Jump to content

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Evanluxzenburg (talk | contribs) at 13:48, 24 February 2022 (→‎No evidence of invasion yet: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Give THIS the Russo-Ukrainian War title, change the other one to skirmishes or something

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:48F7:77BC:3B5:6E9B (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, there's been no Ukrainian military resistance. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:B49C:49F7:E426:DECC (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC) https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/t010lw/gunfire_between_russian_and_ukrainian_forces_in/ gunfighting. They are fighting back[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian War is the overview article, which remains valid. This article is on the 2022 phase, which is an invasion of Ukraine by Russia according to almost all reliable sources. There are no serious sources claiming that Ukrainian forces have attacked any internationally recognised Russian territory (apart from Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis). Boud (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Russo ukranian war is a protracted conflict since 2014. The past few months have been an escalation of tensions, culminating in a large scale Russian offensive. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 06:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian War article should be renamed to Ukrainian Crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 675930s (talk • contribs) 10:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map of territorial disputes

The relevance needs to be explained in the text, but if we do keep it Moldovia and Transnistria should be added to it. BilledMammal (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, perhaps all the 14 former Soviet republics, besides Russia itself :( GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moldovia and Transnistria because they are the only frozen conflict involving Russia that is not currently included on the map. I'm not sure we need the other former Soviet republics, as most of them don't add useful information to the map. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it from the article while its relevance is not explained; while the frozen conflicts are likely to be relevant, and the expansion of NATO is relevant, it needs to be explained in the text - and I'm not sure that the chosen map is ideal to demonstrate the latter, as it doesn't demonstrate the change over time. Further, I don't believe the members of the CSTO are relevant; only Russia and Belarus are. BilledMammal (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for Belarusian involvement

Do we have sourcing for Belarusian support for the invasion now? 166.181.80.2 (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CNN and Fox reported that the Ukraine gov't has reported combined Belarus and Russian attacks on northern border. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most recent from CNN says: "The US Department of Defense is tracking the reported incursion of troops from Belarus into Ukraine, a US defense official said Thursday. It was not clear if the troops were only Russian or also Belarusian, the source said." See here. Gazelle55 (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, Belarus is allowing invasion forces from its territory. That counts as support for sure. Juxlos (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely notable and it is support, but at a well-developed page like Syrian civil war, support is indicated separately from actual belligerents. Gazelle55 (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Situation is still developing rapidly and is very new, let’s just wait a little bit to see Blackout8771 (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Juxlos they're literally invading from Belarus that absolutely is support. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally an act of war on the part of Belarus to allow Russian troops to enter Ukraine from Belarus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 675930s (talk • contribs) 10:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gazelle55 and others that it can be considered non-combatant support, and I have made the addition. Definitely too early to be saying Belarusian forces are involved. ― Tartan357 Talk 11:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Control" vs "Occupation" in infobox

Isn't this a bit biased?--47.33.186.77 (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It is always used whenever a foreign force militarily controls a sovereign territory --MrMineHeads (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of invasion yet

No real source or evidence of invasion have been provided, missiles strikes are not invading. Where are the actual evidence (footage, etc) of Russian troops in Ukraine outside of Donbass? Nebakin (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are being ridiculous. This sort of talk is not constructive to the improvement of the article - grind your axe elsewhere.50.111.36.47 (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How not? Why are you afraid of people calling for concrete evidence? Go grind your axe somewhere else, your harassment have been reported. Nebakin (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody "harassed" you - you were wasting bits here - there is OVERWHELMING news reports that this invasion is happening. Wasting people's time to respond to you is not constructive.50.111.36.47 (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
News reports from biased sources. Also, stop harassing me. Nebakin (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are already reports of ground forces invading, for example from Belarus. Mellk (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reports are not concrete evidence, without supporting evidence it's just hearsay. There needs to be clear enough pictures and videos of Russian troops in Ukraine. Nebakin (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CNN has video at a border crossing with a column of AFVs crossing into Ukraine, on the road to Kiev. Not that we require video. Reports from reliable sources are sufficient. -- GreenC 06:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
we do for such huge claims and ongoing events. Anyways Russia have only admitted movement into Donbass. Nebakin (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
only admitted movement into Donbass, you believe that Donbass -- GreenC 07:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with all the evidence from neutral sources (which BBC, CNN, etc are not), the only admitted Russia movement is in Donbass, and I didn't mean the 2 republics, i meant the areas under Ukrainian control. Also, it doesn't matter what I believe, i was just pointing out the available evidence at the time was insufficient to prove it is an invasion. Nebakin (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious, what resources are neutral (and reliable) in your opinion? @Nebakin? Evanluxzenburg (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something that isn't so openly russophobic. CTGN is actually very neutral on such things and mainly just retrieves info from Ukrainian, Russian and western media together on their livefeed. They only publish stuff that is confirm, or if not, provide a view into claims on both sides Nebakin (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so CTGN a Chinse media outlet is more neutral than Western-European or American media outlets? Evanluxzenburg (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no visual confirmation as of yet, CNN is not always reliable, especially not in dynamic situations. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is. Many news channels are showing live feeds of artillery and missile attacks. This is just obtuse. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty well confirmed to me by lots of sources. You don't think it's confirmed? What's your source? --GreenC 07:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guardian says (10 minutes ago) (and kindly sources the claim) "More on the still unconfirmed Russian ground invasion in the east: Reuters is citing the Ukrainian border guard as saying separate Russian military columns have crossed the Ukrainian border into Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Luhansk regions." I have a feeling this link will quickly change content: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/feb/24/russia-invades-ukraine-declares-war-latest-news-live-updates-russian-invasion-vladimir-putin-explosions-bombing-kyiv-kharkiv Jd2718 (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MoD of Russia claims no resistance by Ukrainian border forces (Interfax). Mellk (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they're going to say that though, they want to demoralize the Ukrainian Army. Also I agree with ip user, there is overwhelming evidence that Russia has invaded Ukraine and Nebakin's contention of this is not constructive. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I mentioned that because Nebakin said there was no evidence of invasion, while Russian MoD itself issued statement about lack of resistance by Ukrainian border forces. Mellk (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the time when i posted this, there was zero concrete evidence of invasion at that point, only evidence of missile strikes, which is not an invasion on its own. Nebakin (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, sorry about that, just woke up and didn't sleep so well to begin with. I think he's just doing a bit of trolling. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. I'm not sure if he has been convinced yet, but of course now details are scarce. Mellk (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NYTimes is [www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/24/world/russia-ukraine-putin/footage-shows-russian-troops-entering-ukraine reporting] Russian troops invading from Crimea. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-organize sanctions section?

Should we move the sanctions from before the invasion into the "Prelude" section and then turn the remainder of the "Sanctions" section into a "Reactions" section? This seems like the more standard organization for such a page. Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be apt Abheygpt1 (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time zone for 24 Feb

Do we want Moscow Time = UTC+3 or Time in Ukraine = UTC+2 or a mix depending on whether we're talking about statements by Putin or actions in Ukraine? Boud (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Having a single time zone by default, throughout the section, (with optionally another one in brackets) would make things simpler. Boud (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TIMEZONE Give priority to the place at which the event had its most significant effects; for example, if a [cr]acker in Monaco attacked a Pentagon computer in the US, use the time zone for the Pentagon, where the attack had its effect. Putin is like the hypothetical cracker here, so Ukrainian time (UTC+2) would make sense as the default. Boud (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archived sources

Live news sources without web archives are not useful as WP:RS, because their content is volatile - after a few hours they will not show the information summarised from their content. If you think that a live source will qualify as a WP:RS, then at least archive it and include that in the reference. Boud (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

For the attempting to restore the Russian Empire/Soviet Union, you could put a link to "Russian irredentism" 67.40.197.159 (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Krutarth (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could some add the reaction of France?

France has condemned the invasion but I don't have edit permissions. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/feb/24/russia-invades-ukraine-declares-war-latest-news-live-updates-russian-invasion-vladimir-putin-explosions-bombing-kyiv-kharkiv BioTorus (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of the word invasion

Under International Law an invasion requires a State to attack a hostile nation on the latter's territory. The attacks in Ukraine is, at the moment, contained in Donetsk and Luhansk, both recognized by Russia as sovereign allied republics. Since these two republics are allied to Russia the operation cannot be classified as an invasion. Acording to Russia it is only defending these allied republics against Ukrainian aggression. China has even explicitly stated the attacks are not an invasion at the moment, putting in evidence the possible wester bias in the term. As such, the use of the word invasion instead of the official term "special military operation" or just operation is pobabably inapropriate. Calling it not an invasion may also be biased, but the only official terminology currently available is "special military operation" and it is also more neutral, so this term probably should be used instead. 2804:14D:7684:8D24:F97A:A1E8:3FC:4D42 (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been witnessed attacks in the mainland of Ukraine too, for example close to Kiev.
So it is indeed Russian invasion. Mlliarm (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The DPR and LPR are under international law part of Ukraine; and there are many sources listing acts of military attacks by Russian forces all over Ukraine. This is a descriptive term and the term used by many reliable sources. For the international legal definition, see crime of aggression. Many of the Russian attacks will quite likely also qualify as war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity if the specific "kill" lists are acted on. Boud (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ukraine attacked first and thus this is all legal attack. War crime would be a nuke (not simple fire bombs) strike on Kiev. 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:9FC:4353:3766:5704 (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will an Admin please block this troll? It was requested earlier on the previous article pre-invasion. There is nothing constructive coming from this person and only WP:FORUM/SOAPish comments. -HammerFilmFan
Do you have evidence of Ukraine attacking Russia? In my eyes, this is an obvious invasion, as many people before have mentioned. They also have sources to back them up. Niobian (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Russians (including their IP editors) will assert nonsense to "justify" their invasion. WWGB (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes couple cents, food for thought. There were those 2 rabel regions in Ukraine where Ukraine military murdered over 10000 civilians over 8 years. They say it was Russian invasion and that they're winning, however failed to present a single body of a dead Russian soldier or burned down vehicle. After Ukraine publicly refused to go with Minsk agreements about a week ago, Putin recognizes their independence plus sings a defensive treaty with them. And guess what? Ukraine does not stop the artillery barage of the rebel regions, despite several warnings. The rebel regions ask for military help and Putin grants. So there is less grould to call it an invasion than NATO bombing Yugoslavia or Libya. All verifyable. Not on CNN and the like, tough. Did you notice how not a single "free media" report what Putin actually said? I condemn Putin policies, mind, but these total lies simply push Russians towards him.

@WWGB calling people inferior based on their nationality is called "Nazism", buddy. Try thinking about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.104.198.233 (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never called anyone “inferior”. And thanks for demonstrating Godwin’s law. WWGB (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aw really? So, by "Of course the Russians (including their IP editors) will assert nonsense" you mean that Russians are superior to non Russians and thier word should be trusted? Your wording is very deceptive, please change and i will apologize for this honest mistake about Nazi.95.104.198.233 (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RS call, it an invasion, and so we do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions in Poland

The Polish president Andrzej Duda twitted (in Polish, below my own rather direct/word-for-word translation): "Despite the efforts of the international community, Ukraine has fallen victim of a brutal, unprovoced and unjustified Russian assault. We act together with our allies in NATO and the EU, together we will respond to the Russian brutal aggression and we will not leave Ukraine without support." Source: https://twitter.com/AndrzejDuda/status/1496713699515584512

Follow-up tweet from Duda (in Polish, below my own rather direct/word-for-word translation): "Today at 5.48 [Polish time (?)] I spoke with the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy @ZelenskyyUa. It has come to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Its scale is most probably wide. This is an unprecedented act of rape on the norms of international law. Russia excludes itself from the international community." Source: https://twitter.com/AndrzejDuda/status/1495910765177577484

The Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki twitted (in English): "We must immediately respond to Russia's criminal aggression on Ukraine. Europe and the free world has to stop Putin. Today's European Council should approve fiercest possible sanctions. Our support for Ukraine must be real." Source: https://twitter.com/MorawieckiM/status/1496721904551579649 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngfio (talk • contribs) 08:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngfio Twitter isn't an official source. SwanX1 (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SwanX1The tweet is from the official account of Mateusz Morawiecki. So I'd say it's a pretty good source. Mlliarm (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the official Wikipedia policies concerning twitter, but both tweets has been cited by the Polish Press Agency, [1] and [2] Ngfio (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great find sl (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two references sections

The page somehow ended up with two references sections. Can the middle one be moved/removed? --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 09:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think my manual reversion should have fixed this? Reyne2 (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broken edit?

An edit [3] by User:Orbitz_stop_st_ro increased the size of the article by about 50% while cutting out a large amount of existing content (e.g. almost all of the details in the invasion section are gone - it looks like it may have rolled back edits to the previous day.) Can you try to fix what you were apparently trying to do, User:Orbitz_stop_st_ro, or otherwise, can someone fix the article or restore the removed changes? Reyne2 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this too, but there was very little content cut, it's just after the massive reference section in the middle of the article you have to scroll past. The article is really broken at the moment. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 09:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I manually reverted to right before the giant change. Reyne2 (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second reference section was causing reFill to malfunction. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I was trying to make this change as well due to the duplicated article from two different revisions. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it was reverted manually by someone else for some reason... I guess this was technically an edit war, but hopefully it's not an issue due to the pressing need of the situation, and I'll recuse myself from editing the article now. Reyne2 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You guys keep reverting other ppl's edit in the process as well, including mine-AINH (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sections Titled Invasion

The first section titled invasion talks more about the prelude than the second section, so maybe just tack it onto the prelude section? 2600:100F:B138:F078:40DD:C98F:6196:AFEC (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two Russian soldiers captured

Posted by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Can anyone confirm its reliability please? https://www.facebook.com/CinCAFU/posts/254659590162867 119.74.177.38 (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're just posting for confirmation, but considering the context–that is, Russia's sophisticated ability to create disinformation campaigns–I'd be very wary of adding any information on military efforts that isn't confirmed by multiple HQRS. I think this stuff automatically goes into the WP:EXCEPTIONAL basket. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (2)

It has been confirmed that therew 7 planes shot down and 2 helicopters 2001:14BB:69B:D67:F5E3:4A47:56C8:3CA5 (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a claim has been made please give the media source where it's been made. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. sl (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this called Russian invasion

Why is this called Russian invasion, when Saudi invasion of Yemen is called intervention? 72.255.58.60 (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the lawful Yemen president asked the Saudis and others to assist his government. Ukraine did not "ask" Russia to invade it. WWGB (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the Wikipedia coverage of the Saudi action in Yemen should be changed, go make that suggestion there. That has nothing to do with what we say here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The German chancellor did not shelved Nord Stream 2 because of an ongoing Russian advance into Ukraine

HeyRauisuchian,

today the Russian military made advancements into Ukrainian territory. If the decision from Scholz was on the day before yesterday, how was his decision based on today's Russian advancement?

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-to-stop-nord-stream-2/

The source doesn't support your conclusion, please revert your edit.

Regards, --Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted, as I agree with your reasoning. Germany's shelving of Nord Stream 2 was not a response to the campaign started 24 February (the current article does not seem to classify the Donbas intervention as being part of the invasion, rather being part of the prelude to the invasion, and I think that's correct from a presentational standpoint). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear though, I think the rest of the paragraph should also go. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, however background about the existing sanctions after 21 February is relevant, as a background to the international response from 24 February, if stated as such. Could be moved rather than removed, but future news articles will likely contextualize and repeat the same info when additional sanctions are reported. Rauisuchian (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Termage

It is highly disturbing to see Wikipedia referring to this peace keeping mission as an invasion. A vote should be had to get a more realistic language used. 120.22.6.85 (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus across all media outlets is that this is an invasion. Alextheconservative (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can have that vote if you want, but even if you enlist an WP:SPA Russian bot account army, it is not going to go the way you want. Kingsif (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm or trolling - either way, a TP violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RS disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. RoyalObserver (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

information war

I've checked CNN, BBC, NBC, ABC and Fox. They all are reporting exactly same story: Putin is Hitler etc. I'm not saying he is not, mind. None of them are reporting the reasons Putin decided to start this as he said them this morning. Instead they are reporting him say things he did not, like threats with nuclear weapons. It's a clear staged joint action. Likewise, this article reflects only these reports. Should there be a portion about this controvesy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.104.198.233 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your messages with 4 tildes. Alextheconservative (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)What the hell are you on about? 1. Unless the interpreter had a wild day, we can watch Putin say the things he is reported saying with our own eyes. 2. Five news sources of wildly divergent political affiliation agreeing on something probably means it is indisputably accurate; when at least two of them are among the most-respected neutral news agencies, there are no concerns. 3. clear staged joint action - remind me next time news sources simply agree with each other that it is a planned media war. Free press doesn't do that, and if you're under that illusion, you have suffered too much propaganda. Just ask: which media regularly questions their own leaders, and which just suck up to theirs. 4. The article does only use reliable sources, obviously. 5. What controvesy are you on about? Even if there was cause for concern, someone with political analysis credibility (very much not you) would need to have reported it, for us to have a source to base coverage on.
That is a firm "no, please start reading independent news". Kingsif (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was intimating nuclear weapons with his "like you've never seen before" threats. Foolish, of course, but that's what happens when a tin-horn, irrational dictator gets a microphone. As far as your other concerns, Kingsif addressed them pointedly and accurately. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read? I just watched your "free media". They all lie. Openly, brazenly and verifyably. All lie the same things about the same topic. I watch them for hours today. Has a single one of them report what Putin actually said? Nope. And now you tell me that i am inferior to you because i freely speak 2 languages and question what i hear. That, my friend, is what brainwashing is really about. And you did not read my point accurately: i condemn Putin and policies. Do these lies and your uncalledd and bigoted attack give me any sympathy for USA position? Plague on both your houses i say, between 2 evils i prefer not to pick. "like you've never seen before" can be denauciation of the Brettonwood treaties, for example. If done along China, this would harm USA more than 10 nukes and may lead to civil war on USA soil. But you and "free media" obviously can read Putin's mind. All reliable and accuarte, obviously. 95.104.198.233 (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages should only be used for discussing changes to the article; they are not a place for voicing your personal opinions on the topic and mass media. Do you have any specific proposals for the article? Kleinpecan (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are violations of our TP policies. If you have a concern about whether a source is qualified as Reliable, take it to the appropriate Notice Board. The rest of your comments are WP:FORUM. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Just a reminder that the bulk of this article should be sourced to independent reliable sources that have independently verified the information; any disputed/unconfirmed/unverified/etc. claims, of course, can use partial sources attributed inline (e.g. "Ukraine says, Russia says"). In fact, in-line attribution may be safe for anything that could be challenged. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is misinformation in the "see also section?"

Why is misinformation in there? It doesn't seem relavent to the article. I would just remove it but idk if I am missing something here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoTaco (talk • contribs) 12:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it and Invasion. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change losses

Oryx blog is making a comprehensive list of all Russian and Ukrainian losses in the war. I believe this should be added because it's hundreds times more reliable than unproven and unverifiable Ukrainian claims because it includes visual proof. Rob Lee also has a good ongoing thread as always if anyone is interested. Links:

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1496752076335947778?t=jFTpRnS3LvcXi2clboRRNg&s=19 IdkIdc12345 (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are either reliable sources, per our criteria? Independent, verified, expert? Unless Rob Lee recently quit an important media outlet on moral grounds, if he is any kind of reliable source for this, why is no news agency carrying his information? As I mentioned above, where we cannot have verified sources (e.g. for losses), then the next best is to use the partial-but-official sources and attribute the information to let our readers decide how to take it. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties list..

Dont just show Ukrainian claims on casualties and kills show russian claims too all of the claims of russian side 2601:589:80:5ED0:B05F:55B9:392:B38E (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian claims would have to be reported via a Reliable Source. Gov't controlled outlets would be completely unreliable. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far it looks like the Russian claims regarding their losses are simply that Ukraine's claims are wrong. What would be put besides a giant question mark? Kingsif (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use neither and use only visually confirmed stuff https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html IdkIdc12345 (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a form of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I.e. if the information is not significant enough to be carried by mainstream secondary sources, it is not significant enough for Wikipedia; if it cannot be verified by such sources, it is not reliable enough for Wikipedia. It is also using unverified primary reports, so basically the same as the official reports, but with less accountability: who is to say that images and videos, not independently verified by reliable experts, are showing a full or correct picture - and it is not like we can say "according to X" for attribution when X is an unknown quantity, leaving readers in the dark. We might as well just ask Wikipedians in Ukraine what is happening and take their word for it instead of using sources. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations

Please don't assume the average reader knows anything but the most common abbreviations such as UN Humphrey Tribble (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving reverted

My archiving of several ended discussions, 15Kb in total, has been reverted en masse (on this page only) with an edit summary of "Please do not archive ongoing discussions". This includes the restoration of "edit semi-protected" posts which had been marked as done; and resolved requests to source specific statements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed map

Is a detailed war map for this invasion necessary? I just made the template and module as quick as I could due to current attention, however I would have no time to populate this map as I am very busy with college and life. MarioJump83! 13:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's somebody on here that has the time and patience to actually update the map. Toast (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Thanks for updating and maintaining the article! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1073769612"