Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

Caption

The caption on the image says “The military situation as of 19 May 2022”, when it should say “The military situation as of 9 July 2024”. 2A01:119F:253:7000:9072:8D51:B6AB:8A80 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Naming this a ‘war’ without addressing the primary offensive against civilians is in error.

How can this be called ‘an ongoing war’ when Ukraine was a sovereign nation attacked on Feb 24, 2022 by Russian forces? How can this be called a ‘war’ when top military experts worldwide are calling this a genocide? Calling this a ‘war’ and an ‘extension of a war in from 2014,’ seems to exclude the unique and obvious situation of an unprovoked attack on primarily civilians. 2601:190:C400:9E30:458F:5D8E:F216:7666 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can look at the current situation and not see it as a war. Attacks on civilians doesn't make it not a war. However, in terms of when the war started, you might be looking for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. — Czello 11:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain why you believe it not to be a 'war' because of these factors and what else it would be called? I might be missing something but a war frequently includes civilian casualties. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the people running this site don’t know how it works. It’s clear that the Russia-Ukraine war started on february 24 according to every single source, yet they bring up pointless self published books and change the notion of this war Wikiman92783 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Pleae read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read literally every single other wikipedia guideline article and learn how to run the site and stop sending personal insults. Wikiman92783 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Woah, let's calm down and stop starting fights. Let's work together to settle this civilly. BadKarma22 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

In other wiki articles they list other names for the event in the first few sentences which could work as something of a middle ground. I've seen Putin's War thrown around in the West. I can't find a really good name from any Russia source though. The best might be: Russia's Ukraine Operation which I found in Russia Today, but even that's a bit too technical. I don't know how Wiki formatting works 2:03, 11 May 2022 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1900:A5A0:892E:7508:FA84:85F4 (talk)

I love the name "Russo-Ukrainian War": traditionally, the loser of the conflict gets the hyphenated prefix and the victor gets the full name. So.... Russo-Japanese War (they lost that one too), Franco-Prussian War? Don't even need to look it up to know who won. Russo-Ukrainian is quite accurate! 70.51.88.190 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

And how did they lose the war? This has aged like milk. 2A02:8388:2100:E400:C824:9941:9A0D:5854 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2022

 Not done

 – no consensus, requester agreed to move to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  10:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe that NATO involvement in the war has helped Ukraine get an upper hand, and I think it should be mentioned. Here are some sources to back up my point:

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/europe/europe-top-stories/russia-plays-down-nuclear-war-talk-after-us-ambassador-chides-nato/ar-AAWZk6M?ocid=BingNewsSearch

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/after-nato-weapons-u-s-intelligence-shines-for-ukraine/ar-AAWZKc3?ocid=BingNewsSearch

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-ambassador-to-u-s-says-nato-not-taking-nuclear-war-threat-seriously/ar-AAWXLkL?ocid=BingNewsSearch

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sweden-and-finland-nato-membership-could-be-approved-in-just-2-weeks-e2-80-94report/ar-AAWUFoQ?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Please excuse my bad citing, I am still working on it. BadKarma22 (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, what section would this be added under? BadKarma22 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to add a section including NATO contributions to the war and their involvement. BadKarma22 (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Any real details belongs in the subarticle 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In this article, it is enough to include a sentence or two summarizing that support, and another one or two about why that matters. You could write some draft text with sources and post it here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

'The NATO' (France and Germany) delivered military teechnology to Russia.

'The NATO' (Hungary) vetoes sanctions. Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! BadKarma22 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll move this to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine BadKarma22 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

BadKarma22 If we're talking boots on the ground then NATO as an entity itself is not directly involved, although people have commented that NATO is fighting a sort of "proxy war", if you would. At this point it's mostly been strengthening troop numbers in surrounding nations. Hope this helps. Perhaps if you included a section detailing the commentary by people such as Jeffrey Sachs, that could be of use? X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 09:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a dangerous fallacy that NATO has contributed to the Ukraine war effort. Its member states may have done so in various ways but that does not mean that NATO has. It is important to recognise this, because NATO has no authority to act or speak at the moment, all that has been done was done by its constituent member states acting and speaking as individual states. Russia promotes the idea that they are in conflict with NATO rather than a range of countries around the world, because it suits them to do so. If NATO were to contribute directly, as NATO, then that would be an enormously important event, but that has not happened yet. All NATO has said is to reiterate that an attack on one NATO country would be considered an attack on all (which has yet to happen) and comments about the possible admission of Sweden and Finland. Boris Johnston speaks for UK, Macron for France, Biden for USA; nobody has spoken for NATO and none of the foregoing three examples have the authority to do so and won't. I think this discussion arises from a misunderstanding of how NATO works. The day NATO contributes to the war effort as NATO, we will all know about it, and we are into World War 3. Ex nihil ^(talk) 14:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

X750 if, as you say, NATO has "mostly been strengthening troop numbers in surrounding nations", that fact is not evidence of NATO supporting Ukraine. After all, they are only in the "surrounding nations". And anyway, the claim would still need RSs NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly... what I meant NewsAndEventsGuy? My stance is that NATO is not supporting Ukraine X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 21:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I kind of thought so; I wasn't talking about the issue just potential edits. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

BadKarma22 I oppose your desired change on the basis of RSs such as this one from the AP

NATO, as an organization, refuses to send troops or weapons to Ukraine or impose a no-fly zone over it to keep the trans-Atlantic military group from being drawn into a wider war with nuclear-armed Russia. Individual NATO countries, however, have provided anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, as well as equipment and medical supplies.

Read the sources carefully and you will usually find it says "NATO members" or something similar. But not "NATO". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2022 | Add Flags next to leaders names

Next to vladimir putin and Sergei Shoigu add '' next to voldemort zelensky, Petro Poroshenko and Oleksandr Turchynov add '' — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

PreserveOurHistory Why? They're on the same side, no need to add more flags. You've done this once already at short-range ballistic missile. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 14:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

it looks better PreserveOurHistory (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a particularly good reason, PreserveOurHistory. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 11:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

another reason is that is how wiki articles usually are. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian conscripts

I request to add an information on the fact that Russian concscripts are used in the war since the beginning. Thanks. Few sources: [1][2][3] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, I encourage you to go ahead and add the content yourself! No reason not to, I think it would be good to mention if it is not already well-covered. I'd recommend not using the US Embassy source as that is definitely non-neutral, or at least using it only as an attributed opinion ("The US Embassy in Georgia claimed in 2022..."). —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: or at least using it only as an attributed opinion I totally agree with you, but I'm Russian and I tend to abstain from contribution into the article. There is a plenty of sources besides US embassy website. Cheers. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki "Belligerents"

It's about who supports. Ukraine is supported by Greece, Turkish, English, French, German, Swedish, Australian, Norway, United States of America. But not listed on wikipedia? Meanwhile, on the Russian side there is Belarus. Is wikipedia in terms of this information, can be very accurate or not? Wikipedia should always be updated for the latest information. Neutrality is always upheld, as a proper medium of information and does not erase the role of each event because it can change history later. SoloRazer (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter how often this is asked, or how often the same thing is reworded. If we have said no once we will say no again. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It's possible you (like me until now) were unaware of an addition. In the current version, 1091026877, under Ukraine in the infobox it says For countries supporting Ukraine during the 2022 invasion, see 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This resolves the legitimate point you raised, but since its already taken care of, there's nothing to see here, move along folks. However if anyone wants to make a case, based on RSs, for doing something for suppporting nations prior to 2022, I'll listen. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you guys have done, and I know this has been a headache, but would it be possible to use the main title of the linked section (Foreign Military Support) as opposed to Foreign Military Involvement. It is confusing without the context and infographics shown from the beginning of the section.

Thanks! Debiant (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

U.S. disinformation campaign

I don't see any discussion here about the U.S. disinformation campaign and its impact on Wikipedia's reliance on sources that simply reprint U.S. intelligence products. Any comments? Jojalozzo (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Until and unless there are WP:Reliable sources to go with your claims, there's nothing to discuss. You can list them like usual and after your sig include {{reflist-talk}} to generate footnotes here in the thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040

Spending by Obama in 2014 was for "non-lethal" weapons, and by Trump in 2017 for "lethal" weapons.

The distinction between the two is riot control equipment is non-lethal (e.g. police), and everything else such as bullets are lethal (e.g army).

I'm pretty sure America is honest about what it's doing as a government, but individual players obviously have varied agenda. But, I'm 100% sure, if the USA government did something, they'd have a receipt for it. But, the caveat is, obviously, we're not always going to agree with those players are we.

Anyway that's my stance on "disinformation", I usually put it down to incomplete research, but then I like reading more than others I guess.

I hope you all have a nice day, and in the future we don't have wars like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.175.53 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Grammar in title

Wouldn't the norms of English grammar dictate the use of an en dash "–" instead of a hyphen in the title "Russo-Ukrainian War". The dash article attests to the en dash's usage in lieu of a hyphen in the cases of compound words such as "Russo–Ukrainian". Quoting the article, one of the en dash's main uses are "as a substitute for a hyphen in a compound when one of the connected items is more complex than a single word", as in the examples given such as "Radical–Unionist coalition", "Boston–Hartford route", and "New York–London flight". Cheers, – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 05:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

OK by me Changed mind, opposed, see below.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

OK by me. Didn't notice till you pointed it out. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Cinderella157 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

NO. Please search the talk archives before making these proposals. MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES establishes the use of hyphens when combining forms, such as 'Russo-', are used. RGloucester — ☎ 22:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Who knew? Thanks for pointing that out, I retract my OK above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

War chart

Can someone add this war chart in please?

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61726733?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=62a21cd832686a6e65aef049%26Russia%20may%20have%20lost%2020%2C000%20soldiers%2C%20Western%20official%20says%262022-06-09T16%3A45%3A20.265Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:45d54071-a546-4f7a-b65e-d44f4ad1433a&pinned_post_asset_id=62a21cd832686a6e65aef049&pinned_post_type=share — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:F002:281A:E7C5:89B2 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2022

I Russo-Ukrainian militairy operation 2A02:A457:53D3:1:31A3:64B4:8BCF:163D (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Its the Russo-Ukrainian militairy operation not Russo-Ukrainian war

RS call it a war. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

Add "(click to view)" to the Russian Invasion map gifs subtext as it has exceeded the number of frames that will allow it to play in thumbnail form. Physeters^✉ 03:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Jr8825 • Talk 14:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

*Minor* grammatical errors under "Russia-NATO relations"

Found a couple of minor errors in the ["Russia-NATO relations"] section of the article:

> "Russian military aircraft flying over the Baltic and Black Seas often do not indicating their position or communicate with air traffic controllers"

Needs correction to "indicate"

> "Although Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have characterized the conflict as a proxy war instigated by NATO"

Needs correction to "has"

First time poster, apologies if this is inappropriate. Hoppingskipper (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for your help, Hoppingskipper! Jr8825 • Talk 14:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved Technical close. User:Onetwothreeip is represented as requesting this move but did not make this request. See below. (non-admin closure) Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Russo-Ukrainian War → Russian-Ukrainian War – Common name. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not objecting, but I doubt this is uncontroversial. The article has been moved before, and the topic is something that is currently on-going. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The article has not been moved since 2020 except for formatting issues over the dash. I could not find a single objection to "Russian-Ukrainian War". Similar to the minor formatting changes, I am requesting a very minor grammatical change to the title, not a substantive one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Oppose Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Russo-Ukrainian_War&type=move it's been "Russo" since 2014. Looking at Template:Russian conflicts, "Russo" appears to be the convention, including for example Russo-Georgian War, so I object. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
      • The "Russo" is precisely what I am seeking to change. You're entitled to object but I don't see how you can say there's a convention. There are 27 uses of "Russo" and 15 uses of "Russian". The former is more historical while the latter is more modern. Pointing out a single other example would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
        • I only counted 4 using "Russian" in compound words (i.e. with hyphens/dashes) on that template, with the most recent being Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812), for the sake of WP:CONSISTENT. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
          • I'm seeking to replace the word "Russo" in the title of this article with "Russian", so that would bring the total up to five hyphenated titles, and sixteen overall. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose  Please show evidence that it’s the more common name in reliable sources, as opposed to many others (Russia–Ukraine war, Ukraine war, Ukrainian conflict, &c.). Please address the WP:CRITERION of consistency with other article titles, e.g., Russo–Georgian War. Please provide evidence that these terms are historical or modern. By the way, Anglo-Russian is the same kind of prefixed compound taking a hyphen as Russo-Ukrainian, as opposed to compound adjectives taking a dash English–Russian and Russian–Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 16:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose lazy proposal, no proof given. Super Ψ Dro 16:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Inadequate rationale. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and rename to Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–2022), stop using this inadequate page name Wikiman92783 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose A weak case with no real eveidence and nothing to show that the change would be a benefit. While this event isn't the only event that might be labeled "Russian-Ukrainian War", this ngram shows no clear reason to prefer one term over the other. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on process. Whoever has started this requested move has used my username without permission and without notifying me. This appears to come from a purely technical request that I made, hence the brief explanation, which was obviously not intended to be the basis for a move request on an article talk page. I would never disrespect my fellow Wikipedia editors by asking them to support a proposal to move an article with this lack of detail. The right action would be to re-open a move discussion with a proper rationale and for whoever started this to take responsibility for what has taken place. @GeoffreyT2000, Kj cheetham, Mzajac, Super Dromaeosaurus, VQuakr, Wikiman92783, and Cinderella157: Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:16, 19 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.

Opening paragraph falsely states that "Russia launched a full-scale invasion""

notice: The initial comment in this section was edited after receiving replies to an earlier version. --N8_wilson 🔔 23:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The claim made by NATO & western mainstream media of Russia's "full-scale invasion of Ukraine" is false and misleading. There was no "Full scale invasion". Apparently, Russia's military operation "invasion" was relatively gentle, focused on simple, stated objectives, in comparison to the USA's full scale invasion of Iraq in 2003. To repeat the words Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine, is 1) take sides and to 2) to contribute to what many view as the anti-Russia big lie. For true neutrality, the text should be changed from "full-scale invasion..." to something like "limited scale invasion which Putin ordered while claiming it as "collective self defense" authorized by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The view that the invasion/military operation was illegal is arguable and should be determined by an impartial court of law not by Ukrainian or Western authorities. Additionally, many allegations against Russia for war crimes have been made & stated by the media as factual, while few if any have been proven.

---

notice: The initial comment in this section was edited after receiving replies to an earlier version. Replaced italics with quotation marks on the Scott Ritter quote below, in accordance with WP policy for quotations.24.42.166.244 (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Quoting Scott Ritter . ″..the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, as enshrined in Article 51... United Nations Charter A plain-language reading of Article 51 makes it clear that the trigger necessary for invocation of the right of self-defense is the occurrence of an actual armed attack — the notion of an open-ended threat to security does not, by itself, suffice...
  Vladimir Putin, citing Article 51 as his authority, ordered what he called a “special military operation” against Ukraine for the ostensible purpose of eliminating neo-Nazi affiliated military formations accused of carrying out acts of genocide against the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass, and for dismantling a Ukrainian military Russia believed served as a de facto proxy of the NATO military alliance. Putin laid out a detailed case for pre-emption, detailing the threat that NATO’s eastward expansion posed to Russia, as well as Ukraine’s ongoing military operations against the Russian-speaking people of the Donbass.... Putin’s case for invading Ukraine has, not surprisingly, been widely rejected in the West. “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” Amnesty International declared, “is a manifest violation of the United Nations Charter and an act of aggression that is a crime under international law. Russia is in clear breach of its international obligations. Its actions are blatantly against the rules and principles on which the United Nations was founded. ″
  • Russia, Ukraine and the Law of War. Crime of Aggression (part one of a two-part series, lays out international law regarding the crime of aggression and how it relates to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine), By Scott Ritter, Consortiumnews 29 March 2022 https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/29/russia-ukraine-the-law-of-war-crime-of-aggression/

---

• Thank you all very much for your work. Conflict handled with honesty leads to harmony. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure that Putin's view that this was an act of "collective self defense" when Russia had in fact not been attacked is valid. Nor am I sure we can say (as he attacked un multiple lines of advance) that this was not a full scale invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Consortium News is listed in WP:RSP as a deprecated source, “known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are fringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories."” —Michael Z. 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Actually Consortium News is listed as generally unreliable not deprecated. The publisher also made it clear in this case that the article is an opinion piece by Scott Ritter appending to the work, The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News. Sources like this could be permissible for citing uncontentious claims or certain statements of opinion with appropriate in text attribution. (Subject to other policies of course) That said, it appears the author put forth no claim as to the scale of the invasion and his views about the legal justification, regardless of whatever merit they may or may not have, shouldn't be included here as fact as suggested by the phrase citing it as ... authorized by Aricle 51.... The proposed wording also seems to suggest that Putin himself invoked that legal justification which, although it may be the case (I have no idea), is unsupported at least by this source as best I can tell. --N8_wilson 🔔 21:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

In case you don't already know, many westerners who routinely question what the establishment would have us believe and routinely turn to investigative journalists in the Alternative press for our information, while considering the many of the establishment's views that they feed to the unquestioning masses, as the most unreliable, deceptive, anti-democratic, and pro-war/insane of all. Hope goes along with these suggestions for this article, but no expectation. Whatever will be will be. :-) Thank you 24.42.166.244 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@24.42.166.244: Please take note of the preferred practices for revising you own comments and other talk page guidelines as they help us maintain productive dialogue here. --N8_wilson 🔔 23:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson 🔔: Thank you very much! 24.42.166.244 (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

A new section under 4 Related Issues should be added: 4.4 Western propaganda, censorship, and disinformation campaigns

The topic of Western propaganda, censorship and disinformation campaigns should be included in this article. Clearly having a section for Russian propaganda without a section for Western propaganda is anything but balanced & neutral. Below is a 'tip of the iceberg' of material from investigative journalists reporting on the proposed topic.

<extensive copy/paste copyvios removed>

For the record. Thank you in advance for trying to live up to wikipeda's high principles. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Please keep discussion to concrete improvements to articles. See the WP:Talk page guidelines and WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Other talk may be removed. —Michael Z. 02:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed extensive copy/paste copyright violations from this discussion posted by 24.42.166.244. Most of it was content from American Conservative, Counterpunch and lots of commentary by Noam Chomsky, with a little Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Ron Paul Institute thrown in. Most of it was repetitive and appeared to serve the IP commenter's soapboxing rather than offering concrete article suggestions, and most of these sources are to be used with care and in-text attribution., if used at all. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Thank you for sharing that information. I noted that all the material/quotes submitted for consideration were deleted and are not visible in the history & "view revisions" while normal deletions are. Was that intentional? I had guessed that significant properly sourced quotes from notable people in the 50 to 200 word range would be ok. There were a lot of very relevant & properly sourced quotes in the post. It took me all day to find them. There were far more quotations from notable people, than my own opinions (which was less than 5%). Is there a way i could retrieve a copy?
As was obvious in the post, first I posted some comments, quotations & sources/links shortly thereafter, comments were posted by other wikipedia editors who seemed to indicate that more material was needed. So I did more research & posted more sources/quotes/material. Didn't know that it would upset anyone, but can understand the conflict with the dominate POV.
One quote that was posted that you may have forgotten to mention was from Philip Giraldi a former CIA agent who has said a lot about the Western Propaganda in this war. Apparently this isn't the same link that used - but it should suffice: https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/and-what-about-those-biolabs/
Another author i listed who you may have forgotten to mention was Chris Hedges who points out that the ruling elite have directed the social media platforms to censoring all who challenge the establishments, dominate narrative on Ukraine and more. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/18/chris-hedges-american-commissars/
another included a quote from Oliver Stone where he pointed out (as have many others that there has been a massive anti-russia propaganda wall in the US, and that the US had long been working diligently to get the masses to believe that Putin was a villain: https://scheerpost.com/2022/02/11/oliver-stone-american-exceptionalism-is-on-deadly-display-in-ukraine/
Another source i mentioned but you deleted was the group "Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting," This article: ‘Disinformation’ Label Serves to Marginalize Crucial Ukraine Facts" could be helpful for researchers: https://fair.org/home/disinformation-label-serves-to-marginalize-crucial-ukraine-facts/
Sorry for failing to read the talk page guidelines before posting. Thanks again. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason to post lengthy quotes when links will suffice, and allow reviewers to read the entire source. For the article to start talking about "western propaganda," it will have to gain substantial currency in reliable media. Otherwise, it would be represented in due proportion to its prevalence in such media, which is scant. 50 to 200 word quotes, much less dozens of them, are far beyond what is allowed in a free content publication, even on talkpages. In order for me to email the deleted content, you will probably need to create an account and add an email contact when you set it up. You may wish to review WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Renaming article to Ukraine War

Does anyone but wikipedians call this the Ukraine War? I propose renaming this the Ukraine War and removing the current redirect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine_War&redirect=no

Thoughts? 666hopedieslast (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Good idea! Guess something like this would be out of the question here, or not?
USA's proxy war with Russia
24.42.166.244 (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)