Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

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

---

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

Same link: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? --N8_wilson 12:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

"Putin echoing antisemitic conspiracy theory"

What? I am very confused by the Times article and the Guardian article cited in particular. The Guardian article is talking about the antisemitic cabal conspiracy, which seems quite nonsequitur? I can understand there is a problem in Russia, but I'm not sure this is relevant? Not defending Putin, but there might be another reason that Russia uses the memories of WW2 than antisemitic tropes when making war propaganda? Namely the fact that Slavs were the #2 or #3 target of ethnic violence and persecution by the Nazis (Jewish people being the #1 victim of violence)?

I'm not opposed to these articles being cited in themselves, but is there a more nuanced position that can be included than simply saying "Russia is the real Nazi"? 24.44.73.34 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

There might well be, but if RS make a claim we can say so. But we do not say they are the real Nazi's what we do is report what RS has said about the claims (And directly link this to the invasion). Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Admittedly a hyperbolic statement to say that this article calls Russia the real nazis, so I apologise. But I had said that because to say Putin is "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany." seems far fetched to me. I think it would be justifiable to say if Putin were dismissing or even denying the suffering of Jewish people in WW2 but to my knowledge he didn't do that so it's very out of place to me. There are definitely groups, including in Russia that do that but from what I know no mainstream politician says that. The Guardian article makes a strong assertion but doesn't really elaborate on how Putin is doing that.

That said, I know it's WP:RS so I am not calling for its removal but I'm hoping there can be an alternate perspective from another RS to be more balanced. Part of WP:NPOV is: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". I am not aware of other articles analyzing this aspect of Putin's rhetoric during the invasion but (see my next response below for citations) there has been alot of nuance on this issue in the past, as its a very complex topic. So it would be consistent with Wikipedia policy to have all that's available and relevant from RS.

@Mzajac Fair point about Russian propaganda, but it doesn't really explain how Putin is an antisemite, it just says he is. I think that is a problem. It implies that because Putin is anti-Zelensky that Putin has a problem with all Jewish people, this seems quite disingenious to me. Of course if Putin had said that or anything resembling it you would see no objection from me with regards to it being included in this article - however not even The Guardian article says Putin outright said such things, it's just extrapolating that because he is a Christian nationalist therefore he is complicit in propagating an antisemitic conspiracy. However, a few examples from the past would show that there is a more nuanced reality than that, see:. Of course there is also this on the contrary:. So it's a mixed bag, I think that any article talking about this subject should reflect that. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s not a non-sequitur, but maybe can be clarified. It is all part of the fallacious, indiscriminate, and even contradictory way Russian propaganda uses the memory of WWII, accusations of “fascism,” and conspiracy theory in its propaganda. Part of it is an extension of official Soviet antisemitism. There’s more in Putinism. —Michael Z. 18:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, could you clarify which part of "Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism, invoking the history of collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine during World War II, and echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany" is nonsequitur? Do you have any suggestions to improve it? I spent a long time rejigging this sentence so that it's coherent and reflects the sources. I'm keen to hear others' feedback/thoughts, as I personally think the sentence now does a very good job of accurately & succinctly summarising the sources cited. I appreciate it's a complex sentence, but it's hard to expand on as there are space constraints and I think the preceding sections on Putin's portrayal of Ukraine as a threat to Russia provide the necessary context. I'm also mindful that further fleshing this sentence out could result in too much emphasis on antisemitism, leading to undue weight issues. Regarding the Guardian article, the author is Jason Stanley, a well-known academic who specialises in fascism. Jr8825 • Talk 20:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

How about simply removing the word "antisemitic" from the sentence? That would weaken the implication that Putin himself is an antisemite, while retaining most of the relevant information. Or do the sources clearly try to imply that Putin is an antisemite? (I haven't read them.) Ornilnas (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ornilnas: the language of the sources is clear that antisemitism is linked:

• "By claiming that the aim of the invasion is to “denazify” Ukraine, Putin appeals to the myths of contemporary eastern European antisemitism" [1]
• "The Putin regime has once again consciously sought to instrumentalize Russian and Ukrainian antisemitism for its own purposes" [2]

The flipside is that while there's an antisemitic tone aimed for Russian consumption (i.e. Ukraine is a threat to Russia as it's a Nazi regime that wants to genocide Russians; Zelenskyy, its Jewish president, and other global Jews seek to mask Ukraine's Nazism – and historic Nazism, e.g. the Holocaust – by presenting themselves as the only victims, at the expense of Slavs), there's also an attempt to utilise/leverage accusations Ukraine in order to prove its Nazi nature [3]. It's a case of Russia accusing others of what Russia itself is doing (similar to the accusations of indiscriminate fire on civilians). Jr8825 • Talk 10:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The sources do indeed seem to imply that Putin is playing on domestic antisemitism, although they're a little unclear on the specifics (so much so that they left me a little confused). To me, it looks a little opinionated; perhaps some qualifier, such as "has been described as", could be used? Ornilnas (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Mobilizing antisemitism in politics and war is antisemitic. Putin’s abusive and insincere accusations of Nazism and genocide are an offence to the memory of Holocaust victims, Holocaust distortion, and arguably antisemitic. Putin’s favourite and oft-praised “historian,” Russian fascist philosopher Ivan Ilyin, was antisemitic. I don’t think there’s any need to censor quotations from RS’s about Putin’s antisemitism because we can’t find a direct quotation of him saying “I hate Jews.” More: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. —Michael Z. 21:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jr8825, I meant this part in particular "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany". I hope my previous responses help to show my position adequately - the problem to me of course is that it makes strong assertions but does so more by extrapolation than solid fact. So I say it's nonsequitur because it makes a strong statement but with little direct backing in fact. Obviously this is a complex problem in Russia, especially due to the history of the country. There's definitely a problem but (see above sources in previous response) there is alot of layers to it. So I think this problem could easily be solved by also including an alternate perspective on the topic from another RS. As I said earlier, not sure if there's been more WP:RS analyses on this rhetoric of his during the invasion, but I think that it should be included if and when it is found. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with IP Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven, User:Mzajac, User:Jr8825, Do you have any additional comments? If not, I will have to consider this a consensus. Thank you! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For what? Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For removing the sentence "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany" Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. The sentence is well sourced and should stay. I'm open to suggestions for improvement. Jr8825 • Talk 17:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Jr8825. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn’t that be Stalinist propaganda with nazis running the country and should we include the azov battalion as a combatant Persesus (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Am I right about that? Persesus (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Azov Battalion is a part of the Ukrainian National Guard. They are not listed because it’s redundant. You can find them on the page about the order of battle, though. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

They are also mentioned in the section of this article being discussed. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I also found the sentence "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany", fairly extraordinary and puzzling on first reading. The sentence is meant to be registering what he said on the eve of the invasion, not itemising all of Putin's or Putinism's faults. Also Soviet deaths in "The Great Patriotic War" (ie WWII) numbered somewhere between 20-27 million - so - if 'body count' is the main measure of who was the real-est, (if not the "truest") victim, USSR is light years ahead of anyone else. That isn't a 'conspiracy theory', it's historical fact. There are many complicating factors of course - some of the Soviet victims were Jewish, disproportionately large numbers were Ukrainian or other non-Russians, and the Soviet Union was extremely careless and wasteful in the use of its own manpower, but still, human death during WWII in the USSR was enormous and the war fought on both sides with indescribable brutality. People in Eastern Europe tend to remember that and are often grieved that the rest of the world generally doesn't.

Now, having read the Jason Stanley source, which says: "The dominant version of antisemitism alive in parts of eastern Europe today is that Jews employ the Holocaust to seize the victimhood narrative from the “real” victims of the Nazis, who are Russian Christians (or other non-Jewish eastern Europeans). The claim makes a little more sense, but it isn't a sense that our text conveys very well. The preamble speaking of "seizing the victimhood narrative" and the use of quotes on "true" victims conveys the supposed 'fakeness' that takes the claims into conspiracy theory territory. The second source, Snyder adds to this interpretation slightly: Putin is"appealing to a certain tradition in antisemitism, which tries to flip around who are the victims and who are the perpetrator But Snyder continues "as I say, I think his main purpose here is just to pervert these terms and to confuse us … “He’s not really referring to any true history. He’s just taking advantage of the fact that there are strong emotions around these concepts.”

I think therefore that I have 3 concerns. Firstly that out text isn't a very complete or comprehensible account of the two sources used. Secondly the sources are as much - or even more - about this strain of Orthodox Christian Nationalism or Putinism as they are about the pre-invasion speech. Thirdly I question Jason Stanley and Snyder's authority to speak in Wiki-Voice. Stanley is mainly a philosopher, Snyder is certainly an expert on modern Russia, but even he is saying that Putin's language is mainly designed to confuse rather than stating antisemitism as the main factor. So IMO even if this claim were made clearer, it should be attributed, there simply isn't agreement that Putin's speech contained any anti-semetism AFAIK, even if Putinism or Russian Orthodox nationalism generally does.

A plausible alternative explanation which I have read from several authorities recently as to the root of Putin's "denazification" claim is that in Eastern Europe, and Russia particularly, the Nazis are despised because of what they did to USSR, rather than for what they did to groups such as the Jews. We in the West automatically respond "how can the Ukrainians be Nazis, their President is a Jew? Such a thought would barely occur to a Russian, especially a Nationalist one according to this viewpoint. There, Nazis are people who wished to destroy Russia, not people who tried to eliminate Jews. Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Has there or is there going to be an outcome from this discussion? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157 Not likely any time soon unfortunately. I can understand though, a recent and ongoing war is a very contentious issue but it'll take awhile for calm discussion from everyone. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately very snowed under IRL at the moment, so haven't been able to give a full response to Pincrete's points above. From glancing at your points, Pincrete I agree the wording can appear rather confusing. I'm glad you felt it made a bit more sense after reading the two sources, but your concern about whether it does a good enough job of accurately conveying their nuances remain. I do think the current sentence does a decent job of reflecting the sources' general sense, particularly given the tiny amount of space that's used to do this within a complex sentence (which also serves to ensure undue weight isn't given to this relatively specific issue). To address your concerns the wording needs to be made clearer and sources' points more clear – a longer exposition (probably a sentence of its own) is probably required, which would allow for attribution and greater qualification. I think your point about the contextual appropriateness is insightful. Right now this text is under the prelude section in "Russian accusations and demands", and while it does thematically link in, you're right to point out that the paragraph which contains it has an unclear scope and appears to be focused on a specific speech (the product of having many hands crafting the same small section of text). I'm wondering if a better location for the antisemitism point might be in the background section under "Euromaidan, Revolution of Dignity, and the War in Donbas", where there's also a discussion of Russian nationalism – the problem is that it's already a particularly long section (the longest in the article according to the section sizes box at the top of this talk page), and the antisemitism relates closely to Putin's rhetoric (which isn't currently discussed in the background section, so would require an expansion/rewrite). I can see two main options: move the point to the background section (the most difficult option, I think, but it might connect related ideas more neatly together), or rewrite the start of the current paragraph so its focus is more clearly on Putin's rhetoric over a longer period in the run-up to the invasion, combined with a possible rewrite to make the point about antisemitism more clear. I'd be glad to hear any suggestions you have either way, or other alternatives. Jr8825 • Talk 00:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Very well put thank you Pincrete. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Image of killed civilian

@Hcoder3104 removed this image because Disturbing image, @Super Dromaeosaurus reverted because WP:NOTCENSORED. another reason must be given for the removal of this image. I'm not sure that the image increases our understanding of the invasion, but my main concern here is with source and privacy. The image has been uploaded on Facebook by the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs without providing information about the photographer, the subject and the context (they claim it's Kyinka or Pavlinka near Chernihiv). We should remove contentious material about living or recently dead people that is poorly sourced as per WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BDP, and we should be extra cautious in case of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE: the image could be a fake and, if it is genuine, publishing it might show lack of respect for the deceased and his loved ones. The image is not indispensable for the article and I suggest we remove it. P.S. the image is now also in Russian war crimes and in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove I don't see that its inclusion is IAW WP:IMGCONTENT and that it particularly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article's subject matter. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Much like most other article space images, this image is a window into viscerally understanding the meaning of the text next to it. If you find the image disturbing, that's good because war is disturbing, and this image serves to convey that reality. Not to mention that Wikipedia:Content disclaimer applies. I also don't agree with the privacy argument. The subject is not readily identifiable from the image as they are lying face down; thus there are no privacy concerns from where I'm standing. We regularly feature images of identifiable people who aren't public figures, for example, see human, so this argument does not hold water for me. Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs is a reliable primary source in this case, so I do not see the concern that this is fake. I obviously understand that Ukraine is engaging in a propaganda war, but there is every indication that civilians are indeed being killed, so this image fits what we know from corroborating reports.
  In summary, in my estimation the image serves an encyclopedic purpose in demonstrating the reality of the war which this article covers. Melmann 08:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs is a reliable primary source"... are you basing this on anything other than that you personally support Ukraine in this conflict and therefore believe with utmost faith and sincerity that Ukraine could not possibly be producing propaganda that works in their favor and to the detriment of their enemy? หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove poorly sourced, we know very little information about this photo Ilenart626 (talk)
• Keep - Why should we devoid the horrors of war in an article related to a war? Per Melmann. There are more images and videos related to the war circulating around the internet that are far more disturbing than the image shown (i.e. people burnt to crisps / brains, guts, everything). Giving readers a taste of the reality of war invokes a stronger perception and concept regarding the importance of avoiding one in a pretty raw fashion. The image doesn't show or hint the actual identity of the person killed, that's another reason. PenangLion (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Wasn't this already answered with FAQ #1? It was also discussed here. Beyond that the new course of the war has increasingly been defined by attacks on civilian targets, such being the case from an informational standpoint the image is just as important if not more important than the image of burnt out Russian tanks in Bucha. This is what the war looks like. I'm not saying that we make this in to a gore thread, but Russia is currently carpet bombing Mariupol, which has mass graves and dead bodies in the street, this is the war. It's worth noting that pages about similar conflicts such as the First Chechen War also feature graphic images, the First Chechen War page having an image of civilians in a mass grave, and dead civilians in the back of a truck. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep. The photo is not 'disturbing' (as for example this from an identical reality to that of the indiscriminate mass bombing of another country we see now with Ukraine. It is moderate, objective, an obvious reality of what war does, without making viewers nauseous by exposing them to a brutal goriness few of us can watch without feeling unhinged.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment My !vote to remove (above) was not because the image was too confrontational but that it did not increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter (per WP:IMGCONTENT). If anything, an image sufficient to increase the readers understanding would be more confrontational. If the present image doesn't do what it should, it should be removed or replaced with one that does (IAW policy). Cinderella157 (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - Ditto Melmann. Recall photos on World War Two, the Korean War, the Rape of Nanking and so forth; so long as it is relevant, factual, and relatively informational, I'm fine with keeping. Obviously balanced writing is necessary, and gorification ought to be avoided, but I find no issue with this specific photo. Augend (drop a line) 17:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove - content from a self-published source that's currently involved in an information war. A similar image verified and published by an independent source would be much more inline with WP standards. Aside: the acceptable nature of the content shouldn't be used as an argument to override or sidestep sourcing and privacy concerns. --N8_wilson 22:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep because this definitely "increase[s] readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". That was already decided in previous discussions (link by Alcibiades979). There is no copyright issues if I understand correctly or anything problematic per policy with this image. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Images of the exteriors of shelled apartment buildings are commonplace. Cinderella157 argues that this particular photo does not "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter", but I disagree. This photo of the interior of an apartment where someone was killed at home significantly increased my own understanding, and when I see exterior views of blasted apartment buildings in the future, I will have a much better understanding what the people who lived in those buildings suffered, and the horrors that could be seen inside those shattered apartments if a photographer entered those devastated places. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 20y 22 (UTC)
• Keep (unless better alternative found) - As far as I'm concerned, the focus of this RfC is not about it being disturbing (though the edit war was about that), it's about whether the source is reliable. However, I see no reason to even suspect that the source has fabricated the image in any way, as there seems to be no need to do so. Suspecting this image as fabricated seems akin to suspecting the US of faking the moon landing-- it's literally easier to get the real thing than to fake it. Lack of photographer credit means little during war time, and the source is an official source even if it uses facebook. I do see the arguments made above that a better representational image might be found elsewhere, (which might be even more disturbing that this one) and I would support replacing this image with such an image if found and sourced... but I also have no objections to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs' facebook page being a source. Fieari (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question This image appears in the section "War crimes:Attributed to Russian authorities and forces". How does this image of a dead man contribute to our understanding of war crimes attributed to the Russians? There is nothing that would indicate this death actually results from a war crime? On the otherhand, deliberately targeting a well marked hospital is pretty clearly a war crime. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah. I think this is where I fall. I agree the image could be suitable for placement in the article at an appropriate part of the prose, but it's unclear how it relates to "war crimes by Russian authorities". Unless someone can clearly explain how this image depicts a war crime, its placement doesn't seem relevant in that section. The particular contents of the image (i.e. whether it contains a body) doesn't seem too relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Laws of war generally distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets. The target of the attack must be a legitimate military target, and the damage to civilians must be proportional to the military objective that the attack attempts to achieve. Although I am under no illusion that a bunch of volunteer editors can meaningfully adjudicate whether a war crime has occurred based on one image, if we just take it on face value, we have an image shared by a legitimate government source accusing the Russian military of killing this civilian, with the image showing a civilian who appears to have been killed by military action while in a civilian residence, which is unlikely to be a legitimate military target. Further to this, we know from WP:RS reporting that scenarios similar to what this image purports to represent are indeed occurring.
  Of course, there could be further context we are not privy to, such as this civilian opening fire on Russian troops, or providing material support to the Ukrainian military, which could make them a legitimate target, but the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest that this image depicts a war crime against the civilian population of Ukraine. Melmann 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Bodies of some of the hundreds of Vietnamese villagers who were killed by U.S. soldiers during the My Lai Massacre. This is a compelling image

Civilian deaths are an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of war - being just too close to a legitimate target in the wrong place at the wrong time. The image of itself does not rise to depicting a war crime rather than an unfortunate event. I am not judging the act but the efficacy of the image to depict what it is supposedly intended to do per image policy. There are probably more confronting images that better support an understanding of the subject section. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC) See an example of a compelling image. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Borderline Keep I feel that WP:NOTCENSORED gets unfair weight in these discussions, being used in the sense that the content should be included because not doing so would be censorship. We should really pay more attention to WP:OM, and in particular WP:GRATUITOUS. As this policy says "Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship." and goes on to say (my bold) "According to the Wikimedia Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment'; that is, we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." There is a point at which images become too gratuitous, and I feel that this image is probably somewhere around that limit.Mozzie (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would tend to disagree that this image is offensive to an average reader. Obviously, the level of offence is highly cultural, but this image could have easily been a still from any number of police procedural dramas or action films, readily shown during the daytime in most Anglophone countries. The only meaningful difference between this and the procedural drama example is that we know for a fact that this image is real, while images from those dramas we know to be staged. This image does not show gratuitous violence, beyond from what is required to demonstrate the encyclopedic point in question. There are no internal organs strewn about, the victim is not beheaded, there isn't even a meaningful amount of blood on display. If anything, this is the mildest photo that can convincingly demonstrate the reality of death of civilian population of Ukraine. I understand your point, and I do agree to a point. I would not support ISIS beheading videos being the first thing the reader lands on when reading the page ISIS, but in this case, I think we are a long way off from getting the balance wrong.
  I can understand how a reader might find the image distressing, but the topic of civilian death in a war is highly distressing on its own, and this image demonstrates the reality of it without displaying needlessly unmerited violence. Melmann 12:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep I remember switching on the News after school as a four year-old during the Vietnam War. Images such as this (viewer discretion!) were common. No one had to tell me war was Disturbing while putting their own spin on "the facts" - a picture is worth a thousand words. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep It is an article on a war, some disturbing images are expected, as the war is itself a disturbing event. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Per reasons given above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 23:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question Can anybody tell me how this image is clearly about war crimes? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree. Single incidence civilian deaths with no supporting evidence can't be automatically attributed as war crimes. Also any claim in that direction would need to verify three things: that the assailant was a combatant (in legal terms) and that the victim was a non-combatant, and that the attack by a combatant against a non-combatant was intentional. All of these things are extremely difficult to verify. All may not be as it seems, especially in a situation where it is alleged there is a widespread resistance movement within the civilian population. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove I have seen much worse in relation even to this war, and the person actually looks quite peaceful and 'undamaged', but the relatively acceptable nature of the content shouldn't be used as an argument to override or sidestep sourcing and privacy concerns., nor that we actually have no idea what the picture depicts and whether it does or does not illustrate anything specific about this war, nor about war crimes. It reitetrates the obvious, that people die in war, and violent death never looks pretty. Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Statistics. In terms of opinions for consensus purposes only there appear to be 12 Keeps and 4 Deletes, which is at about 3-to-1. Wikipedia policy is generally to be against censorship, and consensus should decide if the image is useful to the article as a whole on its own merits. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I would make it 5 to remove. However, those arguments are being made mainly on the source of the image and policy - whether the image is adequate to support the accompanying text. They are not being made for reasons of censoring. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Remove I have no issue of citing materials from verified social media accounts of government agencies or reputed individuals. My issue is the appeal to sensation instead of providing substantial context to the alleged war crimes committed by Russian troops. It's fair that we employ much stricter criteria when deciding what we should include in such article with high traffic because of the ongoing military campaign. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of the term "falsely accused"

I wrote this in my editsum, but whilst the RS does use the word "falsely accused" and the factual basis of the term is relatively well-established, the problem is that the term "falsely accused" is more partisan and accusatory than, for instance, "accused without basis". See WP:PARTISAN -

reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.

The truth is that the language used seems, at least from a semantical standpoint, to be potentially problematic. Augend (drop a line) 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In essence, we go with the language RS use. But without knowing what you are talking about its hard to say if the use of false is valid. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking here: "Russian president Vladimir Putin espoused irredentist views, questioned Ukraine's right to statehood, and falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority." As a side note I agree with the usage of "falsely accused" in this case. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand your issue Augend and agree with you that the usage of the term "falsely accused" is problematic. In my opinion it goes against WP guidelines on balancing our language and keeping it neutral. Maybe note in the sentence who considers it as a false accusation, attribute it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

While it is clear that RS almost universally concur that Putin is exaggerating in the extreme, "without basis" does not work because there is a lot of basis for conclusions which are similar to the ones he draws. It is not so much a lack of basis, there are heaps of evidence of unusually pronounced affinities for Nazism throughout the record of Ukraine's various social phenomena. It is just that Putin makes a wild leap from that basis to a conclusion, framed here as Nazi "dominance", which lacks a sufficent basis to support his extreme conclusion and remedies. It is confusing though to state "without basis" which may be technically correct regarding the Putin conclusions because there is nevertheless a lot of basis for relatively non-controversial conclusions which lead towards, but do not arrive, at Putin's endpoint conclusion. Therefore, while supporting the spirt of the proposal "without basis", I do not support the use of "without basis" as a way out of this conundrum. IMV. Wikidgood (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The above in reply to . Alcibiades979 (talk) as to the edit in his link "I'm thinking..." As stated eslewhere, I believe the lede is problematized more by the inaccurate characterization of Putin's remarks as a problem of Nazi "dominance" than by the characterization of his words as false accusation, although I concur with EkoGraf and others that "falsely accused" fails WP:NPV and 'balance'. There are many accusations floating around which are not necessarily so clearly false, eg., that shelling by UNG into Donbass is excessive, that UNG units such as Azov violate HR conventions, that Russian language-speakers are unduly suppressed by the Ua legislation, that the Party of Regions has been subjected to bullying, that the Odessa fire incident was an outrage raising certain red flags, that the use of the wolfsangel in official regalia is suggestive of inappropriate Nazi affinities, that some of the territorial acquisitions @ Galicia were suspect in the inception, etc etc.

None of these are universally regarded as "false", and they all could be woven together in a general theory of creeping Naziism afflicting Ukraine, which a significant plurality of commentators may believe. (I don't, by the way.) The point is that "falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis" is just not a great piece of writing, it looks like writing-by-committee and we may be stuck with it.

If there is a way out, IMO, it would be to start with revisions that state more precisely it is that Putin does and does not say. We can then more readily determine the proper way to qualify his contentions. That would require quite a bit of thought, and, even if someone devoted some time to reformulation of that phrase, there would then be the task of winning support/consensus. It is not unlikely then that there debate will just continue around how to qualify what I believe to be the flawed subject of the qualifier. Thus is the nature of collective encyclopeiation, alas. Wikidgood (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. Anyone who reads the article, or listens to the news, knows that Putin is lying every time he opens his mouth. However, using a finger-pointing term like "falsely" to hammer home the point here is both redundant and unencyclopaedic. But, there's already been a similar discussion some while back, and the outcome was to keep the term, so good luck with trying to get it removed or changed HieronymousCrowley (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with User:Augend. I think the use of "falsely" is biased and non-nuetral. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So you're adding your support to Augend? EEng 13:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment It is one thing to be quoting a source (directly or indirectly using non-neutral terms, it is quite another to be writing in non-neutral terms in WP's voice. The lead is a summary of the body. We might state that the allegations are false in the summary if this represents the consensus of opinion in good quality, independent reliable sources. Even then, we should (probably) not be saying this in a WP voice. The body of the text should be showing us that there is such a consensus to show that the allegation can be considered false. We are putting the "falsely accused" in a WP voice before the cart ... analysts have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence .... Of the two news sources cited to support this, one doesn't appear to be referring to the opinion of anybody particularly and the second refers to a representatives of an American expatriate Ukranian organisation, an American Jewish organisation and a former American ambassador to Russia. I think that the description of "analysts" is being a little free with the truth. Now, I'm not saying that the allegations are true but it does appear to me that we are probably being a little free with what should be said in a WP voice and WP:NPOV. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder, WP:NPOV does not mean we must be kind or take a middle-ground stance. It means we must report according to what the sources say. In this case, all reliable sources are unanimous that this is a false accusation. There are no reliable sources that say otherwise. This is exactly the time to use wikivoice. Fieari (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not said that we couldn't use WP voice but that we haven't gone about things the right way by which we could use WP voice. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As said above, even though they are considered RS by Wikipedia, they are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, so this has to be taken into account. Agree with Cinderella157, a right way needs to be found to convey the information in WP's voice. EkoGraf (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess I have an issue with giving credence in the lede to a conspiracy theory that is currently being used to justify a war. Multiple RS's refer to these allegations as false. I'd also take it a step further and say that I think extra caution needs to be taken in this instance since the accusation is that one of the world's two Jewish heads of state is actually a nazi who is committing genocide against Christians. This is clearly extremely problematic, and the accusation is deeply anti-semitic. Putin's accusation itself is a text book example of WP:NAZI: "That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or hold an ideology that is worse or morally equivalent." As far as reliable sources go:

• NewYorkTimes: "Neo-Nazis have been a recurring character in Russian propaganda campaigns for years, used to falsely justify military action against Ukraine in what Russian officials have called “denazification.”"
• CBS: "Putin built a false premise for a war against "Nazis" in Ukraine"
• CNN: "The false accusations of Nazism and genocide from Putin and his aides against the Zelensky government have drawn outrage."
• NBC: "Putin has long sought to falsely paint Ukraine as a Nazi hotbed, which is a particularly jarring accusation given that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish and lost three family members in the Holocaust."
• WallStreetJournal: "The references to Nazi Germany come against the backdrop of Russia falsely alleging that the Ukrainian government is run by neo-Nazis and that one of the aims of its war is to “de-Nazify” the country"
• Politico: "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is Jewish himself and whom Russian President Vladimir Putin has cynically and falsely called a Nazi"

This is what the sources say, and what is in common usage, and for good reason. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobody here is advocating for the truth of Putin's statements, nor do we support the use of these mistruths in the advancement of an aggressive and damaging warmaking policy. That said, I also do not believe Wikipedia ought to be used for sending political messaging; the outrageous nature of the comments is not justification for our supposed burden to right great wrongs. Augend (drop a line) 15:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Calling false accusations false is not political messaging; it is a factual statement, and being mealy-mouthed about it would be false balance. To quote our policy on NPOV: we...describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. The proper context of these accusations is that they're false, which you don't dispute, and it's not a NPOV violation to describe them as such. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. The logic behind @Alcibiades979's post implies that the nefarious nature of the commentary somehow emburdens us to emphasize the lack of truthfulness or otherwise highlight the falsehood of the commentary. This is not true. Whatever the purpose of Putin's comments are, we are not obligated to act any differently because of them.

Within the context of WP:IMPARTIAL, [t]he tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Forgive my pedantry, but the use of the term here is explicitly rejecting a point-of-view. Now- while the existing terminology "falsely accused" may be fine within the current context, the question ought to be framed more so as whether an alternate phrasing may be better. I am of the opinion that the use of a more neutral term, incorporating such language as "without evidence" or "without basis" would be more suitable. Augend (drop a line) 16:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL is incorrect in this instance specifically because WP:NPOV refers specifically to reliable sources. Vladimir Putin is not a reliable source on nazism in general, or nazism in Ukraine in particular, nor is it credible to state that he is. We have a number of Reliable Sources in this thread, all of which refer to the claims as being false, in fact I chose the sources I did because they mirror the article's terminology almost exactly: "false accusations". As far as I can tell there is no debate that the accusations are false. We should follow the Reliable Sources. What's more is that we as edittors are not "neutral", in the sense that we give false balance, rather, we are neutral in our reporting and representation of Reliable Sources, which may lead to what maybe construed as "not neutral content" there is nothing wrong with this as long as we are fairly representing the Reliable Sources, which we are. In short, there's no WP:OR there's no going out on a limb, the article is just following Reliable Sources to the letter. For instance with the Gleiwitz incident the article simply states that it was a false flag attack, not that "Germany invaded Poland because it claimed that Poland attacked a german radio tower." Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Breaking this down...

Vladimir Putin is not a reliable source on nazism in general, or nazism in Ukraine in particular - nobody said he is. I'm pretty sure nobody in this thread has ever claimed Putin's words have any truth value. That said, I am challenging the wording because it (a) provides, at least, the presentation of an NPOV violation & (b) may or may not be a leap of encyclopedic register. For instance, can you give me a single difference between my suggested wording and the extant wording? Why must we use the word "falsely" exactly?

We should follow the Reliable Sources - "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" - we do not, and indeed, probably should not, follow RS' semantics choices verbatim.

For instance with the Gleiwitz incident the article simply states that it was a false flag attack, not that "Germany invaded Poland because it claimed that Poland attacked a german radio tower." - yes, but the term false in that context is a false flag (a well-established term) - it alone is an incomplete clause. It would obviously be appropriate for use in that context. If you are suggesting we call Russia's invasion a false-flag, that is a separate discussion.

Finally, there is considerable historical consensus based on a wealth and breadth of knowledge on the topic since WWII - unlike this situation, where this is still a considerable degree of uncertainty (if anything, just because of how vaguely worded the subsequent clause is and the relative novelty of the entire phenomenon). Hence I do not believe it would be problematic to err on the side of caution (see [a]). Augend (drop a line) 05:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"unlike this situation, where this is still a considerable degree of uncertainty" Where is the uncertainty? Where are the sources that state then that the Ukrainian government is dominated by nazis? I found and listed a number of sources stating that the accusation is false. Do you have sources that say that Volodomyr Zelenskyy is a nazi? Otherwise to me it is exactly the same as the Gleiwitz incident, and if we get rid of the exact phrasing and just allow it to be RSs that refute the statement that Ukraine is a neo-nazi state then I can easily produce dozens of RSs which state that it is false. The middle ground is that the jewish president of Ukraine is not a nazi, that his government is not nazi and that he's not perpetrating genocide; that is the middle of the road NPOV statement. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

OK how about "incorrectly accused", is that better? We reflct what RS say, so we can't imply this is not incorrect or false.. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• FYI, this was already discussed at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8#NPOV in the lead section? Putin "falsely" accused Ukraine of being dominated by Nazis. I'm generally very cautious about Wikipedia using judgemental terms in wikivoice, and have argued very strongly against this where I feel the sources are more cautious/hedged than our article voice. However, in this case I think "falsely" is clearly vindicated by the sources (as Alcibiades979 helpfully shows above). As it's factually true (Putin's claim is baseless and described as false) I think there's no need to qualify, attribute or water down this wording. In the previous discussion I also noted that MOS:WEASEL encourages editors to use their discretion with potentially opinion-sounding terms in the lead and in topic sentences at the start of paragraphs, as sometimes words which sound opinionated best and most accurately reflect the sources which are later expounded on the article body/following sentences, which I believe is that case here. That said, I didn't particularly mind Augend's suggested wording "without basis" – but I think the rationale for change, that there's a neutrality issue, is wrong. Jr8825 • Talk 11:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  "We will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine" is not a factual statement which can be assessed in terms of true or false, but a declaration of intent hinting at regime change, plus an expressive statement aimed at escalating the conflict. Saying that it is "false" in the lead section is a way of taking a clear stance from the very start. Of course we should debunk false information, as we are now trying to do decently in the "Russian accusations and demands" section; and of course Ukraine is not run by fascists. But claiming that the statement "we come to wipe out the fascists" is false, without basis, etc., is just getting caught in the dumb talk of propaganda war. And yes, there are fascists on the ground in Ukraine, they’ve been responsible for atrocities, and yes the members of the Russian community may reasonably think that they’ve been subjected to systematic discrimination based on language and nationality. I think that our RS are much more reliable for facts than for value judgments. Echoing them doesn’t bring us closer to peace nor to truth. I’d remove the "falsely" adverb from the lead. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I also came here specifically to ask for the removal of falsely in this context. Falsely somewhat implies that there is certainty that those accusations are false. Accused itself, however, do not carry the connotation that the accusations are true. My suggestion is to use allegedly. ... accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who allegedly persecute the Russian-speaking minority. In this way, we still play down the possibility of persecution of Russian-speaking minorities, while do not dismiss whether some neo-Nazis are active in Ukraine right away. 88.243.148.71 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"Falsely somewhat implies that there is certainty that those accusations are false" – that's precisely why "false" is appropriate here. There is no reasonable doubt that Putin's accusation that Ukraine is run by Nazis committing genocide against Russian speakers is false. The sources are unanimous and express certainty. Jr8825 • Talk 13:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the sources is that they are all USA sources. Using the words of the press of a country heavily invested with one side verbatim is not constructive. Moreover, we have a seven paragraphs of Neo-Nazism#Ukraine and Racism_in_Ukraine mentions neo-Nazism three times. People who use wikipedia as their primary news source and who don't know anything about the conflict would probably think that there is no shred of evidence that there are any neo-Nazis in Ukraine, after reading this sentence. 88.243.148.71 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sources do not cease to be Reliable just because they are American. Fieari (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If wikipedia is to copy the US media verbatim, we can redirect this page to New York Times and all of us can call it a day. Or, we can use allegedly which is only slightly less sure than falsely.176.89.106.252 (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with IP. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• The BBC: The claim of Nazis and genocide in Ukraine was also a fiction. [11]
• The Guardian: Putin’s claim that Russia is invading Ukraine to denazify it is therefore absurd on its face [12]
• Der Spiegel: Just as they now provided false pretexts for the invasion of Ukraine? [13]

This is not a US-exclusive phenomenon. To qualify this as anything less than false feels like false balance, at best. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I can find several BBC videos on short notice stating some neo-Nazi groups freely act on their own, totally above the law. At least one such video suggested that the previous ministry of interior, Avakov, is affiliated with such groups. So, stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine. We know that overwhelming majority of scholars do not believe neo-Nazism do not justify an invasion but stating that all neo-Nazi accusations are false is not something we should do here. It doesn't even make sense, considering the fact that just next to the "falsely accused", neo-Nazism in Ukraine and Russophobia are linked right there.

Also, about WP:NPOV and specifically about false balance, "the minority view" is assumed as the minority view among the western readers. The countries that abstained in the UN GA collectively hosts about half the world. Offering the Western media verbatim here is an indirect show of western supremacy.

I want to reiterate my suggestion: ... accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who allegedly persecute the Russian-speaking minority. This way, we do not comment on the accusations about neo-Nazis but we still play down whether these neo-Nazis prosecute Russian speaking minority. 88.243.148.71 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think we are misusing NPOV and false balance. They are more applicable on issues that are exhaustively discussed on a scholarly level, such as Armenian Genocide. This is why WWII analogies do not work as well. Here, we use the language appropriate to use after a military tribunal, for an ongoing conflict. As things stand, someone who is sceptical about the mainstream western views on this conflict would not keep reading this article because he/she would think this article is western propaganda and why shouldn't they if we copy the western media verbatim? 88.243.148.71 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The actual claim as written in the article is Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism. Your statement that " stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine" is nonsense; the article says or implies nothing of the sort. Your suggestion would have us leave the statement that Ukraine is "dominated by neo-Nazism" unchallenged, only qualifying the persecution bit. "Accuse without basis" and "falsely accuse" are two (somewhat-)reasonable ways to frame this, but your suggestion is a complete non-starter. (Also, glad to see the goalposts have moved from "US" to "western"; not particularly unexpected.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the claim is wrong: Putin never said "Ukrainian society and government [are] dominated by neo-Nazim". This is a point I've raised in an earlier discussion with no avail, yet I think it's relevant. We have the full text translation of the 24 February address on Ukraine by Putin (which the Russian Federation also submitted to the UN as official justification of war). It is here (Bloomberg) and here (TASS). We also have en extensive excerpt in the New York Times, here. This is what he actually said about nazism, verbatim: "Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine"; "we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine"; "Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine". These are declarations of intent, policy objectives, political judgments and predictive statements - not mere statements of fact, which could be true or false, like "Ukrainian society and government [are] dominated by neo-Nazim". This is a ridiculous statement which Putin never pronounced, and by labelling it as "false" we are getting trapped in war propaganda. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. "Ukrainian society and government [is] dominated by neo-Nazism" is a fair interpretation of "Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine". If this were clearly a predictive statement, as you seem to suggest, then that would be something like "tomorrow's neo-Nazis". The very next line is "You swore the oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian people." That's present tense, not future. But more to the point, this is why we use secondary sources, rather than the primary source of the text of Putin's speech. And the secondary sources about this are pretty conclusive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly.Gitz: "Putin never sai..." This struck me as creative writing and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Where did Putin ever use the term "доминирует" (dominated) to characterize his take on the neo-Nazism allegations regarding Ukraine. The encyclopedic requirement of reflecting RS should use the precise wording as the default and not reframe with connotations not in the original. Wikidgood (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: [your] statement that " stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine" is nonsense; the article says or implies nothing of the sort - I presume you are referring to the extant Wikipedia article? Clarification here. Augend (drop a line) 04:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps there's an alternate rationale for the change? Augend (drop a line) 04:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Falsely is judgemental, it should just be "Putin accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism and invaded." Or "The pretext of invasion was that the Ukrainian government is led by neo-Nazis and needs to be de-nazified", ect. RomanPope (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Notification This discussion has been notified at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Use of the term "falsely accused" at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Still going on over there. EEng 01:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should the invasion have its own sidebar/campaignbox?

The invasion and some of the many articles surrounding it are currently part of Template:Campaignbox Russo-Ukrainian War. As far as I can tell only engagement-related articles seem to mostly use the Russo-Ukrainian war caimpaignbox, while most of the more political-societal and media-focused articles do not, and are not linked in it. Due to the large number (28 "See also" articles and 17 "Main articles") of articles surrounding 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine I'm wondering: Should the invasion have its own sidebar/campaignbox? Phiarc (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. The current crisis has little to do with most of the historical material in the Russo-Ukrainian war box, and there's a lot of material to cover, too much to shoehorn into that box.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. I would suggest the Template:Campaignbox Russo-Ukrainian War include only the "Prelude" and "Crimea annexation" section links (since there are only half a dozen events regarding those periods), and two general links for the Donbass war and the 2022 invasion. While the Donbass war and the 2022 invasion should have their own infoboxes that would include all of the individual battles. Or, if people won't separate, at the very least follow this format Template:Campaignbox War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). EkoGraf (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. There are enough subsidiary article specific to the invasion to warrant this. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know if this is against some WP guideline or not, but I created a rough version of Template:Sidebar 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine while this RfC is running, perhaps consider it a discussion aid or something like that. Contrast with Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has 36 categories I'm thinking the sidebar should be more focused, e.g. instead of containing every battle article, just the offensives. It would not be useful to simply duplicate the navbox, but vertically. Navbox for completeness, sidebar for overview, basically. Phiarc (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've divided and replaced the articles listed under 2022 invasion with a separate campaignbox. Viewsridge (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that what you have done is quite what we are intending (certainly not me). It would be a separate campaign box that only included those links subsequent to or directly preceding the invasion. There would also be a two-way link between it and the main box for the Russo-Ukrainian War. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It was reverted fairly quickly (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACampaignbox_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&type=revision&diff=1079445056&oldid=1079439359). In any case I agree that we should first establish what the goal is and then do that and not run off immediately changing dozens of articles. Phiarc (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, following EkoGraf's proposal – I agree, the present state of this box is absolutely unwieldy. EkoGraf's proposal is the most elegant solution to this problem. Have one 'generalised' campaignbox for the whole war, and two sub-boxes, one for the war in Donbas and one for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Crimea doesn't need its own box. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree because the main campaignbox is getting too laggy/crowded, so I would suggest a solution similar to that employed in Template:Campaignbox War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), which is a collection of campaignboxes for separate campaigns that are all embedded into the same campaignbox. This way we can separate the Invasion of the Crimea, the Donbass War, and the 2022 Invasion from each other. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Moving forward This discussion has gone stale but it appears to me that there is a consensus for this article to have its own campaign box, if not how exactly this would look. I would suggest that someone with a draft just be bold and put it in. My only observation is that we probably don't need an image and certainly not the map again. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157 - I've made one at User:Dunutubble/drafttemplate6. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

OK Dunutubble, a good start. I would see that the campaign box for here would contain (and duplicate) everything in the Russo-Ukrainian War campaign bow that is in that section headed 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any other thoughts? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

In the background part, may we please state the specific objectives of Russia/Putin in numbered bullet points?

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72072/what-exactly-are-the-stated-objectives-of-the-2022-russian-invasion-of-ukraine

In the post, the sources include

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67885 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60785754 https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/20/politics/russia-ukraine-negotiations-us-nato/index.html

Thewriter006 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of the other sections, like the Prelude, do already state some of the more prominent general objectives (or demands) in context. Alternatively, this could probably go into the "file for later" folder, especially given the fog of war and other factors that contribute to the article's near-constant state of flux. Some of the comments in that Stack Exchange thread also raise relevant concerns on why it might be difficult to explicitly state the specific objectives, including this one: Do you mean the declared objectives (what Russia said) or the likely objectives (that is what they really want to achieve) or the current objectives (adjusted with the account for the developing military and political situations)?. And just for good measure, per the exact wording of the request, a numbered list might imply some order of priority/importance for which it would be hard to establish consensus, so maybe an unordered list, if any, will do. Benjamin112 ☎ 06:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe but let's bear in mind that the nature of the demands both explicit and implicit has been changing. For instance, when Putin claimed that there was a need to prevent "genocide" that seems to imply a demand of "no genocide" against ethnic Russians, which is IMO such an increase from "stop persecuting Donbass/ethnic Russians". Ideally then any such statement of objectives would include the date the assertion was made, which will be readily available iff WP:RS is being complied with. Another consideration would be to qualify any such stated objective, eg., prevention of alleged genocide risk. Well this is one prickly porcupine of a bear, to mix metaphors...Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Wikidgood (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• To summarise the comments. We are already capturing the main points and the subject is also a moving feast. We might revisit things further down the track. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

South Ossetia

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

---

South Ossetia (as state) and its military forces do not take action in this war. There is some misunderstandings and loss in translations of SO-President's words and in usages of White-Red-Yellow flags.

1. They can be common Russian citizens, SO-born Russian citizens, and SO-born SO-citizens on Russian service (Russia allows foreigners to be enlisted) from 4th military base of 58th Army[14][15] deployed in SO, or from other units of 58th Army deployed in Russian North Ossetia. It is not uncommon for ethnocentric units (especially from the Caucasian region) to use ethnic flags unofficially. WRY flag is ethnographic flag for Ossetian, it is used both in SO and NO. So these are Russian troops.
2. They can be SO volunteers. So these are volunteer forces, not official state military forces.

Alex Spade (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Or not, which is why we say what RS say, so what do RS say about this? Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

RS? Alex Spade (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Short for Reliable Source with the WP:RS shortcut link. --N8_wilson 12:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Known sources are based on citing of SO president and interpretations of his words. He said about military personnel from SO indeed, but he didn't specify state of their service.

His press service and some sources (for example, mentioned by me in article and in p.1 of my comment on 10:01) specify that he said about Ossetians on Russian military service .

I did not find reliable sources specifying that he had said about Ossetians from Armed Forces of South Ossetia. Alex Spade (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. If South Ossetia the state is not participating, what are these articles talking about?

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/26/georgias-breakaway-region-sends-troops-to-ukraine-a77094

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/georgian-breakaway-region-says-it-sent-troops-to-ukraine-to-help-protect-russia/

Aren't these articles pretty directly stating that they're taking part? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Both sources do not say anything about Armed Forces of South Ossetia. South Ossetians ("our guys" in words of SO president)(representatives of ethnos, not state) are taking part indeed. But they are from the Russian forces (they are South Ossetians with Russian citizenship or on Russian service), not from the SO forces. Alex Spade (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

For similar example, see Nepali Gurkha, which are recruited for both Nepali Army and other armies. Alex Spade (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Alex Spades own statements do not refute what the souces provided say, he has yet to provide any link to back up his claims. As such South Ossetia should be added back to the pro-Russian side of the belligerents in the infobox. See here for an article from yesterday quoting the South Ossetian president directly on the issue. [16]XavierGreen (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have give two sources (lets repeat them) [17][18] (both of them are in the begging of this topic and in the respective section of article) with explanation of involvement of South Ossetians (representatives of ethnos, not state) as troopers from Russian Armed Forces, not from Armed Forces of South Ossetia. Your source says the same thing clearly: these are Russian men and SO (service)men on Russian service, these are the Russian Armed Forces, not Armed Forces of South Ossetia - see quotes "Russia’s 4th military base..., including local contractors...", "Russian troops, as well as South Ossetian servicemen", and "I [Bibilov] am not the one who gave the order to the 4th military base, because it is the Russian army...". Alex Spade (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your source in template cites same old/initial words of SO president or links to TMT article before they were clarified, and which had discussed on this topic already, there is nothing new about Armed Forces of South Ossetia. The real new in this news is that South Ossetia has officially applied(*) for membership to the Russian Federation - that is the other quesion, not about involvement of military forces. Alex Spade (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
(*) SO has not applied, it has just plan to apply after possible referendum in some near future[19]. Alex Spade (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Alex Spade. I think the reason that this is a bit odd/difficult to understand is because South Ossetia is population 50k, so they don't have an army or anything like that, they have a handful of troops, who for the sake of convenience were integrated in to the Russian Army, and who are thus commanded by the Russian army. So yes, South Ossetian troops are going to Ukraine but it wasn't South Ossetia that decided to send them, it was Moscow. In this way it's not radically different than the Syrians, there are many Syrians going to fight in Ukraine, but they are going as part of the Russian army, not Syrian army (if such a thing still exists). Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I can understand, that Ru/SO sources are questionable or difficult to understanding (because they are writing in Russian). But civil.ge (in English) site mentioned by XavierGreen says the same. This report is similar to RBC report, that one is similar to JAM report. There is also good article about the Ru-SO military deal, signed in 2017. Alex Spade (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is there a consensus here that South Ossetia is not acting as a "state"? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Should we continue to report equipment losses in the infobox?

The proposal is to remove the equipment losses from the infobox in consideration of the following reasons:

• Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the details in an infobox (with few exception) should summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored ... Equipment losses are not discussed in the body of the article. They do not fall to an acknowledged exception broadly construed.
• The reports of losses give individual reports from different sources. The losses are not reported in summary form per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.
• Having asked above and as far as I can see, equipment losses are not so "significant" that they are reported elsewhere in other articles related to and arising from the invasion. There is no evidence from usage in other articles on the invasion that this is a useful or significant metric.
• I believe that readers give particular credibility to figures given in infoboxes. The reports we have vary widely and are not particularly credible for the most part. We are not meeting the social contract we have with our readers.
• Infoboxes lack the capacity of prose to capture nuance.
• Ukraine aircraft losses appear reasonably credible since they are base on an analysis of several sources. However, it lacks a comparative counterpoint of similar reliability for Russian aircraft losses. It would suggest there are no Russian aircraft losses. It lacks balance.
• Template:Infobox military conflict would advise: Where equipment losses are reported, this should be confined to major or significant types of equipment broadly categorized such as: tanks, guns (artillery pieces), aircraft, destroyers etc. While tanks, trucks, mounted equipment and other heavy gear are a summary, not all equipment so broadly defined is significant, in accordance with documentation guidance. Given the rate at which such equipment appears to be being exchanged, it is questionable if any such equipment should be considered "significant".

What is news-worthy is not necessary article-worthy per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There appear to be good reasons why these equipment losses are not infobox-worthy. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have notified this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Not really, as its all a tad trivial (in terms of being trivia). Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• I support removing all equipment losses from the infobox for several of the reasons given above, in particular the first and last bullet points. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support removing equipment losses. I think equipment losses are relevant, but the sources aren't great. I could be persuaded to keep them if just the numbers from a 3rd party source like Oryx were included, but Oryx's inclusion has proven controversial in the past. But Russia and Ukraine are clearly inflating numbers so I'm not really sure what the reader gets from seeing in the infobox that Russia claims 4,300 vehicles destroyed, other than the false impression that Russia's destroyed 4,300 combat vehicles. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support removing equipment losses from infobox. But keeping independent/3rd party estimates like by the US regarding Ukraine's aircraft losses somewhere else in the main body of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support removing equipment losses for now; the reasoning given by the nominator is very solid. Furthermore, I'll take this opportunity to point out that "vehicles and other military equipment" is an absolutely meaningless descriptor at least for me, as "other military equipment" could mean anything from a soldier's individual firearm to an artillery pieces. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I support removing equipment losses. I would support keeping total numbers of manned aircraft and/or major naval vessels as these are major sources of missiles. KD0710 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The Economist just published Oryx's new numbers which as per some other thread's conensus means that Oryx can then be used, so I updated Equipment losses with Oryx's number via The Economist. I would say that Oryx does solve a number of these problems, they break down equipment in to type ie: "x tanks, y amoured vehicles, z aircraft", they include for both sides they tend on the conservative range ie they only count a loss if they have conclusive video/photographic evidence and their numbers aren't extravagant exaggerations. Also re: lack of balance to aircraft losses, I found Oryx fixed-wing aircraft losses quoted by Newsweek article for both sides, while this doesn't mirror the US estimates for both it at least gets an aircraft estimate down for Russia. So I added these also to both sides. I would say that it looks half decent now:

(For Russia) Acc. to ind. researchers (30 March):[20][21] 71+ fixed-wing aircraft, 153+ tanks, 312+ amoured vehicles

(For Ukraine) Acc. to ind. researchers (30 March):[20][21] 25+ fixed-wing aircraft, 26+ tanks, 57+ amoured vehicles

I think alternatively we could axe the Russian and Ukrainian estimates as being not particularly useful both due to likely exaggeration and "vehicles and other military equipment" being meaningless, which would dramatically cut down on space, then keep the independent estimates as well as US estimates, keep the drop down and call it a day. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the US source cited by the BBC (as used in the infobox for Ukranian fighter losses) the Oryx page is described as a blog. Blogs are not a WP:RS for facts such as these. That the Economist cites Oryx as its primary source does not legitimise the Oryx page. Regardless, a series of random factoids in the infobox lack context. There is no context provided within this article or any other as far as I can tell. Why are these figures important to report here? How is this consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree necessarily, but I guess I think an independent 3rd party source for equipment losses is more relevant than Russia claiming its destroyed 5,300 Ukrainian vehicles, or Ukraine claiming three weeks ago that they've lost 1,200 soldiers. For that matter as time moves on I'm more partial to Slatersteven's argument that it's all WP:RECENTISM and that Wiki isn't a newspaper. How is any of it consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE for that matter it's just as consistent as personnel losses which are meaningless in a vacuum, or Ukrainian and Russian reported losses. I guess what I'm saying is that it's all random factoids, it's like during the Vietnam war when the US posted inflated Vietnamese casualty numbers as if that were the metric the war would be decided by.

As for how it describes it self WP:RS states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." It's considered an expert on open source reporting of battle field losses, and is published by a slew of reliable independent publications such as The Economist, Business Insider, News Week, Forbes etc. Beyond that taking "indpendent analysts" or "researchers" or whatever in the BBC as being A ok, seems a bit of wishful thinking, ie that it's not Oryx or some similar group. We want an independent source, so we look for independent source, because not knowing the actual source of the information then gives it plausible deniability for including what you have termed to be a blog: if the Economist said "independent analysts" instead of "Oryx" with the same info from Oryx there'd be no issue ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think that's probably also the case with other estimates such as US and NATO estimates with a bit of wishful thinking as to how accurate the estimates are. Keep the map, put heavy under losses, and that peace seems unlikely and we'll have conveyed about as much as we can confidently say, whilst giving a good summary of the current situation. But if we're going to be posting numbers I think it would be better if they were at least somewhat objective in their reporting, and without an obvious bias leading to unbelievably high/low figures. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you per casualties. Casualties in the infobox fail for much the same reasons as my OP for this section. Two wrongs (casualties and losses) don't make a right. There is, however, a casualty section in this article where nuance can be dealt with. IMHO, the best course for casualties would to say in the infobox "Reports vary - see section XX" (or similar) or to omit the parameter from the infobox since it is an optional parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think at this point, considering how allied NATO/US have become with Ukraine, that they could no longer be really considered as a 3rd party source at this time. Especially considering that it seems at this point they are aligning a lot with Ukrainian estimates, while independent analysts still point out they are very likely overblown. If we are removing NATO/US estimates, we should at least leave the self-admitted casualty losses, which are at least a confirmed minimum, while providing an expanded link to the other higher estimates as suggested by Cinderella157. EkoGraf (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

References

On official denials we seem to be leaving out a piece of the story

CURRENT VERSION: The United States and others accused Russia of planning to attack or invade Ukraine, which Russian officials repeatedly denied as late as 23 February 2022.[48] Sorry I don't have RS at the tip of my fingers, but it seems like this sentence does not do full justice to the recent post facto denials by a Russian spokesperson that Russia invaded Ukraine. Long after 2/23/22 and in fact long after 2/24/22. Maybe that is not notable in the view of some folks but it seems to warrant consideration. Thank you. Wikidgood (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The article has two preface sections which cover the lead up to the declaration of the invasion and the invasion itself. Putin's preference was to call it a "special military operation" which is documented with citations in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is there any action required here? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

No source for this "four theatres" of battle construct

CURRENT VERSION: " Four major war theatres developed: the Kyiv offensive, the Northeastern Ukraine offensive, the Eastern Ukraine offensive, and the Southern Ukraine offensive. " Sounds like synthesis/original research. I have spent hundreds of hours listening to the commentaries and reading articles but must have missed this one. If there is an RS for that hypothesis let's have it. The article then goes on to list specific sites of attack, without speculatively framing it as "x number of theatres", and then seems to suggest that it is actually a fifth theatre given the attacks in the west. I think the article is better off without injecting a theoretics without RS. Wikidgood (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Adapt language in lead section to be consistent with Invasion section description of military battle fronts and not war theaters. Keep lead consistent with main article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm also a bit concerned about this, but the sources are a unclear at this time. I suggested a related merge, but it looks unlikely to succeed. Jr8825 • Talk 14:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep all 4 Now that the theatres have settled into stalemate, I think that we can be reasonably happy with them as they stand. I thought that the Kyiv and the Northwestern theatres would merge which would in turn warrant the creation of a merged entity; since that now seems unlikely, I think that the status quo should prevail. There is a minimum level of OR which makes them more readable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  The minimum level of acceptable OR is no original research. If there's no reliable source for it, it gets removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with Mr rnddude: Delete

  And I add my own Delete

  But rather than a mere numerical tally,

  I don't even buy that there are four definable or even discernible "theatres". Is that in the Russian war plan? Is that construct advanced by even one single "analyst", anywhere?

  Are there not five, or three, or six "theaters"?

  What exactly constitutes a "theater of warfare"?

  Is there even a WP article on that or even a Wiktionary entry?

  Who first ever used the term "theater of war"?

  OK so I am a bit rusty on WP so I am taking it slow but this looks like unsubstantiated OR. Please advise, and thank you to everyone who is weighing in whether or not we agree on this technical matter. Wikidgood (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Answering my own question voia WP: On War, Carl von Clausewitz defines the term Kriegstheater (translating the older, 17th-century Latin term theatrum belli) as one that: Denotes properly such a portion of the space over which war prevails as has its boundaries protected, and thus possesses a kind of independence. This protection may consist of fortresses, or important natural obstacles presented by the country, or even in its being separated by a considerable distance from the rest of the space embraced in the war." But mapping the entire Ukraine war going on now onto four discrete "theaters", not five, not three seems like pure speculation with no RS. Aside from the OR issue it does not seem to be appropriate. OK so that is my two cents I await the wise consideration of my colleagues, thank you. Wikidgood (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  The references in the lead section to "theaters" was changed over by me early this morning to "military invasion fronts" in order to be consistent with the Invasion sections of this article. Suggesting that this be applied to all parts of this article, that all instances of "theatre" be changed over to 'military invasion front' throughout the article for consistency with the Invasion sections of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  The Institute for the Study of War has a source for the statement. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is pure semantics. There is no practical difference between "theatre" and "front" in this war. In WW2, a theatre had many fronts. Not so here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• This appears to have been resolved by edit? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents (New thread on: WAGNER/CHECHENS

OK so at what point does the Wagner Group,or at least the Chechens/Kadrovites, warrant inclusion? These are actually two separate issues as the nature of these forces is different and distinct AFAIK. Specifically, the Wagner forces could be analogized to, say, Blackwater as it may or may not be mentioned on other WP conflict articles - privately funded with unknown precise relationship to the command structure. Whereas it seems that the Chechens are more readily regarded as a distinct quasi-state actor, or, at least, a belligerent from a separate state entity. (Whether or not one regards Chechnya as truly independent of Moscow is not relevant considering that Belarus is hardly more independent.) My inclination would be to include them but I will certainly yield to consensus. Wikidgood (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Kadyrovites are a branch of the National Guard of Russia and thus they are not separate from Russia and they have already been included in Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as part of Russia's regular forces. Chechnya is also internationally recognized as one of 21 republics of Russia (excluding Crimea). As for the Wagner Group, that question was already discussed three times previously (check archived discussions), and each time the consensus was not to include them as separate from Russia since they are a subcontractor (mercenary unit) that is under direct Russian command and is listed as such as well at the Order of battle. Also, Blackwater or any of the dozens of other private military contractors were never listed as separate entities from the US in the Iraq War, since they acted mostly under the command and direction of the US DoD (per their contracts) and we only listed the overall strength number of contractors involved in the war. So the only thing I would support is adding the strength number of the Wagner Group to the infobox (1,000) since the currently included Russian number of 175,000-190,000 refers only to their regular forces (which Wagner is not). EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. I wonder though if the role of Chechen detachment is different and more salient than the other 20 republics of the RF. If so, it seems that should be indicated some way. If the RF detachments draw from all 21 then obviously it would not matter one way or another. Wikidgood (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Only in an historical context of the war in Chechnia, I would say. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

Hello fellows, I suggest we change the opening sentence to match the article name as follows

"The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an ongoing military conflict that began on 24 February 2022."

Your comments are welcome! Thank you Duck Dawny (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Support I think this is a good change, the current opening sentence is very short and awkward, and (as you point out) doesn't include the title. Toadspike (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm content with both the current and proposed versions, although I prefer the current (non-bolded) sentence as it's less clunky and repetitious (try saying "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an ongoing military conflict that began on 24 February 2022", and then compare that to the current version). The only real advantage of the proposal is that it fits in a bold title, but this is less important than natural phrasing. Jr8825 • Talk 16:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  could "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February. Internationally considered an act of aggression..." work? it sounds fairly natural, but I could see how it's still a bit clunky.

  – DirkJandeGeer щи 16:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons brought up by Jr8825. I don't think the opening sentence is great either, but I think this proposal would be a step down from what is already there. We don't need to have the bold title on every page. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Consistency between articles is important. Unless there are particular aspects of this conflict that make certain phrasings impractical, the article should look similar to those of other (ongoing) military conflicts. Both User:Duck_Dawny's and User:DirkJandeGeer's proposals look fine. Ornilnas (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed my support, as E points out that the invasion's current name is probably a temporary one. Ornilnas (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Support - Please. The current opening sentence doesn't actually explain the article topic; it reads like it could be a random historical fact. The suggested sentence or something similar is more appropriate per MOS:FIRST. I did make an attempt to change within the current structure to at least make the invasion itself the subject of the sentence, but this was changed back. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jr8825 above. — Czello 11:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support The first sentence must follow standard set by other articles. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Don't make stuff up. If you're going to claim a 'must', cite policy. MOS favours using the article title in the lead, but it is not obligatory. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose For some reason people have the idea that articles are required to open by robotically barfing out their titles. They don't -- see MOS:FIRST. This event doesn't even have an agreed-upon formal name yet (like World War II or Crimean War), much less one that should be featured in bold. Just leave it be. EEng 01:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • They don't have to open by barfing their titles, but the subject of the article should be the subject of the first sentence, which should ideally then describe what the article topic is. The current first sentence has "Russia" as its subject rather than its invasion, and is a statement of face rather than a description of the topic. Although the current first sentence may implicitly convey the article topic, it does not actually describe it, it just makes a statement and then leaves the user to intuit that this is to be understood as a description of the topic of the article they have started reading. This is a bad way to structure a lead. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per EEng. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support DirkJandeGeer's version ("The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February..."). I think, leaving aside the bolding issue, it reads the best of all the alternatives. Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

1. Under the section 6.4 Other Legal Proceedings, add France, Norway and Ukraine to the countries which have opened domestic investigations of alleged Russian war crimes. Source for France: https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/2022/03/16/france-opens-war-crime-investigation-into-death-of-fox-news-cameraman/ Source for Norway (in Norwegian): https://www.politiforum.no/krigen-i-ukraina-kripos-kristin-kvigne/kripos-bidrar-med-etterforskning-av-krigsforbrytelser-i-ukraina/224244 Source for Ukraine: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220323-ukraine-prosecutor-probes-war-crimes-in-fog-of-war

2. I previously suggested, and now do it again, to instead of "the Baltic states" write the countries, i.e. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The editor replied "Adding all the Baltic states to the list was adding too many". I find that an absurd argument. Three more countries are now added, and the list should include all countries, instead of unofficial geopolitical terms to group some of them together.

/2022-04-01 31.209.52.211 (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I have changed "Baltic States" to Lithuania and Estonia, since only these two were referred to in the cited sources. I have also edited to "countries including". An exhaustive list would fall to WP:NOTEVERYTHING here and is best covered more comprehensively at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine‎. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

About linking Russia, Ukraine, and invasion

I have added the links, as well as the invisible messages, to include links to Russia, Ukraine, and invasion. I do not understand what is so difficult with letting these encyclopedically relevant words to stay linked. As the opening lede sentence was reworded, I decided to move the "Invasion" link to the second paragraph, where "the invasion" is first mentioned. There are no WP:SEAOFBLUE violations now. Per MOS:OL countries should generally not be linked, but because the gist of the entire article is about these two nations, I'm glad people accepted the note, as it would be completely baffling to remove them. As for linking invasion, I still strongly stand by linking it, again with the same logic as the previous links: the word is by far the most relevant word of the entire article, and not linking it is an enormous encyclopedic fail in my eyes, as we disregard providing readers with relevant content. It doesn't matter if some deny the military operation as being an invasion, as it is internationally regarded as being one. Is there ANY other article in all of Wikipedia where "invasion" is more worthy of being linked than here? Wretchskull (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't link those words. The whole point of linking words is for people to "[establish] relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully" (WP:UL) Most links just compete for the viewers attention.

• "Per MOS:OL countries should generally not be linked, but because the gist of the entire article is about these two nations..." The entire article is about those countries...
• "As with invasion... [it's] providing readers with relevant content'' No, it's not, a 2015 study found that most links aren't even clicked on, and if they do, it's very rarely. It's not about a word's "worthiness" of being linked, it's if they're going to help the reader understsnd the article.

— I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 03:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@I'ma editor2022: I still stand by what I commented.

• "The entire article is about those countries..." - Indeed, they are obviously relevant and therefore should be linked.
• "a 2015 study..." No. I've already read the study, and it is about ALL links, and NOT about every scenario; and, as you stated, most links are not clicked, but with very good exceptions. It would be dumb to link general words in an unrelated article, as they are borderline disruptive to the reader and people rarely click them. But if it's relevant, it would be foolish not to. In fact, the pageviews of invasion skyrocketed when I added the link (and yes, I made sure these weren't the views corresponding with the late-February view-boom following the invasion), though it was continuously removed due to (at least what I perceive) lack of understanding about linking. Wretchskull (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• "In fact, the pageviews of invasion skyrocketed when I added the link" Actually, it did not. I looked at your editing activity on this page (with this tool), and if there was any correspondence with the page viewership of the page Invasion (seen here), and there was almost none. Since 24th of February, page viewerships of the page Invasion has gone down and only went up on the 26th, right after you apparently add those links (but that difference was only around ~300 views and quickly went back down). Even when you added the links back, the page views stayed around the same, so I'm not sure what you mean "skyroocketed". Also, it may be helpful to (preferably permalink) link the data and source used?
• The 2015 study was about all links, but also mentioned specifically about links on Wikipedia on page 1 of the PDF. And, as I believe is stated from the study, links upon links and links only distracts the readers attention, so the reader rarely clicks on those. The article has A LOT of links, which I believe no more links should be added as it is VERY distracting for literally anyone reading it.
• "Per MOS:OL, countries should GENERALLY not be linked, but because they are the focal point of the article, they should be." Please read the section you linked to. The guidline you linked to states "What generally should not be linked...[are] names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar." Reaaders will obviously be familiar with those countries, so i don't understand why you think they should be linked to when the guidline you stated says otherwise. Explain? — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 19:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  There's unfortunately nothing fruitful in this conversation as it seems like a back and forth argument. I'll try to wrap this up and clear my point of view. I'm honestly not sure about exact figures when I added the link, and I could very well be mistaken. Regardless, even if no one clicks the links, many (I see myself and others around me using Wikipedia doing so) still hover their mouse over them and get explanations of the subject from the target article's lede more often than clicking them. I know this is just anecdotal, but it is logical considering that the opening sentences give a good idea of what the linked thing is. As for countries, again, read the guideline: that generic words, like countries, should GENERALLY not be linked. There is a reason why it doesn't say that they should "never" be linked. "Generally" by its very definition permits leniency, and this article is an excellent example of why the three words should be linked; they're RELEVANT, and I highly doubt they disrupt reading. The article is entirely about Russia, Ukraine and an invasion, so of course they should be linked, as they are the focal point of the article. It's the same reason we always link the artists of a song or composition or painting; they're relevant to the subject. We cannot attest that something shouldn't be done if it clearly supplements readers with valuable encyclopedic info, and even if the guideline was much more rigid as to ban linking countries completely, then the guideline is simply wrong and it should be revised. Wretchskull (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  You have a valid point, as it seems like as long as it's not linked twice in the article it's not a problem. However, you probably shouldn't keep relinking them to the article, as it seems like editors will keep reverting the edits, and it's not very important anyways. And also forgive me if seems like I was WP:LAWYERING. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Wretchskull: did you search the talk page archives before starting this discussion? In case you missed them, this was discussed twice previously, most recently here. I remain opposed to linking "invasion" for the same reasons I gave in the previous discussions, but accept it's a relatively minor issue. Jr8825 • Talk 23:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• As noted, this is the third such recent discussion on this. I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard requesting an intervention that will hopefully put this to bed once and for all. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  AN isn't the right venue for this kind of thing. Given that there's no real disruption, an WP:RfC is the only suitable mechanism I can think of, but it would be a bit much starting a community discussion over a handful of wikilinks. The best option is probably to just let sleeping dogs lie – yes, the last discussion's outcome has been largely overridden, but we can continue the discussion here if editors are particularly bothered, or try to resolve it by editing. It's only when things become disruptive/end in deliberate edit warring that external intervention is really necessary. Jr8825 • Talk 09:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's been weeks and no one has removed the links. I think the dust has thankfully settled. Also, yeah, RfC is not necessary. Wretchskull (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Actually the 'invasion' wikilink has been removed on multiple occasions. I for one removed it after the most recent discussion as there appeared to be a tentative numerical majority in favour of scrapping it, but someone has since put it back. As long as it's not in the very first lead sentence I can live with it. Jr8825 • Talk 09:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  An RfC seems sensible. For reasons given previously, I don't think we should be linking to "invasion". Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

President Lukashenko's blunder

Early on in the war, the Belarus president let slip that president Putin intended to invade Moldova after he had conquered Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/world/europe/ukraine-moldova-russia-invasion.html, another source that mentions the Belarusian president's accidental disclosure of plans to invade Moldova next. 208.125.143.178 (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Ukraine striking Russian territory

If news reports are to be believed, the Ukrainian military has begun performing strikes outside of Ukraine and inside Russian territory. Obviously, these strikes and any futures of the same kind would constitute a part of this same conflict - should we perhaps update our diagrams of the conflict here to be able to include incidents on Russian soil near the border? 82.15.196.46 (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think so yes. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are talking about changing the main image of the article, then you should make a request at on Commons file. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There appear to be multiple international news sources confirming this as an extension of the Kharkiv military front. Adding to Kharkiv military front section as documented by BBC and AlJazeera. It seems to be 2 helicopters from Ukraine attacking a fuel depot in Belgorod. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It also appears Ukraine has denied it [[20]]. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek is also reporting that it might be a false flag operation here: [21]. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSWEEK: they should not be used for this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Here is the Fox News version of the false flag situation here: [22]. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I hardly think Fox News is a more reliable source. Regardless, does whether it is a false flag or not actually impact whether this is an extension of the conflict? (Would a strike by a state on itself to mislead in an ongoing conflict be considered a part of that conflict?) BlackholeWA (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like both versions of the report are now included. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know but if Ukraine actually did attack, Russia will do something back and it won't be pretty. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You miss the point. Russia is already doing something, and has been for a month, and it's already not pretty. This new event (whether Ukraine actually did it, or Russia did it to itself) will just give Russia a new excuse for what they've been doing anyway, and will continue to do anyway, regardless. EEng 02:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

US confirms [23]. And even if they didn't, we already had another Ukrainian attack at Belgorod a week ago [24]. So I think its safe to say there has been a spillover and to add it to the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Map is useless for color-blind people

I have the most common form of color deficiency (green-weak), which afflicts something like 10 percent of men in the world. The map in the main box is utterly useless, using two colors that look identical to me.Acsenray (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely needs to be fixed. I'll copy-paste your comment on commons:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg EvergreenFir (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Acsenray and EvergreenFir, there is a colorblind-friendly map here. I definitely think it would be wise to establish consensus so that the map can be changed, although it needs to be updated. Wretchskull (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I've created a request on the talk page to see if there is consensus for the change. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The two maps seem to show the situation North of Kyiv as being drastically different - probably needs some serious source checking to determine which one is actually reliable to the current state of the conflict. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There is the one map of Kiev in the Northern front section, and where is the second map of Kiev. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I think switching to a blue/yellow scheme would be best, for WP:NPOV reasons. Are those colours suitable for colour-blind people? BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree 73.126.133.15 (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Even for people with tritanopia. But why blue and yellow? What shade of blue are you suggesting that can be distinguished from the bodies of water? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and for reference, here's a side-by-side comparison of the current map and the proposed recoloring. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Current map

Proposed recoloring (map may be outdated)

Mainly to avoid the use of red and green, as they suggest "bad" and "good". However, you have a good point about the issue with using blue. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The alternative map looks better. >>> Extorc.talk(); 08:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

We should ensure the map has legends for accessibility. I'm looking through MOS:COLOR, and it seems it has some tips on maps and charts:

"Additional tools can be used to help produce graphical charts and color schemes for maps and the like. These tools are not accurate means to review contrast accessibility, but they can be helpful for specific tasks."

"Color Brewer 2.0 provides safe color schemes for maps and detailed explanations."

"Light qualitative color scheme provides a set of nine colors that work for color-blind users and with black text labels (among other palettes)."

It also has some links to webtools that simulate colourblindness. I'd suggest investigating possibilities with these tools before making a decision.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If we do change to a colourblind friendly palette, can we choose one that is easier on the eyes in general? The spoiled milk bright yellow and slightly sickening off-red (that together like blood in custard) on the currently proposed version sort of makes me want to vomit. The current, "warmer" version looks nicer, but if it needs to be colourblind friendly I am sure we can find a palette with more agreeable hues. BlackholeWA (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Colourblind perception of colours is a matter of contrast (a bit like distinctions in a greyscale). I think the issue is that "warmer" colours lack the contrast that can be perceived. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia orders the deletion of this page

The Russian government is threatening to fine Wikipedia if it doesn't remove content that contradicts its narrative about the war in Ukraine.

Communications regulator Roskomnadzor announced on Thursday that it had asked the online encyclopedia to remove a page containing "unreliable socially significant materials, as well as other prohibited information" about its operations in Ukraine, according to an English translation. It accused the site of intentionally misinforming Russian users.

Are Russians able to get any real news about what's going in Ukraine? It said it could fine Wikipedia up to 4 million rubles, or nearly $47,000, for failing to remove those materials, which are illegal under Russian law.

Russia enacted legislation last month that criminalizes war reporting that doesn't echo the Kremlin's version of events — including by calling it a war. The law has forced most of Russia's remaining independent news outlets to close and many journalists to leave the country for fear of facing up to 15 years in prison.

Wikipedia, please make a public statement on this. And include this old Ukrainian proverb:

ɟʅǝsɹnoʎ ǝsɐɥɔ oɓ ʻʇɐɹɔoʇnɐ uɐᴉssnꓤ

2601:647:5800:3AB0:E17A:D7E8:2C41:1760 (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@2601:647:5800:3AB0:E17A:D7E8:2C41:176 2409:4042:2016:DC16:0:0:145B:E8AD (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

An anynomous IP is would not pass wp:rs. Please provide a reliable source. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

On 1 March, Roskomnadzor demanded that ru.Wikipedia comply with Russia's narrative about the "special security operation," with a threat of blocking. Now they are demanding that en.Wikipedia must remove "unreliable socially significant materials, as well as other prohibited information" from this article or face a 4 million ruble (US$47,000) fine. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

So not THIS page, but the Rusisan language one. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The NPR article links to the en.Wikipedia page. The 2nd warning letter from Roskomnadzor just says Wikipedia. It does not specify language. The foundation's response mentions the English-language version for its 11 million page views and implies that it views the 99+ versions collectively. Other sources (e.g. Newsweek) read this differently. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia reserves the right to fine any organisation operating in their territory. Not like the west didnt ban RT but continue to allow their propaganda services but okay. BritishToff (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The NPR article links to the en.Wikipedia page - this is just interpretation by NPR, which is strange for me. RKN does not define specific page or pages in press-release about possible 4 mln fine. Ru-Wiki supposes, that RKN is talking about ru:Вторжение России на Украину (2022) - it is the only page about RU-UA conflict, which is or was in RKN official registers of prohibited information (see ru:ВП:ЗАПРЕТ). Alex Spade (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Currently 1+5 articles about RU-UA conflict were/are in RKN official registers of prohibited information, but all of them are from Ru-wiki only. Alex Spade (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Content to this effect has already been added to the article. To the OP request, this is not the place to address correspondence to the Wikimedia Foundation. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

References

• Sounds like we're doing something right. EEng 12:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Roskomnadzor "orders" Wikipedia to censor itself

This should be added to the censorship section, I don't have the privilege (yet): https://www.reuters.com/technology/russia-threatens-fine-wikipedia-if-it-doesnt-delete-false-information-2022-04-05/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Børnyard (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this not already being discussed above? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Please rember to sign your comments with 4 tildes. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 00:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Like people who don't know to sign know what a tilde is. EEng 19:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Kreminna

As Ukraine reported it, on 11 March 2022, a Russian tank shelled a nursing home in Kreminna and killed 56 people. 15 survivors would have been basically deported to a Russian-held locality, Svatove [25] [26]. This event is one of the deadliest single attacks on civilians that have occurred in the war, being only surpassed by the Mariupol theatre airstrike. I think it could have a page, but I am not sure of its notability. Not many sources after the initial report have been published about the event, so I would like to hear the opinion of some users. Super Ψ Dro 07:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can cite to independent, reliable sources, this fact could be inserted into this article.

This fact is too narrow to deserve its own, separate page. Pechmerle (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Perchmerle, this event, though very serious, should be included on this page not as a separate event with its own page. This event is part and parcel to the ongoing conflict and really is not a standalone event. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we be hyperlinking presidential offices?

There's been some back and forth over whether the offices of President of Russia and President of Ukraine should be hyperlinked in the lead. In my opinion, these hyperlinks are unnecessary because they're not critical to understanding the article and it goes against MOS:SEAOFBLUE because they're too close to the Putin and Zelenskyy hyperlinks. It's simpler to just call Putin the "Russian president" on first reference and Zelenskyy the "Ukranian president" on first reference. Bluerules (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it's a bit excessive. I don't see these links being necessary for understanding -- not everything that can be linked should be. — Czello 21:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Also agree, as it just confuses the reader and draws attention from the actual text — or genuinely helpful links _{that secretly leaves people going through rabbit holes for hours😈} — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 22:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It confuses the reader? How exactly? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

When I stated "it confuses the reader", I meant the execessive linking may just inundate the reader and thus the reader just may choose to ignore all hyperlinked words, defeating the purpose (which is that the linked article will "... help readers understand the article more fully" — see MOS:LINKEXAMPLES) — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 02:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"A bit excessive"? Really? I could point to 16 links that I find excessive. Why these offices I particular? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If you say there are other excessive links, the solution clearly isn't to have more than we need. — Czello 22:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged — exactly. The whole point of hyperlinking is that the reader will either preview it or click on it so that they can better understand the article more extensively. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 02:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

In the interests of allowing the reader to better understand the article more extensively, wikilinks to relevant terms are useful. For example the President of Russia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Not really, when we have a whole bunch of extremely distracting blue links around it, which decreases the likeliness of anybody clicking on them. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Putin is president of many things in Russia: Judo Association, Bareback Riding Club etc. But it's as President of Russia that we are primarily interested in him I this article. It's notable and relevant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be evident to readers that Putin is Russia's head of state without hyperlinking it. He would not be relevant to the article if he was only the president of an athletic club. He should be identified as the Russian president, but that doesn't need to be hyperlinked to identify him as such. I'm sure there are other hyperlinks that could be removed, but these stand out to me because they're right next to other hyperlinks and the wording can be trimmed. Bluerules (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be evident to readers that Russia is a large country in Asia that doesn't need to be hyperlinked to identify it as such. Yet it is hyperlinked. It should be evident to readers that Putin is Putin and so doesn't need to be hyperlinked to identify him as such. Yet he is hyperlinked. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be evident to readers that Russia is a large country in Asia ... - It shouldn't be as Russia (west of the Urals) is in Europe, it's capital city, Moscow, is in Europe, and the overwhelming majority of Russians live in Europe and are European. Perhaps that link is necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia and Putin are central components of this article. It's understandable why readers would want to know more about them. The generic office of the Russian president is not. It's not important what the Russian president is, it's important who the Russian president is. Bluerules (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The links to "president" were right next to the names of the two incumbents which were also linked. The primary interest will be about the two men and that link. If further information about the office is desired, it can be followed from the incumbent's page. Not everything that can be linked should be linked. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes - the primary interest will be about the two men. But not because they are good at basket weaving or bare-back horse riding. No. They are only of interest because of the high office of state that they hold. One hyperlink to each office is relevant, notable and not excessive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We are patently referring to the two men as the presidents (ie the leaders) of their two countries. However, if for some obscure reason a reader perceived that they were the heads of their two countries basket weaving bare-back riding guilds the links to the individuals would quickly dispel this. The link to the office is substantially less relevant than the link to the man and, in a see of blue, it is excessive. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Colleagues, what all of the above amounts to is a difference of opinion on style. There is no policy dispute. There is no SeaofBlue as the two links are comma separated. What we have here is just a case of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Using commas does not avoid SEAOFBLUE - the page itself says even if two connected geographic units are comma separated, the larger unit should not be hyperlinked. "I just don't like it" is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and there have been several reasons given for why we oppose hyperlinking the presidential offices. We have a consensus against these hyperlinks and we follow the consensus. Bluerules (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. And also, @Laurel Lodged: please remember that having shortcuts to parts of articles/essays/pages does not mean that it's a community guidline/policy, or vetted through the community — see WP:CONLEVEL. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 20:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We do not have a consensus, we have a difference of opinion. The seaofblue argument might carry more weight if it was not in an article that has Pacific sized links. One more scarcely matters. It contains useful information in an unobtrusive way. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus when a general agreement is reached. That is a policy. The general agreement is these offices should not be hyperlinked. It doesn't matter how many hyperlinks are already in the article, putting them too close to each other creates SEAOFBLUE. If we have too many hyperlinks, the solution is to remove the ones that aren't necessary, not add more.

The hyperlinks for the presidential offices are obtrusive because they're too close to the Putin and Zelenskyy hyperlinks and make the wording more awkward. I do not see how this information is useful because as I mentioned above, the offices aren't critical to understanding the article. Who holds these offices (Putin and Zelenskyy) is the important information. Bluerules (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

What about [this] as a creative compromise? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

My main focus is on the lead, not the body, but I disagree with that edit because it creates a piping issue. Readers are going to assume that hyperlink leads to Putin's article, not the President of Russia article. And we shouldn't be replacing Putin hyperlinks with President of Russia hyperlinks because the former is more important to the article. Bluerules (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Clear anti Ukrainian bias in the "Casualties and humanitarian impact" section.

The text in that section has a clearly biased emphasis on Ukrainian reported numbers not being trustworthy, but little on the Russian numbers being un-trustworthy! It relies far to much on a claim that Ukraine and "Western media" are spreading "misinformation" , but that Russia was only “probably” lying about their loses. It clearly downplays the Russian state's un-trustworthiness and the wildly false claims they have been making about Ukrainian loses (e.g their claims they have destroyed more TB-2 drones than Ukraine has or that they have wiped out Ukraine's airforce when they have not)!

It should be fixed to have a NPOV! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.116.104.165 (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The text at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Casualties is clearly saying that neither Ukrainian nor Russian casualty figures are particularly reliable and this information is sourced. There is no POV issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We also say Russias are not, thus there is no Bias. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue may be the level of emphasis on Ukrainian claims being dubious compared to Russian:

Ukrainian estimates tended to be high ; Ukraine's government was engaged in a misinformation campaign ; Ukraine also tended to be quieter about its own military fatalities ; Ukrainian claims of Russian fatalities were possibly including the injured as well ; Analysts warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as fact

compared against

Russian estimates of their own losses tended to be low ; Russia was "probably" downplaying its own casualties ; Russia wanted to downplay its losses.

The text refers to Ukrainian statements as "misinformation" and "warns about accepting [them] as fact", but by contrast only suggests that Russia is "downplay[ing]" the gravity of their situation. It does not come off as neutral. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Which seem to be semi quotes, and are attributed statements. This is what we have to do, reflect on what the sources are saying. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Balance is not equal. There is a fairly clear perception that Russian under-reporting and that Ukrainian figures are accurate. The statements address the imbalance in perceptions - neither of the belligerent's reports can be taken at face value. Cinderella157 (talk)

Agree with Cinderella157 and Slatersteven. No bias, presented both sides are engaging in possible overplaying or downplaying of losses, and cited to neutral 3rd party sources. EkoGraf (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

But it is clearly biased in how it is phrased! Fix it! 193.116.104.165 (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomenclature problems in related articles

There is a serious need for a concerted effort to control the spread of frivolous sub-articles on this subject. For instance, we know have articles for Battle of Slavutych and Battle of Chernobyl even though these events involved totally trivial levels of violence. The amount of fighting was not enough to warrant the battle format. Is there a constituency here that can reach consensus on this issue?Sredmash (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see this as a "serious need". Let the chips fall where they may, and in the fullness of time you can nominate some of these articles for deletion or merging. No hurry. EEng 12:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. For that matter, sieges use the battle template, and do some riots. I give you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vicksburg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street

kencf0618 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Abkhazia’s de-facto government officially provides military assistance to Russia in the invasion and should be listed under belligerents (similar to Belarus). The announcement was made by the de-facto Ministry of Defense.

Source: https://twitter.com/abkhaziap/status/1507365245362319368 Vancho (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The nature of the support is undefined. There is a clear consensus here that equipment supply is not included in the infobox. Without further clarification of the nature of the support and a better source than a tweet, we probably cannnot use this at all. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

For the present Abkhazia is ready to provide mil.support [27], if RF will ask for help. Currently there are not rel.sources, that Abkhazia provides it in reality. Alex Spade (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

More war crimes to be added

While exploring the liberated towns north of Kyiv, the Ukrainian army discovered a site of mass murder. At least 300 civilians had been killed, many with their hands tied up and bodies left littering the streets. GMRE (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been recently updated and expanded. All editors are welcome to help further improving that text. Once it's relatively stable and uncontroversial, or even before, I think we should re-write this article's section "6.3 War crimes", which basically hasn't been updated since the second week of March. Unfortunately there's lot of content that we should add there, as the reading of the new lead section makes clear. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the specific sub-article for detail of war crimes. This article should therefore summarise rather than duplicate War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That went through multiple sub-pages and got to the article Bucha massacre, which is about the exact thing I reported. GMRE (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

See also War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Mass killings of civilians in Bucha which has a hat note to the main article. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The new lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to be enough stable and established, and I'm wondering how to proceed in order to update the section "War Crimes" on this article. Basically I see two options (surely there are more): 1. Simply copy and paste the lead and replace the whole section here, adding a note on the talk page of the source article that copying has occurred; 2. Retaining the "Attributed to Russian authorities and forces/Attributed to Ukrainian authorities and forces structure", and adjust the contents accordingly. I slightly favour the second option, and if unopposed I intend to do so. Note that in both cases most of the contents now on (which unfortunately suffer from WP:MINORASPECT, given the scale of the war crimes) will be deleted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666, the option of essentially copying the lead from the main article sounds like an excellent course. Given that we have a main article for the subject, what is written here should only be a summary and we have a reasonable summary to hand in the lead. Moreover it is already pretty well all attributed to sources. With a little cross tweaking I think that all of the content here under "legal proceedings" could be written into War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and then, into the lead there with only minor changes. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Proposal to amend legal procedings/war crimes section using lead from War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Please see above suggestion by Gitz6666. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I've just added an updated section on War crimes. Please note the ongoing discussion on on how to account for the Bucha massacre in the lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox error on refugee dates

Sorry, for some reason that I don't understand, I can't find the article infobox to edit it. There is an error in the "4.1 million+ refugees and 6.5 million internally displaced persons" line towards the bottom, under "Acc. to the UN (21 March)" , actually only the displaced persons figure is from 21 March - the 4.1 million+ refugees is actually 2nd April, and because the source is a daily updated UNHCR figure, the link will always be up to date, even when our text isn't. Since I don't believe the displaced figure has gone up significantly, it might be better to list all UNHCR figures as 'current date'. Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is outdated at "Strength"

• I can remember hearing and reading on the news that Russia also got something like 20'000 additional soldiers from Syria to join the war.
• And Armenia has sent some number of their Su-30 fighters (along with pilots) to join the war on Russias side.
• And something in the range of 2000 soldiers have been sent from the russian occupation forces in northern Georgia. Recently something like 300 of them were reported to have deserted. This shouldn't really count separately from the russian military, but since the infobox already lists the other puppet states separately, why not this one too?

GMRE (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, IMHO we should only be reporting the initial strengths and noting that in the infobox. Firstly, both sides have incurred losses but there is no way to accurately estimate these. We know that both sides have received volunteers but we certainly cannot be certain that such reports are complete. We also know that Russia is presently relieving some of its forces with fresh troops that may not add to the number of troops on the ground (peak strength) but would certainly add to the total committed. We do not know with certainty the full extent that Russia has reinforced its initial force (besides a couple of reports such as the Wagner Group) but it would be naïve to assume this is the full extent of their reinforcements. A simple number reported in an infobox cannot capture such nuance. Adding piecemeal updates implies to our readers we know with some confidence the current strengths with confidence when in fact we really have no idea. This stuff is best left to prose and probably the best place for this is the Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

South Ossetia has been involved in the conflict since the 26th, no mention of this. Ukraine did not control any of the Chernobyl exclusion zone outside of the power plant until today, yet the map shows this occurring two days before this with no source indicating this. Yeastie (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We need RS saying it, none have been produced. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Em-m? Yeastie, SO case has own whole paragraph in article with 6 sources and respective discussion on this talk page. Alex Spade (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Genocide perpetrated by Russia in Ukraine

The article makes several mentions of the false accusations of Ukrainian genocide against Russians, but it makes no mention of the Russian genocide of Ukrainians. There are now multiple RS claiming "warning signs" of Russian genocide of Ukranians, as well as several Ukrainian officials accusing Russia of genocide.

https://theconversation.com/is-russia-committing-genocide-in-ukraine-a-human-rights-expert-looks-at-the-warning-signs-180017 https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-germany-accuses-russia-of-war-crimes-over-bucha-deaths-live-updates/a-61343522 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/2/russia-ukraine-war-kyiv-region-retaken-liveblog

I can add more if required. Unsigned: 16:11, 3 April 2022‎ Genlef

Genocide is already mentioned in the "International Criminal Court" and "International Court of Justice" sections, plus it has been included in several sections of the War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. Ilenart626 (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I disagree that it adheres to the Neutral tone guideline. Nowhere does it say that Russia might be perpetrating genocide, just it makes one mention of gathering evidence of genocide perpetrated by "all sides" given that there are two mentions of the false allegations, I do not think this is a balanced and fair assessment. If anything, we have more evidence of genocide perpetrated by Russians than Ukrainians at this point, so I believe that should be reflected. User:genleftalk 8:49, April 4 2022 (UTC)

I have read the three sources. One claims the potential for genocide. The other two report claims of genocide by the Ukrainian president and the Mayor of Kyiv. Of these, one quotes the Polish President: "[such acts] must be called acts of genocide and be dealt with as such" (in respect to the Bucha killings). We have the article, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, for detail of allegations. This article must therefore summarise rather than duplicate that article. Presently here we say: "that evidence was being collected of alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed by individuals of all sides during the invasion". The three sources are a little thin on why Russian actions might rise to the level of genocide as opposed to what are more clearly war crimes. We might report the Polish president here but I will leave that to see what others think. Having said that, I can see that there is likely to be more reaction to recent reports that will likely change what this article has to say. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new around this parts, but I would like to ask why the use of these expressions, since in other wars this expression has little use, and besides that, the propaganda that you are including is ours, western propaganda, is it so credible or is there any reason behind???

The reason for this question is that when I read the ICC advertisement, what I see is that they only mention Africa and the following mention.

"UN Security Council Referral

The UN Security Council (UNSC) may refer alleged atrocity crimes committed in any country to the ICC Prosecutor by passing a resolution authorized by the UN Charter.

• In March 2005, the UNSC referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan, to the ICC.
• In February 2011, the UNSC referred the situation in Libya to the ICC.

If a permanent member of the UNSC vetoes a resolution to refer a situation to the ICC, the Court cannot gain jurisdiction. The permanent members of the UNSC are China, France, Russia, United States of America, and United Kingdom.

In May 2014, Russia and China vetoed the referral of Syria to the ICC." https://how-the-icc-works.aba-icc.org/ [28]

is there a particular reason or is it just propaganda like theirs???

I would like to know if I can open a discussion about "propaganda", I think that everyone here is aware that the West does propaganda, or not??? Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

How many actual deaths are there in Ukrainian soldiers?

I have to know how many died because I don’t see the information updated on how many are actually dead by Ukraine or the United States. 2600:1700:4750:25F0:5C25:4DE:D2DB:CDB9 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Well as there is no way of knowing we can't tell you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Last update by Ukraine was March 12th (1,300 dead) and US March 9th (2,000-4,000 dead). When a new update is provided we will added. But for now, they have been quiet in this regard. EkoGraf (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That (however) is only claimed dead, not actaul dead. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup, so it should be taken as a bare confirmed minimum at best. EkoGraf (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (Ukraine)

I recently created a draft for the Ukrainian Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the draft, I think it could actually be published already. The topic is notable and if someone tries to delete the article through AfD other editors will defintively come and expand it. By the way, if we are to have an article on the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, we probably should have a page on the Supreme Commander-in-Chief itself. Super Ψ Dro 17:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of publishing it, but thought I would wait in case someone wanted to improve enough to get to 1500 characters so it can be featured on Did You Know. Thriley (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Russians who have left Russia

This is an important dimension of the war, recently covered in the Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/31/russian-activists-exile-putin-protests/

In the linked source (if you click on “record numbers”): https://www.rferl.org/a/russians-flee-fearing-war-fallout/31752961.html it says estimates are 200,000 Russians have emigrated, who may become critics in exile, facilitate a brain drain, etc.

None of this is in the article, and it should be. 2600:1012:B000:3193:CC7A:E648:667:8B8E (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an important subject. It is enough for a full article in my opinion. I just started a draft: Russian migration following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft looks good so far! But remember to add archive links when citing a website. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@I'ma editor2022: There is usually no need to proactively archive sources and add them to references. External links added to Wikipedia are generally automatically archived within 24 hours, per WP:PLRT, and when external links break, archives can normally be automatically found and replaced using User:InternetArchiveBot.

So, while it's nice to do if you want to be thorough, there's usually no harm in not doing it. Melmann 14:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we continue to report casualties in the infobox

The proposal is to replace reports from multiple sources with a statement: "Reports vary widely: see X section" or "See X section".

The infobox presently reports ranges from multiple sources at various dates and the ranges vary widely. The proposal is made for the following reasons:

1. The reports vary so widely over different dates that they cannot be meaningfully summarised into a simple range.
2. There is nuance to the figures that cannot be captured in an infobox in respect to the reliability of sources. There is a section in the article that tabulates the multiple ranges and provides prose that captures the nuance.
3. Reports in an infobox are viewed credibly by our readers but we cannot give a credible figure or range. These figures in the infobox lack the appropriate and necessary nuance. This is a disservice to our readers.
4. Per Template:Infobox military conflict, this is an optional parameter.
5. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, detail presented in the infobox should be a "summary" of key information. Reporting multiple sources (as done) without necessary context fails the guidance.

For these reasons, I belive the proposal to be the prudent course most consistent with guidance.

I am notifying this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Yeah, the current information in the infobox is not really interpretable beyond "different sides claim wildly different numbers". This is made worse by the fact that the numbers are from different dates: how is the reader to interpret the US numbers for Russia and Ukraine, if they are separated by multiple weeks of fighting of unknown (to the reader) intensity? Replacing with a link to a section would also be aligned with the instructions for the result argument, which advises against speculation and tells to link to a section where the result is not a simple case of "X victory" or "Inconclusive". I'd be fine with listing different claims once the casualty figures start to calm down. Ljleppan (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I generally agree with the above - the situation is too complicated to easily summarize, which is the basic purpose of the box. It probably won't be for some time after the war is over that we can get a relatively accurate picture of the casualty figures for both sides. Until then, it's best to just point readers to the casualty section, where the competing claims can be discussed in context. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• No, let's wait till it's over and we have some kin of authoratative numbers. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with everyone above that we should take this out of the infobox. It's too complicated to squeeze into an infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Leave the belligerent's self-admitted military casualty figures and the UN's confirmed civilian casualty figures since they are the very bare confirmed minimum. For everything else, link to the casualties section due (as stated) other casualty estimate variations which can be seen in the table in that section. EkoGraf (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – Be careful on interpreting responses, due to the fact that the section title ("Should we continue to report...") and the top question in the OP ("The proposal is to replace reports from multiple sources...") are at loggerheads, so that a no to the title question is the same as a yes to the proposal. Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Take it out. Given that the {{Infobox military conflict}} usage instructions remind us that:

  Information in the infobox should not be "controversial". Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article or leave the parameter blank rather than make an unsubstantiated or doubtful claim.

we should leave it out. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian intelligence service denies sharing information of Chinese cyberattack, says they have no evidence of said attack

From the official Twitter account of the Security Service of Ukraine, translated: https://twitter.com/ServiceSsu/status/1509983294334582793

"The SBU did not provide the media with any official information that cyber-attacks from China were allegedly carried out on the eve of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our military and other resources. The SBU has nothing to do with the findings of The Times. The Security Service of Ukraine does not currently have such data and no investigation is underway."

Chokoladesu (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove foreign volunteers from Ukrainian strength in infobox

The infobox presently states: Strength estimates are as of the start of the invasion. The only estimates for strength we have with any confidence is the stating position. There have been losses to both sides, the Russians have also received reinforcements and are presently relieving their forces. We can have no confidence that various subsequent reports are comprehensive and lead to accurate estimate of the present position. The Ukrainian foreign volunteers have been subsequent to the start of the invasion and should be remove from the infobox since they don't represent part of the starting strength. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

War crimes OTR-21 Tochka

I suggest together with the positions of Ukraine and Russia on the incident with OTR-21 Tochka in Donetsk to add the opinion of the OSINT group of investigators Conflict Intelligence Team in the section "War crimes Attributed to Ukrainian authorities and forces" source https://nv.ua/ukraine/events/voyna-v-ukraine-tochku-u-po-okkupirovannomu-donecku-zapustila-rf-soobshchaet-cit-poslednie-novosti-50225296.html https://twitter.com/CITeam_ru/status/1503720028293799944 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rurk777 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should be the right place for this - there is a subsection there, "Missile attack and shelling in Donetsk". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Warcrimes in butsja

There should be topics about the horrible warcrimes done by russian military against the civilian, city by city. 185.135.135.32 (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is already an article, that goes into much more depth about war crimes during the invasion than this one does. BSMRD (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about Bucha, which seems to be the common English spelling of the Kiyv suburb. Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Act of aggression/War of aggression

Although I personally didn't agree at the time, there's been a discussion and a consensus on qualifying the war in the lead section as a "war of aggression", here. I see that the text has changed and now we are calling it an "act of aggression". However, the sources we quote call it a "war of aggression". Act of aggression and war of aggression are not the same thing, and claiming that the invasion is a war of aggression is a much stronger and possibly contentious claim than saying that it is an act of aggression (which is obvious and not-controversial). A war of aggression is a crime, and many reliable sources have argued that indeed this is a crime under current international law (see Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). The choice of embracing this judgement with wikivoice is debatable, but apparently this is the choice we have made. So what shall we do now? Should we re-open the previous discussion on act/war of aggression or rather go back to war of aggression? In any case we cannot leave things as they are now: there's a mismatch between the text ("act of a.") and sources ("war of a."). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm now modifying the text restoring "war of aggression". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. In the first place, this article is not about the war (Russo-Ukrainian War), it is about the invasion. Second of all, you are confusing a critical matter. War of aggression is a generalised term, which only takes on a specific meaning in the context of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314. What I presume you are thinking of is the crime of aggression, which is a legal term in international law. However, we cannot in the Wikivoice claim that Russia is guilty of the crime of aggression until a court has actually determined as such. What the sources cited (the UN resolution and the CFR source) say is that Russia's invasion constitutes 'aggression'. Neither mention 'war of aggression', and again this article isn't about the war. The 'Lawfare' source is an opinion piece and doesn't belong in the lead at all. We can certainly say that Russia's invasion is viewed by the international community as an 'act of aggression', citing the UN resolution, but not that it is guilty of the 'crime of aggression'. RGloucester — ☎ 21:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

On this I agree entirely. Note however that we are now supporting the text with the following quotation: "Russia's invasion of Ukraine constitutes the crime of aggression under international law" [29]. I remember we had discussions on this, and they are reflected in the text of Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which boldly claims with full-fledged wikivoice: "Because it violates the UN Charter, and is more than a minor border incursion, Russia's military intervention in Ukraine also qualifies as a crime of aggression under Article 8bis(1) of the Rome Statute". I've tried to argue that this is far from obvious, but I've been told that I was engaging in a piece of Original Research, that the distinction between aggression as an act (unlawful under the UN Charter) and aggression as crime ("war of aggression" stricto sensu) is nowhere to be seen, and that we already had a sufficient body of scholarly literature on the point that invasion of Ukraine qualfies as a war of aggression. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem is that some people cannot distinguish between the various cases presented by RS for how this invasion may constitute the crime of aggression as defined by international law, and the actual process of being 'convicted' of the crime of aggression. It is obvious that the international community views the invasion as an act of aggression, which can be seen in United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1. However, again, the 'crime of aggression' is exactly that, a 'crime'. No one, whether an individual or a state, is guilty of any crime until a court of law makes such a determination. The international court of public opinion is not a substitute for the ICC, ICJ, or any other international legal body. In any case, I think we must state that the international community views the invasion as 'aggression', in line with the UN resolution. We must not, however, put the cart before the horse. RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, I agree. A distinct but concurring consideration is substantive: in the case of the crime of aggression the violation of the UN Charter needs to be "manifest"; the invasion of Ukraine may well be a case of manifest violation, but it's up for debate and I doubt our policies and sources allow us to take a clear stance on the matter. Anyway, a few weeks ago I wasn't able to express my point clearly enough, I guess, there were other more urgent things to attend to, and my comments were perceived as digressive, at odds with WP:NOTAFORUM. Now I think we can address the wording of the section Crime of aggression more carefully and thoughtfully. In the next few days I will open a thread on the talk page of Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine linking to this discussion. As for this article, "Internationally considered to be an agression" is fine with me. I see, however, that @Ornilnas thinks differently. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

My main objection was calling it an "aggression" while linking to Crime of aggression. Linking to Act of aggression would be less objectionable. I also think calling it "an aggression" is somewhat awkward (what differentiates that from "an act of aggression"?), but I see that the UN source uses that language. Ornilnas (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Calling it an act or war of aggression seems fine to me, but I believe it's inappropriate to state that it's intlly./broadly considered a "crime" of aggression in wikivoice until this is established/proven by a court of law. In the body we can explain this is the legal opinion of multiple experts, but there's a distinction/need for caution when describing something as factually illegal (according to whom etc.). Jr8825 • Talk 00:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• I am unsure that nay one is not a war of Aggression, and thing act of aggression is better, after all we do still call it a war. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of primary map

See /FAQ Q4.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is an inconsistency between the primary map on the page and the more detailed map. I believe the primary map is inaccurate in that it doesn’t give a totally accurate picture of the extent of the Russian advance in north-east Ukraine around the area where the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian borders intersect. Russian forces have captured the towns of Shostka and Krovolets along with several other towns in the area pushing west towards Chernihiv and Kyiv. The map previously showed Russian troops in control of this area but then suddenly it was changed to show Ukrainian troops back in control, the map now appears or show that the Ukrainians have pushed the Russians right back to the Russian border which is simply untrue. Fully willing to acknowledge that I’m no expert on this and many people are much more knowledgable and clued in so very open to discussion but I think we owe it to our fellow Wikipedia users to give an accurate a picture as possible of the current situation especially given the critical importance of the subject matter. Thanks and God bless. 185.225.245.137 (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

2017 warrning

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/is-russia-planning-a-major-land-war-against-ukraine/ The Russian-occupied north of Ukraine, corresponding to Kyiv, Sumy, and Chernihiv provinces, would be transformed into an agricultural hinterland stripped of industry and armed forces. The “excess population” would be deported to Russia’s Far East. Mikhail Khazin Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Collaboration with Russia during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

The article Collaboration with Russia during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was recently created. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

having on an ongoing war on the wiki

I personally don't think the wiki can be objective and accurate while the war is at this stage, and there is misinformation on both sides as a matter of course. You are all welcome to continue though. I personally think that it would take a year to be objective. CantingCrew (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but others clearly do not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Fog of war is a real issue, but what's the alternative? Not have this page? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

For now no, why not? Its not as if no one is ware of it. So we could wait till it is over. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We always document ongoing events of this magnitude (and less) or importance. We have WP:ATTRIBUTION policy, as mentioned below. Also, when Russia threatens to fine Wikipedia if it doesn't remove some details about the war, it's good to remember we're WP:NOTCENSORED. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the reason for our attribution policy. Sometimes not everything can be reliably sourced, but if the topic is clearly notable then the article should stay, and sources which may not be very accurate should be attributed so that the reader can make their own judgement. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 15:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)