Belarus

For those totally unaware of the relevant geopolitics, this implies that Crimea is not a part of Ukraine. It doesn't necessarily imply that it's a part of Russia either, but the wording here should be revised such that the implication is clear that Crimea is a part of Ukraine but occupied by Russia. Maybe the addition of something like "Russian-occupied" prior to Crimea. -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Call for feedback in article overhaul

I terminated my somewhat still very superficial analysis of the conflict (3 days of work).
I am synthesizing, and look for opinions.
I consider making only one big section without subsections for background, moving all my synthesis in the Russo-Ukrainian War article, in its own background section. And transvasing most of the nato reaction part into this latter. Maxorazon (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
P.S. Another option is to severe the redirect from Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War to the article documenting the 2014 unrest, and make a new article out of it? The thing is I'd like to try to paint a full picture, not only a historical one...Maxorazon (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
A third option is to place the analysis in Russia–Ukraine relations.
A fourth one is to make somewhat of a portal as in the first link above... Maxorazon (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but if it is synthesis it has no place here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that synthesis has its place here, WP:SYNTH clearly states that if done right it can be accepted. And synthesis belongs to the fundamental essence of this encyclopedia. Maxorazon (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Which part of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any so" implies that? Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think that synthesis necessarily implies an ideological payload, a thesis? It can be just putting ideas together, make links, as the basis for our web? Maxorazon (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal on changing article structure re recentism

Proposal The structure of this article is highly skewed by recentism. The worst section is the Invasion section, which has an unstructured daily account. As per The 10 year test articles should be written so that they make sense in ten years time. Some good examples of similar tenish year old articles are: Russo-Georgian War, War_in_Donbas and 2003_invasion_of_Iraq. I propose that at least in the invasion section, it be restructured along the major themes, e.g. Initial attacks, Air battle, Battle of Kyiv , Battle of Kharkiv etc. Alternatively they could be called Kyiv Offensive etc. I would welcome any comments and feedback, including on improving the rest of the article. I feel this is something that is best off happening now, even if quite a bit of content gets culled temporarily. It really needs consensus because any WP:BOLD restructure will just get reverted.Mozzie (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally Approve, even if WP:NODEADLINE, godspeed with the overhaul. Maxorazon (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Approve. I've been trying to put the text into past tense, but that is clearly not enough. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It's too early to move away from a chronological structure, as it'll inevitably risk turning into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH until more sources are available. As a tertiary source, we record history but we don't write it ourselves, we follow what expert sources have to say. Most of the invasion section should be moved to Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and you're welcome to start transferring/cutting some of the less important details (you can use the section sizes tool at the top of this talk page to help, which shows that the sections most in need of shortening are "24 February", "Sanctions", "Reactions#Other countries and international organisations", and "Protests#Outside Russia"). However, it's important to emphasise that's there's no rush, and we don't want to end up losing valuable information in the process. Much of the information in the invasion section is still helpful to readers, and it's far too early for us to build a sophisticated account of the invasion's history – not least because we don't know how broad the topic scope will be – will this article eventually transform into coverage of a longer war? Will it cover a month-long invasion? Or a year-long invasion? These possibilities would drastically change the appropriate level of detail. The secondary sources, which we will eventually want our article's structure reflect, haven't been written yet. Let events unfold, shorten where necessary to maintain a decent overall length, and we can collectively make editorial decisions when things are a bit clearer. Jr8825 • Talk 09:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:NORUSH apply here. The idea is about how to structure the article in some semblance of what it would look like in ten years time, it isn't about adding original research or synthesising conclusions. And NORUSH doesn't talk about these kinds of large structural changes. This is about directing people's efforts towards making a good wikipedia article, because as it stands the house will have to be torn down and rebuilt anyway.Mozzie (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No rush is general guidance, but OR & SYTNH are policies, so always apply – particularly for a subject such as this where scholarship will take time to catch up with news. Jr8825 • Talk 10:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules... Mozzie (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and it is down to you to convince people this is a valid suggestion. And IAR is not carte blanche to ignore consensus and do as you please (I will also invoke IAR to ignore IAR). Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

To clarify further, your suggestion is likely the way this article should go in time, but it's not possible to create such sections yet without restoring to synthesis, as all we have is news reports and disjointed facts. Jr8825 • Talk 11:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Warcrimes and racism: Indian and African students assaulted by Ukrainian border guards

Shouldn't this data be in this page? It is clearly a humanitarian issue. Such reports came from official sources, BBC, Al Jazeera, different Indian and African channels covered this issue too. SReader2101 (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It might help if you produced these sources. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree this issue should be addressed in the article. The Independent: Concerns mount as black people report racism while fleeing war zone, CNN: Foreign students fleeing Ukraine say they face segregation, racism at border, NYT: Africans Say Ukrainian Authorities Hindered Them From Fleeing Viewsridge (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, lets see a suggestion for an edit. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets see what other editors think about the subject. Viewsridge (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is already something written in this section, I added only the last sentence. P1221 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Should Lukashenko be added to commanders?

Seems like he should be, even if Belarus hasn't 'officially' joined the war. He seems at least as important as the separatist commanders. 2003:C8:CF04:6389:FC8D:D71:3CC8:14AF (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As you "Belarus hasn't 'officially' joined the war", so he is the commander of a combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Konotop on map

Konotop's mayor still in control. https://novosti.dn.ua/news/321278-konotopu-postavili-ultimatum-sdaetsya-ili-ego-raznesut-artilleriej GordonGlottal (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal: I believe the surrender narrative refers to putting up a insurgency type resistance here, as the city was widely reported to have captured by Russia, including by Ukrainian officials on 25 Feb. Viewsridge (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy

This section seems incredibly biased. We only see negative portrayals of Putin and positive portrayals of Zelenskyy. Could we maybe have some level of balance here, as the article is verging into propaganda. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Care to give some examples? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some examples, but as a general note: almost the entire world is against Putin's war, and this extends to reliable sources discussing the war. So it's not really surprising that most sources portray Putin's involvement negatively and Zelenskyy's positively, especially given Ukraine's predicted odds. Since Wikipedia reflects reliable sources (per WP:DUE etc), it follows that the same portrayal will exist in this article, otherwise we'd be doing WP:FALSEBALANCE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The section looks more like an op-ed piece that have no business being on wikipedia. Moreover, your claim that almost the entire world is against the war is simply untrue as proven by the International Reactions section, close to half are neutral, made no comments or are supportive.Nebakin (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I have at least tweaked this section slightly https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1074838524&oldid=1074838374&title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diffmode=source given the existing sources. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 13:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

In the context of this war, what "positive portrayal of Putin" would you like us to give? Maybe we could praise his dress-sense? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets see some RS praising him.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Made no comments" doesn't mean appraising Putin. In addition, no comments means there isn't anything we can write... P1221 (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, kind of my point. Not having an opinion is not the same as having a positive opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

cbignore

Why is {{cbignore}} being added to every ref? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader I had a look on WikiBlame. Special:Diff/1074118070 provides part of the answer.

@Rlink2 are you able to shed light on why this tag ({{cbignore}}) is needed? Also, while we're at it, is there a reason for using "ghostarchive.org" instead of the Internet Archive? (the latter is, as I understand it, quite well established?). Your input would be appreciated.

Local Variable (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Detention of children at anti-war action in Moscow

Russian police detained 7-11 years old children who wanted to lay flowers at the Ukrainian Embassy in Moscow. Police juvenile inspectors threatened their parents with deprivation of parental rights.

It's fucked-up! I feel like a character of dystopia. K8M8S8 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's get a picture of the locked up children in the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Russian allegations of nuclear armerment

2/27/22 the russians have stated that they will be arming nukes should we add this?https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-nuclear-forces-ukraine-fighting/ due to this i feel like it is important to add your opinions? Diepanzerwaffles (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

THis is old news, discussed before. 12:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Civilian casualties per Ukraine

Not sure what's going on but civilian casualties announced by Ukraine just went from 346 KIA to 2,000+ KIA. It is reliable sourced so I've added it into the article. It could still be some sort of reporting error though. Viewsridge (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Viewsridge, it has already been added. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 14:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The map illustrating the situation in Ukraine is wrong

• Not all red zones are territories occupied by Russian forces. The only zones really occupied are the Crimea annexed by Russians and the Donetsk zone controlled by separatists.

• These red zones are not even "zones of control" understood as areas where Russian military denies Ukrainian military presence. We know that the Ukrainian military successfully operates on these areas and is able to attack Russian's backs.

• Most of these red zones are simply territories with Russian troops presence.

• Therefore painting these zones red and describing them as occupied is greatly misleading.

• Also, there are no clearly defined „front lines” in this war. It's not a trench war.

Here's a Twitter thread explaining this in more detail: https://twitter.com/Calthalas/status/1498998318755680260

77.255.79.188 (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You will need to provide more reliable sources than just a Twitter thread. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 15:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This source looks reasonably reliable.[12][13][14][15] I have seen other sources make similar statements, but sorry, I don’t have one at hand. Is there a source saying we should treat this the opposite way? —Michael Z. 15:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Invasion of Moldova?

Shouldn't we mention this in a way or another, despite nothing being official? Here are English and Romanian sources. I added it yesterday, but it got deleted despite one user at first accepting it and making some corrections.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/01/belarus-dictator-alexander-lukashenko-appeared-to-show-russian-plans-to-invade-moldova-through-ukraine/

https://news.yahoo.com/belarus-president-lukashenko-appears-stand-101548955.html

https://observatornews.ro/extern/va-fi-invadata-si-republica-moldova-lukashenko-ar-fi-prezentat-o-harta-in-care-ucraina-e-impartita-in-patru-transnistria-face-parte-din-una-dintre-aceste-zone-460990.html

Lupishor (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)