Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Ukraine Defense Contact Group

Would it be useful to generate an RfC for infobox inclusion of the UDCG as a supporting belligerent? News outlets have recently reported that members of this group are supplying Ukraine with weapons that have or will be used to strike targets inside Russia. Chino-Catane (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The notion of adding arms suppliers to the infobox has been flogged to death. It is an ex parrot. It isn't going to voom if you 40,000 volts through it (that's been tried) or if you call it a donkey. It's still dead. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are the the main points of opposition and their resolutions:

1. The West only provides hardware

In addition to having received military intelligence, combined arms combat training, analytical exercise preparation, and war games planning, Ukraine is now receiving fighter jets along with many months of NATO-provided training on those fighter jets.

2. Infobox creep

There only needs to be one entry - either UDCG, US or NATO.

3. Infobox inclusion of Ukraine support advances Russian propaganda

Omission is "Western" propaganda.

4. Distinguishing between aid type is complicated

The types of aid we care about are (a) lethal military aid and (b) the most severe economic sanctions possibly in the history of modern civilization. A single "Supported by" entry - UDCG, US or NATO - would encompass those two types of aid, and only those two types of aid.

After more than two years of conflict, it is far past time for that infobox to present an honest assessment of who is engaged in this war. Without lethal military support from the leaders of the so called rules-based international order, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this confict long ago. This truth reasonable inference should be reflected in that infobox. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I am with the dead parrot analogy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Your ″truth″ is WP:OR. TylerBurden (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

But say your suggestion goes through somehow, are we also then adding North Korea, Iran, etc to supporting Russia? These requests interestingly always seem to leave those countries providing aid to Russia out of the equation.

https://apnews.com/article/north-korea-russia-arms-transfers-ukraine-a37bc290ed3ee59cfbbafdc2a994dc58

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/5/how-iran-contributes-to-russias-war-in-ukraine TylerBurden (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden - "Your 'truth' is WP:OR"

Osraige shared sources[[1]] demonstrating evidence of intelligence delivery, combat training and war planning.

"...are we also then adding North Korea, Iran, etc..."

If you accept the proposition that transfers of non- dual-use lethal weapons constitute belligerent support, let's go ahead and add North Korea and Iran to Russia's list of supporters. However, even rejecting that proposition does not exclude the U.S. and our allies from consideration as belligerent supporters of Ukraine. We have contributed substantially more than just lethal weapons, contributions without which Ukraine could not possibly continue its belligerence. Either way, inserting one or three entries to the infobox would not constitute unnecessary or inappropriate "creep". Chino-Catane (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Without lethal military support from the leaders of the so called rules-based international order, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this confict long ago. This truth should be reflected in that infobox"

I was referring to this "truth". Saying "we" also doesn't make your arguments mean more, where you claim to be from is irrelevant. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden You're right, I should not have used the word "truth". Thanks for the criticism. Your interpretation of my use of the word "we" is interesting. Do you have any substantive objections to any of the points I raised? Chino-Catane (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Avdiivka, Russian naval and aviation losses, second Kharkiv offensive (1 December 2023 – present)

The section title was changed from Battle of Avdiivka, second stalemate and continued air and sea operations (1 December 2023 – present) with this edit, which was inturn changed from Battle of Avdiivka, Russian naval and aviation losses (1 December 2023 – present) with this edit. MOS:SECTIONS tells us to apply similar consideration to section headings as we would use for an article title (ie including concision) and to avoid wrapping. The heading for this section is ridiculously long and at risk of wrapping on mobile devices. We really should consider a more concise heading. I had changed it to just the date range but this was reverted back to the current. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing the titles of the earlier timeline sections, I support immediate removal of "Russian naval and aviation losses". This may be a case of undue weight, as the naval and aviation losses in question don't seem notable enough to warrant such a prominent mention here. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m mot sure whether I’ve said this before, but it seems pretty clear that yes, it’s a due weight issue and probably based on someone consuming too many David Axe articles. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Out of the seven sources cited for Russian naval and aviation losses, a solid single one of them is by David Axe. I don't see why he would be a problem anyway, since he is Forbes staff, last I checked WP:FORBES staff was WP:RS. So what's the point of your comment exactly? TylerBurden (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The criteria of being natural, sufficiently precise, and concise suggest that unnecessary verbiage should be excluded. Why is it useful and necessary to include anything other than "Battle of Avdiivka" and dates? Chino-Catane (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, let's shorten it to Russian losses then. On top of the naval and aviation losses, in the same section we also describe the high manpower and vehicle losses during the battle of Avdiivka. TylerBurden (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"Russian naval and aviation losses" gets reduced to "Russian losses". This is a step in the right direction. However, "Russian losses" is not useful information to be included in any section header of this article because Russian Forces have been suffering losses since the beginning of the invasion. The author of this heading appears to be over-stretching to highlight Russian naval and aviation losses that are neither strategically nor politically significant. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Russian losses, including those of expensive military equpiment, are widely covered in WP:RS, hence why there are many references available to use when covering them. It's not your job as a Wikipedia editor to determine if they are "tactically" or "strategically significant", more WP:OR. The idea that covering Russian losses is WP:UNDUE is.. questionable at best and POV at worst.

I guess when you take massive losses for proportianally little gains, it tends to be reported on by media that is allowed to. TylerBurden (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources in question fall to WP:NEWSORG, which means they are an RS with caveats. We are expected to distinguish per WP:NOTNEWS what is encyclopedia content (not everything). This is particularly important when dealing with a high level (overview) article. WP:VNOT applies and so may WP:DUE. These sort of editorial decisions fall outside of WP:OR, which is about writing an editor's conclusions into content. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean we can sit and WP:WIKILAWYER all day, what would be more useful is concrete suggestions on how to improve the article that isn't just "remove Russian losses". TylerBurden (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Such as the notice of original research contained within the article heading identified by Chico-Catane (@ 05:51, 14 June 2024) that should be removed? The 'second Kharkiv offensive' is a non-extant topic within reliable sources. I receive 9 results when searching for the topic: two are Wikipedia, two are Reddit, one replicates Wikipedia content, one is YouTube, one is a 'study guide', and the remaining two are other non-RS (one forum post and one blog). The article linked within the body that is being referred to by that name is 2024 northeastern Ukraine offensive. That too is another editor fabricated title created by synthesizing titles across disparate sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"Russian losses ... are widely covered"

Russian losses have been widely covered since the beginning of the invasion. Why do "Russian losses" merit inclusion in any section heading, let alone this one?

"not your job..."

The topic under discussion is the appropriateness of a section heading. You have made it your job to determine that "Russian losses" in the period (1 Dec 2023 - present) are somehow more significant than "Russian losses" at every other time during the invasion. That's "not your job".

As a matter or policy, MOS:SECTIONS calls for precision and concision. The expression "Russian losses" is not precise and erodes the concision of the section heading. It is also not consistent with the style of section headers in other invasion articles rated WP:GA : Operation Barbarossa, Operation Overlord, United States invasion of Afghanistan. Chino-Catane (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

″Why is it useful and necessary to include anything other than "Battle of Avdiivka" and dates?″

Because readers might want an idea of what they are going to read about? --TylerBurden (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The Battle of Avdiivka was politically significant. Its strategic significance is questionable. The Russian naval and aviation losses discussed in this section are neither strategically nor politically significant. When I google with quotations included "second kharkiv offensive", three results appear. One of those results is this article. Neither of the other two results linked to published news articles. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Gennadij Židko

Gennadij Židko is dead, however there has been no cross added next to his name, unlike with pages for many other wars. Update? ReelmsyWiki (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

He wasn't killed in action. He died in Moscow. There shouldn't be a cross. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Maps of previous days should be accessible

Whilst the map does give a generally good view of how the frontlines change, it’s often hard to tell how much it’s changed or if the change is significant or meaningful in any way. As such, I think it would be neat for there to at least be some way to view the previous maps from previous days in the war. (At the absolute minimum, there should be a new day-by-day timelapse that goes to the current date.) LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that we now know that the maps from February-April 2022 are wildly inaccurate, so it might be best to create new revisions with the benefit of hindsight, depending on what exactly it is you think should be added to the page. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Mines in Ukrainian port approaches

See Russian invasion of Ukraine#Naval blockade and engagements: Ukraine closed its ports at MARSEC level 3, with sea mines laid in port approaches, until the end to hostilities. The source cited failed verification and has been tagged. I was unable to find an alternative source - particularly in respect to mines. Can anybody else?

Further down in the section: On 1 June, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asserted that Ukraine's policy of mining its own harbours to impede Russia maritime aggression had contributed to the food export crisis ...

The first text might be deleted on the basis of the second passage if no source is found for the first? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

On migrating the infobox map, File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg, from Commons to Wikipedia

The users @Mr rnddude and @RadioactiveBoulevardier raised an interesting proposal at this recently archived discussion, suggesting that the map image in this article's infobox be moved to English Wikipedia's "jurisdiction", so that it can more strictly adhere to en.wiki policies (namely WP:V and in some cases, WP:SYNTH) in its capacity as a prominent image on a frequently viewed article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the policy based rationale. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)