Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Potential Russian use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons

There is a section on the invasion, and a subsection (three good-sized paragraphs): 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Potential Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons

1. This seems out of place - as the larger section is about what has happened. The reader expects a summary of events. But this is speculative. 2. Given that this is speculative, the size of the subsection would seem to violate the wikipedia policy against giving things undue weight.

I would recommend 1. Condensing the subsection 2. Moving it out of the main invasion section.

(It is reliably source - it belongs in the article. I am addressing the size and and the position only). Jd2718 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This was recently discussed last month with the comment that international leaders of state are still responsing and reacting to Russia's use of nuclear strategy in the context of Ukraine. I'm adding a phrase today by Japan's prime minister that further int'l discussion is needed about Russia at the current nuclear non-proliferation meeting taking place. Still, if you have thoughts to shorten the material in that section, maybe add your thoughts here for other editors to comment as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the length is more subjective - I will take a careful look and see if I can find a suggestion to condense, at least a bit. The position of the section in the article I think is more important - perhaps a separate section further down - but Prelude... Invasion... Support... Casualties... all describe what has happened rather than what might happen. This seems quite misplaced. Jd2718 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This was the comment from another editor last month on this issue: They have used nukes though. Nuclear weapons have two uses, one is destruction, and the other use is the threat of destruction. Every time Russia threatens to go nuclear it is using the weapons, this is one of their main uses. It also has fundamentally re-calibrated the conflict, western nations are obsessed with the threat and go to pain staking lengths to avoid escalation; such caution was in short supply when NATO helped end the Serbian genocide in Bosnia. I also disagree with the idea that this will be a footnote, Russia's using of nuclear weapons to create an umbrella around the Ukrainian conflict is noticed world wide and has smashed nuclear non-proliferation. 2804:14C:8781:8673:DF9D:44EE:7D88:C1A8 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC). ErnestKrause (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I found that discussion, thank you. (May 8, archived May 10). I understand the editor's point, though I think they have stretched it very far, and I do not agree that the shadow of nuclear weapons is the same as their use, which is what I think they have implied. There is a bright line. In any case, I am not proposing removing this from the article. I will take some time and find what I believe is a more appropriate position (not as a subsection of the Invasion section) and bring it there. That was the more important of my two points. I'll wait and see if consensus forms (or if there is disinterest) and not address, at this time, the length of the section. Jd2718 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's the shadow of their use though, the Kremlin and Russian propaganda has been openly discussing using Nuclear Weapons for the past couple of months. Vladimir Solovyov, a major talk show host and a Kremlin mouth piece, recently stated that Russia should launch ICBMs at the UK and then follow them up with nuclear torpedoes to create a radioactive tsunami;[1] the Kremlin including Putin, Peskov and Lavrov have also been constant in their threats of using them. Vladimir Putin has stated that he'll nuke anyone who intervenes in the war. So it's not the shadow, they're threatening it every chance they get. This has led leaders like Macron, Scholz, and Draghi to obsess over how to end the war in such a way that Putin doesn't feel backed in to a corner or humiliated, because they're terrified that if Putin feels his reign is threatened he will go nuclear.

This is Deterrence theory and Mutually Assured Destruction in a nut shell, both of which are accepted uses (not in the moral sense of course, but in the theoretical sense) of Nuclear Weapons. As far as the results of this go. China[2] is increasing it's nuclear arsenal currently as is North Korea[3]; Japan[4] and South Korea[5] are considering going nuclear, and India and Pakistan are doing their thing, not to mention Iran. As far as sources go for this, last weeks edition of the Economist was dedicated to this very idea, that Russia is destroying the nuclear taboo.[6][7]

This has also had a real effect on the war. Besides the assurance from the President of the United States that NATO will never intervene to aid Ukraine[8] it's also created a constant assessment of weapons, their capabilities and whether they're offensive or defensive to an almost OCD extent so as to assure Putin that NATO is doing nothing to attack Russia, or whatever. Which has slow rolled weapons delivery, has shown heavy preference for certain kinds ie Stingers and NLAWs, whilst others such as jets, ATACMS etc. are off the list, etc. etc. This is a very real impact that we can see on the battle field that is caused by Russia's nuclear threats. Ukraine's lack of artillery, it took the US months to get the resolve to send artillery for fear that 19km range could make it considered an offensive weapon. Full disclosure that IP address was mine, so as not to be accused of sock puppetry, I wipe my cookies a lot, some times I forget to log back on. Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the Kyiv Independent reliable?

Is the Kyiv Independent reliable enough for use in a featured article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You can always check here at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to see if it is red coded (do not use) or green coded (good to use). If its not on the list, then it might be usable. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not on the list. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It may be "reliable" but it is not "independent". Further, it is a news source. Per WP:NEWSORG, it is unsuitable for opinion. Of course these limitations do not just apply to the Kyiv Independent. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Ukraine War Animation

The Ukraine war animation has now reached the size limit allowing it to be displayed in thumbnail form. If the number of frames exceeds 104 (June 6th) the animation will no longer be able to be viewed in thumbnail form, as it would no longer make the following equation true, (length of image in pixels) x (width of image in pixels) x (number of animation frames) < 100,000,000. There are a few possible fixes, including lowering the the gifs resolution, dropping some frames, converting it to some other file format, or if we don't want to change anything about the gif itself, a subtext could be added underneath the image saying something like "please click to view the animation". I would like to get everyone's thoughts on what the best solution is before I change anything.
PS: I was told that some people can't even view the gif in its regular form when I added frames for June 7th through 10th, which is above the limit. I'm not experiencing that issue, and I don't know what could be causing it, if it is happening at all. Please see if that version of the Ukraine animation plays for you, and tell me the result. Thanks! Physeters^✉ 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The current Invasion section is in phase one and phase two outline format. If you could break the animated file into two files, one for phase one (24 Feb to 7 April) and another one for phase two (7 April to present), then that should cut the size of the file nearly by half. Then the two new animated maps can be brought into the phase one section and the phase two section respectively to update the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That could definitely be a solution, though I can't edit the article myself, so someone else would have to format it on the page. Physeters^✉ 20:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You could add those 2 new files in on this Talk page, and then one of the article editors can place them into the needed sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

There is one problem that I just thought of. This just pushes the problem further down the road. Unless another phase is created, the same problem will happen once the animation goes past July 19th. If you still think this is the best choice, I will upload the already divided gifs. Physeters^✉ 21:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, downloads will work. I'll suggest that in mid July, when the time comes, just to do a third file for a break on or about July 18 and one of the editors will place in the article in the best chronological order possible at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are the files. (Files now merged into main article and removed from Talk page; see article for merged new maps. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)) Physeters^✉ 21:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Those maps look well done for the article. I've resized a little and added titles. I think it looks ok. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Very good, Thanks! Physeters^✉ 22:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The background section has been cut too severely

Regarding the cuts made in this diff. Key contextual events such as the Euromaidan are missing, and the text refers to things that are no longer mentioned (e.g. "Russia's annexation of Crimea followed in March 2014", which originally came after a mention of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest). I raised my objection to making severe cuts to the background in the discussion that took place beforehand and I'm disappointed to notice that ErnestKrause went ahead regardless without raising specific proposals (edit: without specifically discussing what information should be removed; I missed your suggestion regarding the number of paragraphs you'd like to cut it down to, but was expecting a discussion about which content should/shouldn't be cut) on the talk, as I don't believe there was a consensus for such a drastic reduction. While I'm definitely open to the idea of a significant shortening, I'd like to discuss specific changes first as I think such a massive cut is a significant loss for this article, the most visited article related to the current war.

I'd like to hear more opinions on the proposed cut (the current version). @ErnestKrause: could you please urgently fix the missing references to events so the text flows properly. I'll hold off reverting per WP:BRD for now until others have had their say (in case I'm the only editor who sees things this way), although WP:FAITACCOMPLI indicates that if there isn't a consensus for such a large removal, then the correct course of action is to restore the previous text and start cuts again from there, even if this seems like more work. Jr8825 • Talk 21:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Those edits were done a week ago when it looked ok to do those edits. Could you add in a sentence for Euromaidan and another sentence for Crimea annexation if you feel they are important. The general bulking down of the article was an important issue, and when you were not adding comments to my proposal from last week, I then went ahead with the shortening of the text. The readers of the article appear to have been ok with it, and if you want to bring in the 2 sentences which you mention are missing then you should add them in. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I apologise for not noticing your changes earlier, I'd presumed you'd bring your suggested text to the talk page first and have been busy IRL so haven't been tracking article changes closely. The problem is that regardless of whether readers are paying attention, the text as it stands has some pretty serious non-sequiturs (the annexation of Crimea is mentioned, but our text reads that it occurred "following" [something], but it doesn't say what; the text jumps from 1999 (the previous para.) to March/April 2014). More broadly, I don't agree that it was necessary or positive to lose the majority of that content, which was already tightly focused on useful information for readers. Why remove the history which helps readers understand how the invasion occurred? Jr8825 • Talk 22:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, I have read both versions. I would thank ErnestKrause for what is a pretty good first iteration of reviewing the background section. However, I would agree with Jr8825 that there is a bit of a leap from the second to the third paragraphs. It appears to me that Ernest has culled or retained sentences en bloc and this is a reasonable initial strategy. However, I can see that refinement of the remaining prose might reasonably lead to further economy. See for example my edit. I suggest that a brief paragraph to fill the gap and some judicious editing would leave the section at about its present size and IMHO this would be a good outcome. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• @Cinderella157 and ErnestKrause: I've spent some time working on restoring what I think is the minimum necessary to retain an acceptably broad overview of the main events preceding the invasion. I've restored just over a third of what was cut on 6 June, and made some other cuts to duplicated cites or overly long wording. (Another example of the non-sequiturs the cuts produced: the section had an image of the Orange Revolution, but all references to it had been removed). The new section is more chronological and still significantly shorter than what we had before. If you can see places where wording can be simplified/shortened, please go ahead. In a number of places relatively important details have already been lost in favour of simplification/brevity, so I'd prefer to discuss further substantive shortening case-by-case. Your thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 12:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Jr8825 but I don't think this is an improvement. You have roughly doubled the size of the section when the improvement indicated should have no net change in size. I can easily see way too much intricate detail in this change. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The current readable prose size of the section is 4180 B (623 words). That's very reasonable for the background section of a complex event, and easily proportionate to the rest of the article (there are much flabbier sections). I don't agree the restored detail is too intricate, I believe it's all key historical context -- but if you could point out which bits you think are unimportant that might be a good way to move the discussion forward. Jr8825 • Talk 12:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 The comments from both editors are useful and if Cinderella would like to take a second look at either further trims or adaptations then it would be nice to see them. Its a little on the long side now, though Cinderella can do edits which seem reasonable. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to compose a short paragraph than to trim the fat from three. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Please see this edit. I have reverted to the version by ErnestKrause and added some text from the lead of Russo-Ukrainian War that fills the "gap" discussed above. Yes, the material I added will need some sourcing. I am not sufficiently fully across the material to do this but it shouldn't be a big ask. This edit is more consistent with the discussion to date about filling this "gap". However, as I indicated above, there is still scope for some tweaking. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't agree about the necessity or helpfulness of making more cuts to the background beyond the shortened text I previously restored, as I think the length of the section was fine. Compare the size of the background section of Invasion of Poland, for example; both are high-level articles so should prioritise historical overview rather than technical detail about each phase of the fighting (which should be summarised at a equivalent level of detail to key contextual events and then covered at sub-articles). Cutting the background section down to the bare bones is essentially an editorial decision to focus the article on these day-to-day details of the campaign rather than a broader overview, which in my opinion goes against the 10-year test, part of the WP:RECENTISM supplementary guide. Basically, I think we're going beyond helpful cuts for concision, and these content changes are heading in the wrong direction.

  I accept Cinderella157's cuts (i.e. limited re-additions) this morning were skilfully done, particularly regarding Euromaidan, but I don't think they're the right editorial decision.

  I disagree with pretty much all of the substantive removal of content, and will lay out my objections point-by-point for discussion. I'm reverting the changes for now as I'd like us to reach consensus, or least seek additional opinions, before removing this content:

  • That Ukraine applied to join NATO -- essential background information for understanding the preceding tensions.
  • That NATO refused to offer Ukraine a path to membership, but promised membership -- key to understanding the direct lead up to the invasion, particularly Ukraine's vulnerability and Putin's rhetorical demands regarding this.
  • The Orange Revolution -- a good way of thinking about this is the following: suppose the US was invaded by a country which had been seriously meddling in its politics for the previous decade. A peaceful overturn of a stolen election through popular outrage and the Supreme Court had taken place, giving power to a politician who wanted an independent path, the aggressor country's preferred candidate had engaged in electoral fraud. An attempted assassination had been made on the popular leader, possibly attributed to the aggressor country. This would obviously be seen as vital contextual background for the ensuing invasion. There's no reason to treat Ukraine's recent history any differently, the Orange Revolution is mentioned in most RS background introductions to the current invasion as a key turning point in Ukraine-Russia relations. Also, we're once again left with the picture thumbnail but no mention in the actual text.
  • Putin and his regime's opposition to, and insecurity regarding, the Orange Revolution and Ukraine and Georgia's efforts to turn politically westwards. There are two very strong cites to analyses by subject-matter experts emphasising the importance of this point (Anthony Cordesman and Gideon Rachman).
  • The previous summary of Euromaidan and Maidan Revolution. Two key events directly preceding the beginning or Russia's outright hostility towards Ukraine. The previous summary was succinct and included valuable information, such as the nature of the protests and the cause (Yanukovych's attempt to sabotage Ukraine's shift towards the EU) the brutality of the crackdown and Yanukovych's removal from power (and how this was exploited by Russia in Eastern Ukraine as a launching point for war). Simply cutting this down to "revolution" saves very little space in return for substantial loss of valuable contextual information.

  Jr8825 • Talk 12:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• There is a tendency to think that more detail is better, but for readers on congested networks an excessively large article will load slowly, if at all. We can help the reader by making editorial decisions to include just enough information, and to move excess detail into sub articles which the reader may explore if they would like more detail. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Jr8825 Its not clear if you are accepting Cinderella's comments as you have stated or if you are reverting Cinderalla. Since 2-3 editors seem to feel that the Background section is on the large side, then it would seem better if you could restore Cinderella's edit in order to allow other editors to be more receptive to your discussion here on the Talk page. Both Ciderella and Jehochman seem to understand your position; they are asking if you could merge your edits into the sibling article which would assist in the bulking down of this large article approaching 400Kb. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I can see an argument for keeping Cinderella's shortening of the Euromaidan summary as it successfully manages to cut a couple of sentences, although as I said above, my current opinion is that it's a loss for the article as the removed content is key information, and cuts can be better made elsewhere.

  I think both the Orange Revolution and Euromaidan should be mentioned. I think the pre-existing approach (a minimal explanation of what each of them are) is a good thing to have in this article given that it's the main jumping point for readers coming to the topic. If a consensus of editors believe this is too much information, then obviously I'd respect that, although I'd prefer a wider discussion to gauge this as at the moment it's just only a small pool of editors sharing our views. I think it'd be beneficial to have more input at this stage; hearing other voices might lead me to adjust my view further. I'm not sure that most editors still believe the background section is too long, especially after the changes that have happened (since the start of the initial thread on cutting the background sections, it's been reduced by roughly two-thirds). Perhaps an RfC question could be "Is the current background section too long/detailed?"

  @Jehochman: in terms of improving loading speed, reducing the background section is going to have minimal impact -- it's currently 18,894 bytes (most of which is cites), compared to 55,350 bytes for the Prelude section and 123,613 for the invasion section. An issue I raised previously (I think in the last thread) is that citations make up a big chunk of these sizes and there are likely unnecessary duplicated refs throughout which can be removed. There's also a tendency to include too much detail about military developments as they occur, because of recentism (which is understandable, but requires constant pruning and seems to be being more neglected because of the focus on the background section).

  One possible issue with the background section now is that it covers a similar amount of ground to what it did before, but in much less space. This makes it denser, and maybe harder to read? It might also give the impression of it being very detailed, whereas in reality all of the details are significant points/events which have been condensed together heavily and could easily be fleshed out further in sub-articles. Removing some details similar to Cinderella's approach could be a solution, but I think more care is needed to avoid losing bits of linking context. It's a catch-22, as removing too much information makes events harder to understand (events in the Donbas make much more sense when Euromaidan is summarised, and Russian propaganda coupled with Yanukovych's disputed removal are factored in, an explanation we currently do quite well). Jr8825 • Talk 17:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Support for Cinderella157 and Jehochman on this. Also, pinging Elinruby who did some of the re-editing on the other sections of this article. The article size is again approaching 400Kb which can be daunting to readers of the article. One suggestion might be to note that there is a great deal of duplication with the Russo-Ukrainian war article as to both of them covering a 'deep history' version of the events leading to the 2022 Russian Invasion. There is no reason for maintaining two versions of this 'deep history' going back 30-35 years, and it seems a useful endeavor to merge the two subsections of the Background section into the Russo-Ukrainian war article, possibly along with perhaps 2-3 subsections of the Prelude section as well. The read time for the article is currently 40-45 minutes which is over Wikipedia policy guidelines and this makes a large demand upon new readers who are going through the article from top-to-bottom for the first time. Suggesting here that the merge-to-sibling article measures be done to deal with the bulking down of this long article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I've started an RfC below to widen participation in this discussion. I'll add my own comments later. Jr8825 • Talk 01:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, there are big issues with this article and particularly with sections subsequent to the start of the invasion in distinguishing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and writing in an encyclopaedic style. This is an problem inherent to articles about current ongoing events where pretty much the only sources are news sources and inexperienced editors want to indiscriminately add stuff from every source that can be found. Ultimately, as phases of the war stabilise, these too can be improved. What we can address now is the background and the prelude. Arguments that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST only has weight if the other stuff here (or at Invasion of Poland) is "best practice". It isn't. All of the material relating to the background is covered in detail in subordinate articles. Our obligation here is to write a coherent, tight abstract of these events. While I am not saying that this version, in collaboration with ErnestKrause, is the best possible outcome, IMHO it comes very much closer to fulfilling our obligation than this version by Jr8825. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR - unclear what the current status is of this discussion. Have today set aside to to recuperate from a red eye on top of red eye plane trip and could see what I could condense out of the section today. I am extremely unavailable for several days starting tomorrow. I agree that the events of 2014 are critical. I also agree that some stuff should probably be moved to Russo-Ukranian War. I am willing to spend some time today on condensing the background section. Moving text to another page is slow and takes a lott of concrntration; I may or may not be able to do that today, especially if there is disagreement about what should stay or go.

Bottom line, I could spend about six hours on this today if there is agreement and if not will not be available for pretty much anything for about a week Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any urgent rush, as I've started a related RfC below to help establish what level of detail/overview we should be working towards with the background section. If you'd like to make bold changes to the current text, feel free to go ahead, although it might be helpful to note the changes in the RfC discussion too. Jr8825 • Talk 23:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

ok. A bit hesitant given the RfC but will take a look in a bit Elinruby (talk)

Archive discussion

The discussion that is dominating this talk page should be replaced with a link to the discussion just like how we did it to the first one on this page. Hemanth Nalluri (Talk) 22:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to the long discussion about "supported by" in the infobox, it will eventually be archived automatically as will most discussions. Right now, that's setup to happen about 5 days after the last comments - so approx. June 14th depending on your timezone. --N8_wilson 05:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That was what I was referring to. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Article too long?

The size of the article is a little more than 350 KB. The readable prose size is more than 100 KB as per [[9]]. So, can someone please remove trivial information from this article? That would help! Hemanth Nalluri (Talk) 22:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The prose size is actually only 81 KB. Rousillon (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

How did you calculate that? Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

With this. Rousillon (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be better if the article was so long. Patachonica (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What size limits are being suggested? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

'controlled by pro-Russian separatists'

Any sources conforming independence of the 'separatists' from Russia?

The Kremlin and the separatist proxies have drawn on a conception of the region dating from the 19th century when it was part of an area known as "New Russia.", the puppet governments, https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-separatist-regions-crux-russian-invasion/story?id=83084803

So rather 'controlled by Russia', 'controlled by proxies, puppets'.Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Theft

household appliances, watches, bicycles.

Art, eg. Scythian gold. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/12/specialist-gang-targeting-ukrainian-treasures-for-removal-to-russia

Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Right Sector - fringe?

"Right Sector ... is a right-wing to far-right". Even if there exist sources supporting 'fringe', there are different ones, so no.Xx236 (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Possibly imcompetent source on casualities

There's a row indicating 3,528 killed among Russian forces from IStories. The data was compiled from an unaffiliated anonymous Ukrainian Telegram channel. The site does not look trustworthy at all (no about us page, no financing info, no editorial staff etc, same for telegram channel). I suggest to remove this source completely or at least somebody from experienced users should check that data for credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.99.36.148 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC on cuts to the background section

There are two proposed versions of the Background section of this article (version A and version B), both of which might be further refined. Which of these two versions is the better option moving forward? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

(View change as a diff here.) (See previous discussion 1, previous discussion 2.)

Previous RfC statement, retained for context: Should the previous background section ("A") be reduced in size? Is the shortened background section ("B") better or worse? Jr8825 • Talk 01:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Keep A - this covers quite a bit of essential information that I think gives a good picture of the background to the topic. I don't think it's necessary to cut it out. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer B. We do not need to repeat the long story of Ukraine in the 21st century, readers can read the details in the articles linked from the section. On the other hand I think that we have to add that hostilities of the War in Donbas were largely ceased following Minsk Treaty and Zelensky's pacifist politics. Since 2020 up to February 2022 were only a handful of civilian victims from the both side almost all are from the landmines that had been installed in the active period of the war. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason not to reduce it. So B. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

While it might be possible to shave off a few more words, I think A is already pretty succinct, so my argument against (significant) reductions is that this necessitates losing background information I consider valuable. I listed the information removed in B which I think should be kept in the previous discussion. What's your opinion on these points? Jr8825 • Talk 15:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep A, perhaps it's a little on the long side but the current invasion is one part of a very complex broader problem of Russian aggression, and it's good for readers that the background section contextualises it. Using bytes as a benchmark is foolish; a much better criterion is whether the text delivers information that's relevant to readers. If anything I'd have two other aspirations - to shorten the lede a little (in principle a lede should be a brief overview before the body of the article covers many different details), and to resolve some of the templates at the top of the background section, relying more on links in the body of the text. However, the former would be an extremely difficult task, fraught with reverts! bobrayner (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Jr8825, while it is good to garner further participation, I think that your RfC is premature.

• It assumes that there is an intractable stalemate wrt the two version. That is not my perception.
• It presumes that neither version could be improved by iterative editing.
• You yourself acknowledge that version A could be improved per this edit stating above: I can see an argument for keeping Cinderella's shortening of the Euromaidan summary as it successfully manages to cut a couple of sentences ...
• The RfC might be worded more neutrally?
• The RfC gives a binary choice. Considering the above, the phrasing and choices presented for comment, it is unlikely that a workable consensus will be arrived at. It is the inherent nature of RfCs.

You may wish to reconsider this, at least for the present. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's necessary to engage more editors as our positions on the two questions are incompatible. There have been 2 lengthy discussions. While I've expressed willingness to accept some of the above proposals, this has been out of a desire to find compromise, not because I've felt the changes are necessarily positive. Ultimately, both camps seem to think each others' preferred version is moving the article in the wrong direction, and as you feel further significant cuts are needed beyond the already reduced text linked as "A", I can't see how my concerns can be accommodated. We fundamentally disagree over whether A or B is closer to the right level of detail, so more perspectives will hopefully shed light on strengths/weaknesses of the two approaches. Although the questions are narrow in order to focus discussion, there's no need for a binary outcome if participants review the opposing options and offer feedback. Jr8825 • Talk 03:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to your suggestions regarding the RfC wording. Jr8825 • Talk 03:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Nether version is necessarily the best or ultimate version and one might be edited up, the other might be edited down. I have already indicated this passage: In February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special police resulted in the deaths of 100 protesters and 13 policemen; most of the victims were shot by police snipers, where the numbers killed is "intricate detail" it is sufficient to say that there were widespread protests and possibly, that these resulted in deaths. Also: ... candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned with TCDD dioxin ... - it is sufficient to say he was poisoned. And that is without really looking. A better proposition in phrasing the RfC is to acknowledge that both are a basis for further review and which is the preferred basis for this further review. The questions posed by the RfC are not "equal". Consequently, there is an intrinsic and subtle bias. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Per your invitation, I have added an alternative RfC statement. I understand that you hold the personal view that your version is a minimal level of detail. But I also note your willingness to accept some changes. I hope, where I write: both of which might be further refined, it is an acceptable statement of the reality of WP. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing an alternative statement. I fully agree these are frameworks for future refinement, not the finished product. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 15:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment. It looks fairly plain that if Jr8825 and Cinderella can agree on a version off-page for this edit, that it would be accepted by the active editors as adequate and not require the full thirty day RFC cycle. It seems that Cinderella is basically asking that Jr8825 trim back some of his 8Kb expansion to the article; is that possible to do? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm confident we'll be able to agree on small refinements such as the ones Cinderella suggests just above this, but as there are differing views on the bigger question of how much and what information should be included it's helpful to draw wider feedback and establish which base we should work from. Jr8825 • Talk 23:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine support tab

If Belarus is listed as a supporter of Russia, then surely the US, Sweden, Estonia etc should be listed as supporting countries of Ukraine? They're providing more help than Belarus. A bit weird? Dopeliciouss (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

And so it starts again ... Pls see #Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2022

Under the "Belligerents" section, provide a link to the section "Foreign Military Support". This is consist with the article "Russo-Ukranian War" 108.36.196.232 (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)