Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#RfC on Western support to 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 RfC: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#RfC on Western support to Ukraine, closed 30 December 2022.

See also earlier RfCs: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022; and, Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022. All RfCs were closed with "no consensus". In the most recent RfC, the closer made the following statement:

Also, can we not do this again in a couple months? There is WP:NODEADLINE, and there is sure to be plenty of academic studies and expert writings that will provide excellent context and sourcing for what, exactly, should be listed in that infobox parameter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:13, 30 December 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.

RFC on Syria in infoboxes

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.

---

Should "Syria" be included as a belligerent in infoboxes of pages relating to the 2022-23 war where Syrian mercenaries have participated? (see earlier thread) HappyWith (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this asking specifically "Syria" or "Syrian mercenaries" too? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Specifically "Syria", I'm basically referring to the presentation in the infoboxes of Battle of Donbas (2022) and Southern Ukraine campaign. HappyWith (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There is currently nothing in the Syria article at Wikipedia which even mentions Russia, Putin, or Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It does not need to be reciprocal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a measure of importance though; if its not at all mentioned in the Syria article then it leads to questions about its importance elsewhere. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It is something to keep in mind and factor in but not the be all and end all. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No  The reports are vague as to the nature of involvement by Syrians, but they appear to be mercenaries recruited by Wagner and/or other Russian outfits. Apparently Syria allows them to advertise for recruiting, but that seems to be the sum of involvement by the Syrian state. Even the one SOHR article at first says that 5 fighters of the Syrian 25th Div. were killed, kinda-almost implying that a Syrian unit is in Ukraine, but then refers to them or other Syrians as mercenaries. The Syrian state is not a belligerent. If it is encouraging or even sending a few fighters to fight under the Russian flag or in Russian PMCs, that still doesn’t make it a belligerent. Ukraine and Syria may have a bad relationship, but they are not at war, and shouldn’t be marked as opposing belligerents in any infobox, because that would be misleading.

(I earlier argued that Iran should be included among belligerents because Iranian soldiers are officially but covertly involved in operating drone weapons. I am no longer confident that it should, and Syria is way below the threshold of military involvement.)  —Michael Z. 23:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No - As many of other editors have noted their level of participation does not rise to the level of belligerent. BogLogs (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No The presence of Syrians is poorly documented, somewhat attributable to a single source (the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights), and to the best of my knowledge, there's no real indication of official (narrowly defined ;) Syrian government support.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No. No countries should be named as belligerents based on the participation of mercenaries.

Sennalen (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd leave it out (invited by the bot). I'd also leave out the 2 "entities" that exist only in the Russian's imagination that are currently listed out. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

(Incidentally agree that based on what we know at this point DLNR’s 1st and 2nd Army Corps definitely belong under “Units,” and their puppet governments do not belong under “Belligerents.”)  —Michael Z. 23:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No The presence of Syrian mercenaries does not mark the nation of Syria as a belligerent to be placed in the infobox nor should we mark these mercenaries with the Syrian flag under units. Both actions would misrepresent Syria's involvement. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No I have had a look around and I can't find anything that would support Syrian state military involvement in the conflict. THIS (although written in the relatively early days of the most recent conflict) seems like a good summation. To say that Syria wants to support Russia (Putin) is one thing. To include Syria as a belligerent would need well sourced information that organised Syrian Government military had been actively (even in support) deployed in the area of conflict and sufficient to meet the definition of Belligerent

waging war

specifically : belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No Supplying arms or mercenaries does not make you a belligerent. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2023 (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.

Proposed merge of 2023 visit by Joe Biden to Ukraine into 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Article subject is a symbolic visit with no indication of any long-term significance justifying a stand-alone article. Pretty clear breach of WP:DELAY and WP:Recentism. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Support as OP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Non-EC comment - wouldn't it make more sense to merge into the Joe Biden article, under his current presidency instead? Possibly notable as the 'first visit' during the current invasion, but not so much as to stand by itself as an article. It would be more fitting as an item in his presidency page, I think. King keudo (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That might work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Zelenskys visits to the US and UK are if anything less significant than a US President visiting a country at war with Russia, and both of them have articles. You would have to delete half of all content relating to the invasion if you want to be that strict about Recentism. Precedent certainly supports this being an article even if it needs work. --jonas (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Support but merge into Joe Biden Canadian Owl (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Well referenced, with lasting notability.Juneau Mike (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

What significance would that be? It was a photo-op. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

See Putin's Reactions_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Suspension of New START treaty, which limited the US and Russia to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers each. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing any direct connection between that and Biden's visit. It is almost certainly a response to the continuing US support for Ukraine. The visit changed nothing. It was a photo-op. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It was the one-year anniversary of the invasion and a clear signal to Putin: we're not backing down, and here's another $500 million to prove it.[1] soibangla (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What notability? Just a politician's foto-op. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The intended audience for this visit was less the American people than it was Vladimir Putin. soibangla (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Support merging for now into Joe Biden and his list of international trips page. Although there isn't enough information right now to warrant, I do hesitate to merge quickly as more info is to come out in the coming days as indicated by this NYT article. This article does not meet notability requirements. Yeoutie (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose highly notable event for reasons listed above, including its (un)precedence. It may need some text that emphasizes its precedence if necessary, but well referenced throughout anyways. OfTheUsername (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

WHAT reasons listed above???? HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. I believe that merging the topic into the Ukraine article wouldn't be beneficial, as it would essentially make a footnote of a former well-made article representing what is documented as a historic event by a plethora of sources. Though points can certainly be made arguing against its historicity, it's nevertheless been shown to play major significance and would be useful as an individual article. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) [she/her] 06:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't mean to get all WP:CRYSTAL on you, but this potentially historical event does seem to have enough sources to assert notability. — {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 19:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Oppose Notability & well referenced. Precedent for having pages for US president 1st presidential visits to countries amidst significant political backdrop (in this case the Russian Invasion of Ukraine). Example: Nixon to China etc Yeungkahchun (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose As was cited above, notable enough for own article--Noel baran (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose or merge into a Biden related article 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose per norm --- Tbf69 P • T 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not a vote. But surely you support it if you agree with the nom. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

"norm" - see wikt:norm --- Tbf69 P • T 19:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Then I don't understand the policy argument. The norm is that pages must meet WP:GNG and that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability per WP:SUSTAINED. The norm is that an article such as this is not notable. Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time per WP:N. This is something that is not being addressed in these oppose arguments. Stating it is notable for its own article is not evidence that it has gained "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think enough time has yet passed to say that this visit hasn't gained sufficient attention over a period of time; it has no doubt received "sufficiently significant attention" thus far. Compusolus (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a reversal of the policy. Note again, that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Wikipedia is not a news site, it is an encyclopaedia, and articles are written when the notability has been established, not when it is unclear whether notability will be established. That is the policy. What policy arguments favour keeping this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY --- Tbf69 P • T 16:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY says: those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time (my emphasis). So yes WP:NOTABILITY makes the same case as WP:SUSTAINED that this does not meet WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose Unprecedented, well referenced. Tdmurlock (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose—per reasons above, and the fact that this visit was the "first time in modern history that a US leader has visited a war zone outside the shield of the US military." This article definitely meets WP:LASTING, and there has been significant independent media coverage. Compusolus (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Support or merge into a Biden related article. Spyglass1 (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Support and merge into Biden related article per reasons of nom and WP:NOTNEWS, since at present, the sourcing is NEWSORG. I can't see that Kennedy's trip to Berlin has its own page. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Support merging, no preference on target. The topic doesn't justify a standalone article. BilledMammal (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merging. The article was created too soon, but it has been created and I think it is clear now that this is a significant topic. Reliable sources are equating it to Kennedy's and Reagan's speeches in Berlin, and calling it the closest a US president has come to the battlefield since Lincoln. I am also convinced, at the risk of using a crystal ball, that we will see coverage of this visit in the future; histories of the Russian invasion of Ukraine will include significant coverage of this visit. BilledMammal (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (regular). The topic is notable, and all indications are that this is WP:LASTING. gidonb (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Support merging. It has become a very important article since Biden said he would supply millions more military arms to Ukraine. I don't see any reason it shouldn't. Note: I've been using this page to note the Russo-Ukraine war and document it for the future... ThatADHDperson (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Note Your !vote states you support merge, but the text of your explanation calls it a, "very important article." Could you clarify your position? Juneau Mike (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarification Sorry for confusion, I meant that it is a very important article in the sense that it's important info. I support merging, sorry if my wording is difficult to understand. ThatADHDperson (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Support merging Content is minimal and the trip is already over. It is not independently notable and there's nothing more to add. All we'd need is a sentence or two at an article on the invasion and at an article on Biden's foreign policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Striking my support per WP:HEY. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Support merging This was a minor incident, a quick visit where he spent only an hour or two. Merge it to this article, with a sentence or two, or at most a small subsection. Also probably a mention under Presidency of Joe Biden. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

MelanieN, Biden was in Ukraine for 24 hours and in Kyiv for 5 hours. Prolog (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Prolog. Five hours, not one or two. However, it was still a very brief visit. And how many of those "24 hours in Ukraine" were spent on a train? Ten to get from Poland to Kyiv (mentioned by all sources), probably another ten to leave (not mentioned anywhere that I saw). In any case, it looks like the consensus here is going to be to keep the article. I defer to consensus, but IMO that has been an unfortunate trend here - making spinoff articles for every one-day development in what ought to be handled as a unified story. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge with Ukraine–United States relations perhaps. VintageVernacular (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. This visit has a historical significance that is just beginning to emerge. This is the first visit by a US president to a country where there is hostilities but no American military presence. Exactly the same landmark situation was with the visits of the presidents earlier: Ich bin ein Berliner, Tear down this wall!. Τάρας στον Παρνασσό (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Support I don't see why this is an article in the first place. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Significant and historic visit with lots of RS coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - As other editors have mentioned it is a significant and historic visit with plenty of reliable sources. BogLogs (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose / Wait - Media coverage and international reactions to the event are still rapidly ongoing, so I think that it would be best to wait a week or two to assess the full scope of the visit. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 13:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Should be merged with List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Ukraine during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or something similar. The invasion article is too broad. —Legoless (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment. The article has been expanded since this was nominated. It would be useful if all respondents, wanting to merge the article because it was short, can clarify if they still hold this position also after this expansion. In general, when basic notability exists, such as in this case, it is worthwhile giving it a few days so the article can arrive at a stable state. gidonb (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Support: But merge it with Joe Biden's own page instead of the invasion, or like @Legoless idea by merging it with List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Ukraine during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I don't think it should be merged with the invasion because it doesn't seem relevant to the article. It's just Joe Biden visiting Ukraine unannounced, not a new war front. ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 14:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose What many have already mentioned and what I said in the article talk page; per NYTimes "Since Abraham Lincoln rode to the front lines outside Washington to watch battles in Northern Virginia during the Civil War, no president has gotten close to combat," i.e. no U.S. president since then has gone to area not controlled by the U.S. military, even if it was a war zone like Iraq or Afghanistan. Putin has already pulled out of nuclear arms treaty (I am not saying he would not otherwise, but it's clear Biden's decision to go there infuriated the Russian regime and was unprecedented) and I suspect that historians will study this particular trip as an important and consequential event of its own. Ppt91^talk 15:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Your mention of the suspension of new start is an example itself of recentism as its now said the ground verification only will be halted and the other treaty nuclear weapons limits wont be changed.

Trump of course withdrew the US from 2 previous treatys related to ground based missile launchers(INF) and verification overflights (open skies) Okerefalls (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support instance of recentism. Hekerui (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Support but merge into Presidency of Joe Biden or List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Ukraine during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment I'm adding a short note about the Biden visit to the article as a standard update to the article, which should have no effect upon this RFC moving forward to its conclusion after 30 days when someone will install the outcome into the article. My short addition today is limited only to the opening section of the Invasion section and the Phase 3 invasion section of the article. The outcome of the RFC should in any event prevail after it comes to its conclusion after 30 days. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose – RSes are discussing the visit as important and historically significant, and the article on the invasion isn't a good target. DecafPotato (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Unique visit, and numerous highly respected WP:RS also describe it as such. A sitting US President visiting an allied capital in the minst of a brutal war is highly unusual and certainly notable. Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can find, the only non-summit US presidential visit with a standalone article is the 1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China, which falls under the category of summits/normalization visits.

While this visit was certainly a big deal, I don't think it will end up standing out as a particular highlight of Biden's presidency. Time will tell, I guess.

This was "merely" an unscheduled visit by POTUS to a friendly country at war to give moral support and hold a press conference. Not a visit to normalize ties with an unfriendly country (such as Nixon's visit to China or Sadat's visit to Israel) or a historic summit meeting (such as Reykjavik or Singapore).

IMHO if, and only if, it later becomes clear "Kyiv stands strong" has the notability of "ich bin ein Berliner", then, and only then, will it deserve a standalone article. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:RS describe it as historic and important. HappyWith (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as per the reasons given above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment Adding to what I said earlier, the article already exists in six other languages, including Russian and Ukrainian, which points at the very least to continued coverage and resonance in regard to geopolitics; I suspect more languages will be added and I think merging would be premature at this point. Ppt91^talk 00:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Notable enough as standalone article based on RS. TylerBurden (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support merge into a Biden-related article. While we're on it, IMHO 2023 visit by Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the United Kingdom and 2022 visit by Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the United States should also be merged as WP:Recentism. Normal practice appears to be to put all state visits, except perhaps summits, into lists. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that all three articles were created by the same user. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose This article is significant and shouldn't be merged, it absolutely deserves a stand alone article. Mixed Biscuit (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose The separate article can have enough information for it to have a standalone article. Cwater1 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support merge - a pretty clear example of recentism. The event should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia but makes no sense having its own article. Saying it is significant is clearly not good enough, and neither is the fact that it is reported in this news cycle. What is needed to demonstrate notability is some understanding that this has significance as an event in itself, and it is too soon for any such sources to exist. Wikipedia is not part of the news cycle, it is an encyclopedia and the assessment of notability is retrospective. This is polcy. I am neutral on merge target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support merge - Definitely an example under WP:Recentism; it may be notable now, but who will be talking about his visit to Ukraine in a year from now? Nobody. I also agree that it should be merged into an article about Biden. phrogge 'sup? edits 15:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

who will be talking about his visit to Ukraine in a year from now? Nobody. This is a very broad and bold, if not ill-informed, assumption regarding a very complex geopolitical situation. But then again, there may have been numerous people in 1987 saying the exact same thing about Reagan's visit to Berlin.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd caution against merging too soon and relying too much on WP:RECENTISM argument. A lot is pointing in the direction of it being a consequential visit (see Anne Applebaum's very good analysis in The Atlantic, for example) for the course of what is the largest military conflict in Europe since World War II.

When I say consequential, I don't mean that it will unilaterally determine the conflict's outcome, but that its implications as a major projection of U.S. political and military support go far beyond any other prior visit to Ukraine by the numerous European leaders and U.S. politicians. In that sense, I see a lot of similarities with 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan as far as notability is concerned. Ppt91^talk 16:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support merge per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support: I feel it is likely WP:Recentism, and the page is relatively short as well. In the future perhaps we could restore it as an article if it stays notable, but it's too soon to call it that. I think it would fit better on Joe Biden instead of the war, however. FieryRaven (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support: obvious recentism. Derpytoucan (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I see no problem with an important visit of a head of state to another country to have its own article. The article is well sourced, highlighting some interesting facts that have independent significance and have received mentions in reliable sources. This type of event have their own significance. That is even apart from the lasting significance which I think this visit will have, which I only see as additional support for my oppose. Debresser (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose – Well-referenced and notable enough to be a standalone article. Treetoes023 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Unprecedented thus notable for standalone article. soibangla (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Question to Ad Orientem and/or any other admin. Is this merge discussion an internal project discussion falling to the general sanctions in place that would restrict non-ECP user participation? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 I am WP:INVOLVED so what follows is just the opinion of another editor. IMHO I don't think it would be a huge deal if someone who is not extended confirmed commented here. ECP applies to editing the article page(s), not the talk pages where requested edits can be made. That said, it would be strictly off limits to anyone under an applicable topic ban. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article is already quite long at 12,000 words / 79,000 characters - near the limit suggested by WP:SIZESPLIT. Some might reasonably consider splitting out certain sections, rather than merging new ones into the article. As for notability, there are enough interesting and well-covered aspects to Biden's visit – the planning, the logistics, the response by Ukraine and Russia – to merit a standalone article. --Tserton (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

OpposeVolodymyr Zelenskyy's visits to the United States and the United Kingdom have Wikipedia pages, and this visit was equally if not more significant. Isaiahlaitinen99 (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose There is enough sources to keep this as a separate article. Catfurball (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Support mergeOppose doubtful that this meets the notability guideline at NEVENT, but we won't know about lasting coverage for a while. Regardless, notability doesn't meet it must be covered in a stand-alone article and it makes far more sense to cover it here. There are better places to spin out content if length is a concern. VQuakr (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Changed to oppose based on Prolog's comments below; they make a convincing case. VQuakr (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge but into List of presidential trips made by Joe Biden (2023). Just my input. conman33 (. . .talk) 01:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Support and Merge - Even though the article has a wide variety of WP:RS it fails WP:RECENTISM and standalone article seems to be not needed. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Does it fail WP:RECENTISM? Surely a visit by a serving U.S. President to an active warzone—something not done since Abraham Lincoln's time—passes the WP:10YEARTEST and/or the WP:20YEARTEST. Compusolus (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The article meets WP:EVENTCRIT and a merge does not make sense here. This is a highly unusual visit by a sitting U.S. president to an active warzone (under Russian invasion) without U.S. military presence. The meeting has been called historic, without quotation marks, by several reliable sources (CNN, Foreign Policy, LA Times, NBC, USA Today). Those supporting a merge have listed no less than seven articles to which this content should be merged (2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Joe Biden, List of international presidential trips made by Joe Biden, List of presidential trips made by Joe Biden (2023), List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Ukraine during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Presidency of Joe Biden and Ukraine–United States relations). This further suggests that the content is best kept as a separate article with summaries in the other articles. The rush to merge was unfortunate as some of the comments here are outdated ("Content is minimal") or outright wrong ("a quick visit where he spent only an hour or two"). Prolog (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Prolog Thanks for this helpful summary. I would sooner propose to merge two of Zelensky's foreign visits in 2022 into one article than try to find a "fit" for this page. And the Biden visit article, per at least one WP:HEY vote, has already been improved. Given it's my fourth post, though, I'll stop so as not to push WP:POINT and wait for consensus. Ppt91^talk 21:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merge, at least for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Time will be final arbiter as to its historical impact, but for now the event meets requirements for a page and the impact of it will have reverberations for the remainder of the presidents term. At some point in the future it might make sense to merge into another page once the sensationalism wears off, but then again it may not and moving into a new article would just be more work for editors. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment I keep seeing this claim that this trip is somehow unique since Lincoln. Not so. Bush visited both Iraq and Afghanistan. LBJ visited Vietnam. Eisenhower famously traveled to Korea, very near the front lines. FDR visited North Africa, although that was after military operations there had largely wound down. Not sure where this pious fiction originated, but it is simply not true. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, President Biden’s visit with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in Kyiv was the first trip by a modern president to a war zone not under the control of American forces. [2] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like hair splitting to me. Ike's trip was more dangerous. So was FDR's since the Germans still had a very capable air force and Roosevelt was traveling by air. We even told the Russians he was coming. In any event, unlike those trips, this one was basically a photo-op. The real business was conducted at later meetings with European allies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

P.S. And you can throw in FDR's trip to Yalta in 1945 which was most definitely not under US military control. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like your opinion re: Eisenhower and FDR. Yalta was under Soviet control, and they were an ally. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Kyiv is under Ukranian control. Biden was nowhere near the front. Any suggestion that Biden was in real danger is risible. There is no shortage of historians who have commented on the risks taken by Ike and FDR in their travels. Where is the long-term significance of this? What exactly did it accomplish? What grand decisions were taken? It's already falling off the news cycle. Whole books have been written about FDR's wartime trips. This was a glorified photo-op. Not saying he shouldn't have made the trip. But I am saying it doesn't justify a stand-alone article. And yes, that's my opinion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. It's not our job to decide what should be notable, it's our job to acknowledge what reliable sources do consider notable. Obviously this has been considered by reliable sources to be more than just a "photo-op". Also it's not clear where you would merge this into without probably needing to merge it out again as articles like Joe Biden and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine continue to get longer. Also note that the corresponding 2022 visit by Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the United States article does and should have a page. OP has mentioned some other Presidential trips that could be considered just as notable but don't have pages yet, and maybe he's right, but perhaps we should be making pages for them rather than trying to figure out how and where to merge this one. Relinus (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. It was a pivotal development. There has been a significant and in-depth media coverage making it highly eligible for a stand alone article. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose well-covered by reliable sources and has significant historical importance. Dan the Animator 16:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Not only does the event meets requirements for a page, but it is significant and potentially historic. NewRadicals98 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The topic of the article

the topic of the article should be changed from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to 2022-23 Russian invasion of Ukraine because the year which is going on is 2023 and the war is still ongoing. E.A.C.K.A.C (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Recently discussed here; the result was no consensus. — Czello 12:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There is already a redirect: Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022). What if the article were to be moved over the redirect? The invasion was one year ago; as Russia occupies part of Ukraine to this day, the mooted title remains accurate. If Russia were to withdraw from Ukraine completely, a new article (or perhaps a new sub-section of Russo-Ukrainian war) would be created reflecting the new condition. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The most recent build-up of troops appears to be in Bakhmut of concentrating 200K Russian troops earlier in February. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sanctions map

Maybe I'm color blind but I find it hard to differentiate between the blue and purple countries on the map showing which countries are imposing sanctions on Russia and which are blocking sanction circumvention. Could one of the colors be changed to something more distinct? JorikThePooh (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

What platform/system are you using to render the pic? Also, do you actually have any reason to believe you might be color blind?

It looks fine to me, and I'm using a heavy redshift filter right now.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm using chrome on a Mac. I think I'm mildly red-green color blind but it only really affects me occasionally, such as on thematic maps. It might be a rare problem but I still think for inclusivity purposes it might be good to change it too blue and orange, or something like that. 74.207.34.40 (talk) 74.207.34.40 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Date thing

In the date part of the infobox it says that it's been 1 year and 1 day since it began. It was friday 24/02/22 then and it's Friday 24/02/23 today. Isn't it supposed to say 1 year since it has been exactly one year since it began? There hasn't been a leap year between last year and this year so I'm confused. Or maybe it's because of time zones? Either way it's quite weird and confusing. Ocemccool (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The 365th day of the invasion was the 23.02.2023...the starting day counts as day one, so we're on the 366th day today. Lectonar (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Anniversary

Today is the anniversary of 1 year since the war between Russia and Ukraine started. I think that more information on all of these articles related related to the Russoukranian War should be added generally.That's what I have to say. Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What information do you want to add, what information are we missing? Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Also I am pretty sure Ukrain considers 20 Feb 2014 (annexation of Crimea) that start of the war. The anniversary is that of the full scale invasion of Ukrain depending on how it is viewed not the war proper. 85.148.34.37 (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War covers this, the War in Donbas, and the Annexation of Crimea 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Title change.

I think we should rename this page to “Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-present). The Somali Civil War has the same thing. TankDude2000 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The name of the larger event starting in 2014 is "Russo-Ukrainian War". It would make no sense to call it the same thing as its encompassing conflict. HappyWith (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you don’t want to change this page’s name to the “2022-2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine”, then change the date to “24 February-7 April 2022”, because the “invasion content” says the invasion lasted until April 2022! TankDude2000 (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Why not indefinitely ECP this page?

This page was recently protected for a period of 1 year by User:Deepfriedokra following a request at RFPP. WP:GS/RUSUKR gives admins the ability to indefinitely ECP pages within this topic area. Why shouldn't this page be indefinitely protected, if there are so many others that already are? Let's just protect this page so that we don't have to think about it later. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 20:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Orrr, we can see if ECP is still needed when the current ECP expires a year from now.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

That's another option, yes. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Genocide

Why is there nothing on the genocide being committed by Russia? There are anumber of allegations lodged by other states and also study papers full of evidence. See https://newlinesinstitute.org/an-independent-legal-analysis-of-the-russian-federations-breaches-of-the-genocide-convention-in-ukraine-and-the-duty-to-prevent/, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/27/russia-guilty-inciting-genocide-ukraine-expert-report and https://www.icj-cij.org/case/182 2A00:23C8:8F9F:4801:F129:94C0:563A:D169 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation dump in the lede

Here is a copy of the citation dump that was placed into the lede, so that anybody interested can write out an appropriate paragraph using them and then, if/as necessary, adjust the lede accordingly. Don't dump 40 lines of wikitext into the lede, it creates a navigation nightmare. Seriously, look at where my signature has to go in relation to where the main comment is located. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Requested move 26 February 2023

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) – Reopening this discussion. So, as far as I'm aware, there have been 4 major move discussions on this page:

• Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 2#Requested move 26 February 2022 proposed 2022 invasion of Ukraine per WP:CONCISE and the role of Belarus, but was rejected due to the fact that the invasion is Russia's and, if Belarus is a participant, it is mostly playing a supporting role to Russia.
• Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 4#Requested move 28 February 2022 proposed Russian invasion of Ukraine per WP:PRITOP, but was rejected due to WP:RECENTISM and the need for disambiguation with the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and other conflicts.
• Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#Requested move 15 December 2022 proposed Russian invasion of Ukraine again, per WP:PRITOP, and suggested that WP:RECENTISM wasn't a concern, given the time elapsed since the invasion's beginning. It was again rejected, primarily due to the fact it's not the first invasion in Ukraine's history, and therefore could be ambiguous.
• Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 12#Requested move 31 December 2022 proposed 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine, given the invasion is continuing into 2023, therefore, "2022 ..." makes it sound like the invasion started and ended in 2022. It had no consensus due to differing interpretations of "invasion", as either the initial phase of the conflict, or a word that can describe the entire conflict.

Personally, I'm not entirely sure which title is best for this page, but I'm proposing Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), (instead of "... 2022-2023 ...") due to it's preference amongst editors participating in the 31 December 2022 move discussion who supported changing the time descriptor, and the fact it makes it look like the conflict has already or will definitely end in 2023.

• I support the brackets in the title Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) because it's cleaner and more descriptive. As English readers read left-to-right, the most important information ("Russian invasion of Ukraine") is seen first, and then the time descriptor, is seen very slightly later. 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine makes it look like "2022-2023" is more important than "Russian invasion of Ukraine".
• I somewhat understand the argument that an "invasion" is the first stage of the conflict, so to some extent, the invasion is over and a more conventional interstate war is ongoing, therefore Escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present), or similar, could be used, but this would be extremely difficult to gain consensus on. On the other hand, many say the word "invasion" should be used in the title, as it's the most commonly used name (per WP:COMNAME).
• Further to the above point, it's also been proposed (see Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 9#Post-invasion phase) to limit the scope of the article to simply the initial phase of the conflict, and cover the rest on the page Russo-Ukrainian War. I understand this proposal, but it could be confusing for casual readers.

Please keep this discussion civil (WP:HTBC) 👍.

Thank you, and Слава Україні! --- Tbf69 P • T 16:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support (2022-present) It makes more sense than 2022-2023 as it is ongoing and may keep going. And, it is used elsewhere too, like Iraqi conflict (2003–present) 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the Invasion was in 2022, just as the Normandy invasion was in 1944. This is part of the wider war, not a new one. We can't and must not imply otherwise, which I feel this would do. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  For a few years prior to the outbreak of the current conflict, the situation was relatively peaceful. --- Tbf69 P • T 08:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  The invasion continues, albeit with glacial slowness, as the Russians try to continue taking mor Ukrainian territory. Nothing. About the title says it is not part of the larger war.  —Michael Z. 09:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think this is a comparable example. There is no article that goes by the direct bang Normandy Invasion. The article is Operation Overlord, which does not have a date in the title. Moreover the operation was completed wholly within 1944 so again isn't comparable. Interestingly it does have a disambiguation link to French invasion of Normandy (1202–1204) which has invasion in the title and covers a period of multiple years. Tracland (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support (2022-present) It would make sense for now. In the long run, I'd suggest splitting the article in two: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to describe the initial phase of the ongoing war (24 February until the retreat from Kyiv Oblast) and Russo-Ukrainian War to describe the overall conflict that started on 24 February 2022. The article that is currently under the name Russo-Ukrainian War should then be renamed *Russo-Ukrainian conflict, since most of its duration a Trasnistria-like border conflict with separatist militia groups aided by Russia took place, with the years 2019–2021 being relatively peaceful, and the actual war taking place around 2014–2015, thus making a reference to it being WP:CONSISTENT with Russo-Georgian War, that described a short direct militrary confrontation between two countries, make pretty much no sense. But, as was mentioned before, it would be extremely complicated to reach consensus on all three changes. CapLiber (talk) 18:56 26 Feburary 2023 (UTC)

I like your idea, perhaps Ukraine conflict for the overall conflict, Russo-Ukrainian war for the post 24 February conflict and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for the phase from the 24 February to the retreat from Kyiv Oblast. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That will not happen because it’s all wrong. There is no difference in meaning between war and conflict in these contexts. Courts have found that the militias were controlled by Russia and an international war started by mid May 2014. There was no change in 2019. More people were killed and wounded in Ukraine in what you call the “relatively peaceful” period of static warfare than in 2014–15.  —Michael Z. 14:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That's why I'm proposing the much simpler move to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), which is easier to get consensus for. --- Tbf69 P • T 14:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Transnistria conflict is not the same as Transnistria War. Both topics are treated separately in sources. Having an article such as Russo-Ukrainian conflict encompassing the invasion of Crimea, the Donbas War and the 2022 escalation sounds reasonable to me. Though having a split in the Russian retreat from northern Ukraine seems arbitrary to me and I am opposed to it. Super Ψ Dro 15:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite in favour of the split to reduce the scope of this article to be just the initial invasion (as suggested). In which case I agree the title remains appropriate. But, absent consensus to split the article (which is a separate debate), the current article covers all events from Feb 22 to date, meaning it does not only cover 2022, as the title suggests. Tracland (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom and DinoSoupCanada. Treetoes023 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support just makes more sense doesn't it Galebazz (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support (2022-present) - Other ongoing conflicts, such as the Myanmar civil war (2021-present) are titled in the proposed format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estar8806 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Russian invasion of Ukraine: per concise. This is already a redirect to this page. There is therefore no reasonable reason why this should not be the title. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Per, the nomination, that title has been rejected already twice. Therefore, while WP:CONCISE applies, it's unlikely to be adopted for the foreseeable. --- Tbf69 P • T 08:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  There have also been RfCs subsequently to redirect the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" to Invasions of Ukraine, which have also failed. Any substantive argument that would oppose an RM of this article to "Russian invasion of Ukraine" has therefore not carried weight more fully. The key point is that there is no actual conflict with the title "Russian invasion of Ukraine" that would prevent this title being adopted for this article. Per WP:AT, it is actual conflicts in titling that count - not oh but there are other invasions of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support With the current title, it's technically wrong to add any development after January 1st. We'll change it eventually in any case, might as well do it now and stop rerunning this discussion every other week. Jeppiz (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per above and the most recent RM. DecafPotato (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support The title would make more since as (2022-present) rather than (2022-2023) because it is an ongoing invasion. BlueShirtz (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support to rename article as (2022 - present) Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Mild support as I'm sure there's a better title Red Slash 04:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support CapLiber's idea to limit the scope of an article on 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to the 24 Feb invasion of Kyiv, to use Russo-Ukrainian War for the war that began with the invasion (ose: 2003 invasion of Iraq and Iraq War), and to rename the already existing Russo-Ukrainian War to the more appropriate Russo-Ukrainian conflict. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical. That someone keeps asking for a move is not evidence of consensus to move and not a reason to move. —Michael Z. 14:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  In terms of conflicts/protests with a year–present time descriptor, the brackets are always preferred. --- Tbf69 P • T 14:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Granted, but the rationale for changing to a year–present disambiguator is not strong.  —Michael Z. 21:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom and per the arguments I made in the last RM. HappyWith (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see how would this move fix the issue that the current title is said to have in other articles such as Women in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. We should either keep that article as is (and therefore the issue remains) or move it to something like Women in the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), which makes it unclear what the parentheses are referring to. A move is necessary but I am not convinced this is the appropriate one. I'd rather support 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 15:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agreement with Slatersteven and Michael that this new name change request is likely poorly formulated. Leaving the title as having an unspecified and open invasion period seems like the most unlikely version to be contemplated. Its an invasion that took place in 2022. Its not going to go on indefinitely. Leaving the title with an unspecified end date also seems to imply another name change when the invasion is pronounced as 'ended' by someone. That's a poor approach to naming Wikipedia articles. Even the Normandy invasion was no longer part of WWII dialogue format once the Battle of the Bulge took place. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article ought not to be renamed at this time with an indeterminate name with an unspecified time parameter. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support CapLiber’s idea Well, you already know it. TankDude2000 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). No particular reasons, it just seems reasonable. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons stated by Super Dromaeosaurus and Slatersteven. Adding 2022-present is unwieldy, see 2003 invasion of Iraq for a more modern use of a single year with regards to an invasion. Freedom4U (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Iraq's different. The invasion article covers solely the 2003 invasion, and the war following the invasion by Iraq War, and the overall conflict by Iraqi conflict (2003–present). --- Tbf69 P • T 20:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• “2003 invasion of Iraq” is written the way it is because it actually only took place in 2003, it’s not analogous. HappyWith (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)