Jump to content

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Kazerniel (talk | contribs)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 186: Line 186:


[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/almost-9000-ukrainian-military-killed-war-with-russia-armed-forces-chief-2022-08-22/ Almost 9,000 Ukrainian military killed in war with Russia -armed forces chief | Reuters] -- [[User:Kazerniel|kazerniel]] ([[User talk:Kazerniel|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kazerniel|contribs]]) 14:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/almost-9000-ukrainian-military-killed-war-with-russia-armed-forces-chief-2022-08-22/ Almost 9,000 Ukrainian military killed in war with Russia -armed forces chief | Reuters] -- [[User:Kazerniel|kazerniel]] ([[User talk:Kazerniel|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kazerniel|contribs]]) 14:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

== Please update the map, it looks like undated ==

. [[Special:Contributions/86.123.7.179|86.123.7.179]] ([[User talk:86.123.7.179|talk]]) 19:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:42, 23 August 2022

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)[reply]

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.

Belligerents - United States involvement

Involvement of the United States in this war is, by conservative measures, on par with USSR involvement in the Vietnam War. By liberal measures even much greater. I suggest we either add US into the infobox, or remove USSR from the infobox in the Vietnam War and then revise all other war infoboxes. Otherwise, it is pointless to continue calling Wikipedia an independent encyclopedia. --Novis-M (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question #2 at the top of this Talk page addresses this issue. Biden has stated and repeated that there will be no boots on the ground in Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Words of a career politician are surely a good reassurance.--Novis-M (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is impossible to criticise those who give orders around here.--Novis-M (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, as no one gives "orders around here". But we have discussed this multiple times. But to address your point From July 1965 to December 1974, more than 6000 generals and officers and more than 4,500 soldiers were sent to Vietnam as specialists by the Russians", how many boots on the ground does the USA have (in Ukraine)? Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about India listed as a supporter of one side the in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War, citing "Humanitarian aid", "India, a close ally of the Soviet Union, endorsed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and by the end of the hostilities, offered to provide humanitarian assistance to the Afghan government"? 188.26.163.17 (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Supporting Countries in the war with Ukraine are Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan, do we add those? What do we mean humanitarian aid, military aid, political aid?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need more watchers at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

Could use more watchers at the above page. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks in Crimea

In the last ten days there have been two or more large explosions in Crimea https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/08/16/the-ukrainians-have-struck-another-russian-airfield-in-crimea/?sh=4791ca3c2dfa It is a new aspect of the war, so I would have thought a heading here might be justified. I haven't check other related pages yet. Any thoughts? Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Five Crimea attacks altogether: Black Sea Fleet HQ, Sevastopol, July 31; Saky airbase, August 9; Hvardiiske airbase, August 16; Maiske (adjacent to Azovske) ammunition dump, August 16; Dzhankoi electrical substation, August 16. —Michael Z. 21:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac, I’ve heard the attack at Hvardiivske may be internet rumors - have you seen a reliable source about it? (Just trying to keep up with current information, not question the relevance of attacks in Crimea).—Ermenrich (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation is a drone hit an ammo dump at the airbase.[1][2][3] Nothing like the scale of the Saky attack. —Michael Z. 22:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of RSS on the attacks in Crimea, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/17/ukraine-defense-minister-special-forces-new-strategy/ the question really is how to include them, given a degree of coyness from UAF about how they are being achieved. In my opinion it is an entirely new 'front' if you can call it that. It is certainly an expansion of operations by Ukraine. The effect on tourism should be noted. The losses reported at Saky were significant for Russia. New heading "Attacks in Crimea"? Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
August 18: supposedly an ammo depot hit in Belbek with little info, antiaircraft fire over the bridge at Kerch, and depot explosions in Belgorod oblast leading to the evacuation of two towns. August 19: drone reported shot down at Sevastopol.
This campaign may include the use of special forces, partisans, missiles, and/or drones. It is a continuation of the HIMARS campaign against Russian echelon and the (misnamed) 2022 Western Russia attacks. —Michael Z. 21:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've made a start, please have a look. There's a separate article for Saki, but not for others - I've made brief summary of three events under 'second phase' and stopped short of calling it a third phase. I've added the timeline article to 'See also'. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Sensible Proposal for renaming pages to be consistent and logical with other Wikipedia pages, and more easy to understand

TL:DR, Rename this to Russo-Ukrainian War, and rename the other page to Russo-Ukrainian Conflict.

Longer Answer: In other long conflicts with periods of intense violence escalating into full scale war, and long periods of down time with small scale engagments and casulties with the odd small flair up, Wikipedia has, by in large, a very consistent system.

Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict covers the entire period of tensions from 1988-present day, within it containing seperate articles for the wars (the term reserved for the intense fighting in the early 90s and 2020) and some notable flairups outside of it.

Afghanistan Conflict covers everything from the 1978 Saur Revolution to todays Panjishir Conflict, all part of a single continuous conflict, but the various seperate civil wars and interventions within are categorized separately.

Libya Crisis(slightly different term due to...reasons I'm not sure, but same principle), covers both wars and the period of low level violence inbetween them and after the 2nd one ended.

Therefore, this current flareup is the Russo-Ukrainian War, part of the larger Russo-Ukrainian Conflict(which also includes the 2014-2015 War in Donbas, and a period of low intensity fighting inbetween(Mid 2015-February 2022) that perhaps should have a seperate article ala what the others do. Of course, the others were all crafted with far more hindsight than we had when we made the War in Donbas article years ago, but with further clarity now a restructing to something like. Russo-Ukrainian Conflict Page (Which describes the seperate War in Donbas, 2015-2022 Donbas Skirmishes, Russo-Ukrainian War, all of which get their own pages) TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've had similar discussions before. I'm pretty sympathetic to this idea. Jr8825Talk 02:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think there should definitely remain an article called invasion of Ukraine, it should just be narrower in scope. Jr8825Talk 02:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
06:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
When the average person says ‘Russo-Ukrainian War’ or you ask them ‘When did the war start?’, they’re not thinking about 2014, they’re thinking about this year. You could redirect invasion to that, or perhaps in the future it might be wise to give Phase 1 and Phase 2 dedicated pages ala his Operation Barbarossa and Operation Bluebell do, but for now, Russo-Ukrainian War SHOULD be this page, it fits the common usage, and it fits Wikipedia precedent, this fits exactly with what Wikipedia has done with other multiphase conflicts, most notably Nagorno Karabakh(another post soviet conflict).
So my proposal is.
The other page(currently Russo-Ukrainian War), becomes Russo-Ukrainian Conflict, discussing the conflict in the broadest sense just like what the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict and Afghanistan Conflict pages d. For more specific phases, there are specific articles. The major ones being-
Euromaiden(page is fine as is)
Russian Annexstion of Crimea (again, fine as is)
War in Donbas (2014-2015, I personally advocate for splitting the current article in two, one for the active phase that ended in early 2015 that was a true war. Maybe rename it to Donbas War, uncertain)
2015-2022 Donbas Skirmishes (For the low intensity phase. This is what Libya and Nagorno Karabakh did, and more notable flairups can get their own articles, like the 2017 battle of adiivka)
The Russo-Ukrainian War Buildup/2021-2022 Crisis (again unchanged)
Russo-Ukrainian War (which would be this page).
So yeah, that’s my proposal. It fits the average persons understanding, and it lines up with Wikipedia precedent with other long conflicts with pauses. This page should be Russo-Ukrainian War, that page should be Russo-Ukrainian Conflict, and it would probably be a good idea to split the Donbas one in half, the 2014-2015 situation was a true active war, while the 2015-2022 situation was a simmering frozen conflict with the odd flare up. I hope you back me on this good sir. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:9957:F09A:E13D:8B3F (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a very new editor, so my opinion here may not hold much weight but I do oppose changing the name of this article in this manner at this time. Until more academic and scholarly eyes have judged the events and progress of this conflict, and we can reliably point to specific shifts in the pattern and behavior of the invasion as identified by scholars and their peers, this should remain the Invasion article. Are any mainstream sources shifting to calling this just a war, or are we stil mostly seeing documentation along the lines of "Day (x) of the Russian Invasion", and so on? King keudo (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed. Our naming is not based on our folksy impressions of “the average person’s understanding,” but on WP:reliable sources. They all say there has been a war for eight years. Any serious proposal to change titles of important articles should refer directly to guidelines, sources, and evidence of usage. —Michael Z. 21:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My source is this is what we've been doing for every other conflict with flare ups and frozen periods. Nagorno-Karabakh, Afghanistan, Libya, and more. The "Afghanistan War" article isn't for everything from 1978-present, that's the Afghanistan CONFLICT article, and each of the individual flare ups and wars gets their own page. Why is this not the case here? We had the 2014-2015 War in Donbas, a period of frozen conflict, and the current full scale Russo-Ukranian War. Russia and Ukraine were not involved in a full scale war with Russian plainclothes boots on the ground and Ukraine fighting back until this February. So I do have sources, my source is the massive amount of precadent from conflicts with similar patterns to organize it that way on this site. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheBrodsterBoy those are not sources in the sense meant here. See WP:reliable sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok...Ok....I'll come back in a while when I have all my affairs in order. I'll get your reliable sources, I'll provide links to all the precedent I've found, I'll provide common usage, and I'll make a proper request for the move. I've put enough time into this, I ought to do it properly. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a further note, what you want to be doing is looking for the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic, and what the boundaries of the topic(s) usually are here (when experts discuss the (full-scale) invasion, do they include the fighting up to today? when experts discuss the Ukraine-Russia war, are they usually referring to fighting since 2014 or 2022, or perhaps both? How do scholars refer to the 2014 invasion?). You'll need to use reliably published sources (preferably journal articles or articles by professors, although articles in reliable news outlets and by other experts can also demonstrate usage). Pointing to precedent on Wikipedia itself isn't helpful, as it's an argument that's often disregarded by editors (see WP:OTHERCONTENT and this essay). As others have said, it's perfectly plausible that experts haven't settled on common names yet, in which case we might have to wait a few years before evaluating how best to present and divide our content. Hope this helps, Jr8825Talk 00:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
Yeah I figured precedent wasn't gonna do too much good. I've seen official names get thrown out for common names and common names thrown out for official names. Still, better to have it or not.
I'll find the proper sources, back it up with examples of common usage and the precadent, and present my case for neatness reorganizing. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn’t been any “frozen period,” either. The 2015–22 static trench war had more casualties than the 2014–15 mobile conflict. —Michael Z. 03:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, even at its quietest there were constant ceasefire violations. I saw reliable sources call it "almost-frozen", but never "frozen" in the same way as other post-Soviet conflicts. Jr8825Talk 03:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree also. NB From a different point of view - just trying to find this page is difficult because the title starts with the year. That's quite important for people using search engines. Putting 'Russia' or 'Russian' into the search does not find it either. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Ukraine by the Belarusian opposition

A couple of months ago Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya stated "We understand that, without a free Ukraine, there cannot be a free Belarus." And on top of that, the opposition also supported Ukraine in the Battle of Kyiv. So I was thinking we should add the Belarusian opposition to the belligerents section on the Ukrainian side. I got these sources here, here, and on the infobox on the Battle of Kyiv. 2601:600:827F:67C0:6088:8A2C:A09B:17CE (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kalinouski Regiment, which is taking part in the military operations supporting Ukraine, is a clearly notable example, so at least part of the opposition in Belarus belongs to the category of belligerents. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:A90B:40F9:721F:1D44 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No more so than Syrian mercenaries or god knows who are are supporting Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:National Republican Army (Russia)

I have created a draft article for the Draft:National Republican Army (Russia), the group which may be responsible for the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina according to Ilya Ponomarev. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Ukrainian report of their military casualties

Almost 9,000 Ukrainian military killed in war with Russia -armed forces chief | Reuters -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 14:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the map, it looks like undated

. 86.123.7.179 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]