Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War: Difference between revisions
Undid revision 1230907502 by 2607:FEA8:91A1:B900:545B:60AB:28D:E05F (talk) |
→North Korea as belligerent: new section |
||
Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
Many founts have confirmed the presence of italian volounteers fighting for the russian army and some of them have even been interwieved.So should we add in the list of belligerants even volounteers from other countries like franco-american for Ukraine and italo-sirians-lybyans for Russia? [[Special:Contributions/2.47.239.31|2.47.239.31]] ([[User talk:2.47.239.31|talk]]) 10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
Many founts have confirmed the presence of italian volounteers fighting for the russian army and some of them have even been interwieved.So should we add in the list of belligerants even volounteers from other countries like franco-american for Ukraine and italo-sirians-lybyans for Russia? [[Special:Contributions/2.47.239.31|2.47.239.31]] ([[User talk:2.47.239.31|talk]]) 10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:No, as that would not be national support, rather they are mercenaries. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
:No, as that would not be national support, rather they are mercenaries. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
== North Korea as belligerent == |
|||
Noticing that there seems to be contention in the contribution history of this article about North Korea's involvement as a belligerent: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34893 |
|||
IMO Sending state-sanctioned foreign troops under a defense pact constitutes belligerency, not involvement as mercenaries. [[User:Cyali|Cyali]] ([[User talk:Cyali|talk]]) 19:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:59, 26 June 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russo-Ukrainian War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Russo-Ukrainian War, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Ukrainian War. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Ukrainian War at the Reference desk. |
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
Deletion Discussions, Moves, Merges, Press, etc. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
RFC on listing of Belarus as "supported by" since 2022
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should Belarus be listed in the infobox (and accordingly described in other parts of this article) concerning the events since 24 February 2022: A) no (as at present); B) as "Supported since 2022 by: Belarus" (in Russia's side).
Please enter your answer to the question in the Survey section with a brief statement. Please do not respond to the statements of other editors in the Survey section. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section (that's what it's for).
Note to closer and other participants: this RFC was started because the previous similar RFC (started on 16 March 2024) was closed on 17 May 2024 without a clear consensus regarding options A and B, but the uninvolved closer Compassionate727 stated that "Finally, there seems to be a consensus that if added, Belarus should be added with a note that its support began in 2022, although there is no reason that shouldn't be confirmed in the next RfC, which I assume will be forthcoming shortly". -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Survey
- B. The role of Belarus in this war should be described as "supported since 2022 by: Belarus" (in Russia's side) because during the highly intensified phase of this war since 24 February 2022 the Russian Army's forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (1, 2); 2) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine and Russian jets have taken off from Belarus to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (3, 4, 5); 3) see more information in a dedicated article Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine, the role of Belarus is clearly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that. Moreover, in June 2023 Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed that "
the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014
" (see: full article), so Lukashenko's Belarus clearly tractate the current Ukraine as an enemy and by exceptionally supporting Russia since 2022 sought for Ukraine's military defeat in this war. -- Pofka (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC) - A. See previous RFC. Ivan (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- A. (Summoned by feedback request service). Infoboxes are for basic factual uncontroversial information that can be consumed at-a-glance. They are not suitable for contested statements or statements where some nuance is required. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- A per my comment at previous RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- B per my comment at previous RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- A for the same reason we should not list the United States on Ukraine's side. We should only list groups that have soldiers fighting in the war, which Belarus does not and has said that they will not. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- B the US's role in the war is similar to that of Iran; the better comparison for Belarus would be Poland, assuming that Poland starts shooting down missiles as it said it was considering. Arms suppliers should indeed be left off but those countries/territories that have used or provided their territory in combat engagements in Ukraine should be included in the infobox as belligerents (this is after all the definition of being a belligerent). Dan the Animator 03:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- B Per Pofka, while role is not equal to Germany, NK, Iran... Belarus has nonetheless provided support and Lukashenko wants Ukraine defeated. O.maximov (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
Pinging all the participants of the previous similar RFC who had voted in the Survey section (@Slatersteven:, @My very best wishes:, @Ortizesp:, @Gödel2200:, @Иованъ:, @Manyareasexpert:, @CVDX:, @RadioactiveBoulevardier:, @Cinderella157:, @Mellk:) because I think they should be informed about this RFC and are welcome to express their opinion regarding this question once again. -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: May be a good idea to include supporters rather than suppliers in the infobox. Then the role of Belarus should be included as a supporter of Russia and US as a supporter of Ukraine. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I dislike an RFC on a subject we had one recently about. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Should France be added as a belligerent or as at least supporting Ukraine ?
Clearly sending french soldiers into Ukraine to train Ukrainian units would make them active participants and targets for the russian military.
https:theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/04/british-soldiers-on-ground-ukraine-german-military-leak
It is also surprising that the British haven't been already added to the belligerents section given the leaked German military phone call that detailed British troops are on the ground helping with missile targeting. 188.247.64.30 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- When sources say France is at war with Russia, then we can add them. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Contentious topic warning?
Can someone please advise me re: WP:Contentious topics#Awareness of contentious topics. There's a warning template there, but it requires a magic code and I can't see one listed for the scope of this page. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- It falls under Eastern Europe. WP:GSRUSUKR are specific sanctions for this war but don't have a specific CT aware. The link to the GS might also be added to the DS alert. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, so just e-e is good, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Confirmed presence of italian volounteers fighting for Russia
Many founts have confirmed the presence of italian volounteers fighting for the russian army and some of them have even been interwieved.So should we add in the list of belligerants even volounteers from other countries like franco-american for Ukraine and italo-sirians-lybyans for Russia? 2.47.239.31 (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, as that would not be national support, rather they are mercenaries. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
North Korea as belligerent
Noticing that there seems to be contention in the contribution history of this article about North Korea's involvement as a belligerent: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34893
IMO Sending state-sanctioned foreign troops under a defense pact constitutes belligerency, not involvement as mercenaries. Cyali (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- B-Class International law articles
- Unknown-importance International law articles
- WikiProject International law articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- B-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- High-importance Russia articles
- High-importance B-Class Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class 2010s articles
- Low-importance 2010s articles
- WikiProject 2010s articles
- B-Class Ukraine articles
- Top-importance Ukraine articles
- Crimea Task Force articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia articles under general sanctions
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report