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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
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.
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 edits13:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The OP did much more than "archiving of several ended discussions". He archived threads which were still under active discussion (some just minutes earlier), which was why I reverted him.. Sans souci. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: That makes more sense. I've went ahead and hatted a bunch of issues that were mooted/too WP:SNOW to be meaningful. Hope that helps with the deluge of threads. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I archived 8 sections at 12:21 UTC. The last edits to each discussion (all times UTC) were respectively:
04:49 - noting incorrect map had been removed
11:05 - saying a requested change had been made
06:01 - query "Isn't this a bit biased?" answered
08:30 - noting that disputed claim was now sourced
06:49 - query answered
07:49 - requested edit marked done
12:06 - non-productive mud slinging, accusing another editor of "nazism"; since collapsed by a different editor as "WP:NOTFORUM"
Re: "12:06". As the target of the Nazism and other ad hominem attacks, I was in the process of responding to said attacks when the thread was summarily archived. POTW elected to conveniently archive eight disparate sections in a single edit, ("Ideally, each edit should contain one distinct change.") I elected the same convenience to restore the section to which I was responding. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB gives a quotation, but does not attribute it. It is from WP:Reverting. I was not reverting. They were. Archiving multiple sections is standard practice, whether done manually or by bot. And now it seems they were reverting only to persist in the mud-slinging discussion which, as already noted, another editor subsequently hatted per WP:NOTFORUM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your archiving is more aggressive than I would've done it, and I note editors have had to unarchive a few sections. I'm inclined to unarchive a few others because I think they're promising. We do want to archive sections that aren't going anywhere or have been resolved, but shouldn't archive things that may require further discussion/action. Archiving solely for staleness reasons should be a few days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A non-belligerent state differs from a neutral one in that it may support certain belligerents in a war but is not directly involved in military operations... The term is often used to describe a country that does not take part militarily in a war.
In that sense only Ukraine (and not the arms suppliers) should be in the belligerent section.
Although, reading the Template:Infobox military conflict guidance, it seems a lot of flexibility is left to local editors (however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) ... may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding ... Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. -- providing military equipment (etc) may well be sufficient to list them as 'combatants' in that sense. I think it's subjective whether it improves reader understanding, but I also see unrelated reasons for why it would be a good idea to include them all, so (on rethinking) I think I might lean towards supporting inclusion at this time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that article is the best example for good practice, having closed an RfC there before where the majority position was not policy compliant.
Personally I'm unsure and going a bit back and forth on this. It does seem the West's most substantial intervention is in punitive economic sanctions (though of debatable severity). The Ukrainian PM mentioned in one comment that some British anti-air weapons were used and were helpful, and that more equipment would be helpful, but I don't know to what extent that's politics or whether Western arms supplies are actually substantially helpful (my understanding is the West is not providing meaningful military assistance in this particular invasion, although in the wider crisis in the past few years it might've, and I'm not aware of any military supplies being sent to Ukraine since the start of the invasion). In which case it would not only be inaccurate but maybe even insulting to imply NATO is doing more than it is. Perhaps waiting for sources to come to a consensus is the best approach. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose listing parties that are not participating in combat operations. The trend towards listing entities that are indirectly involved in military conflicts is understandable, but it leads to a mess of OR, UNDUE, and sometimes outright misleading information being included. Diplomatic and material support can be discussed in the article text. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly it was Russian, and probably a mistake. Backsplatter/bystander casualty of the 'fog of war.' An RS will give a detailed report on this sooner or later - Wiki can wait.50.111.36.47 (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would this incident give Turkey grounds to invoke Article 5 ("An attack on one is an attack on all") of the NATO Treaty which would justify the NATO countries to intervene in the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Economic ramifications#24 February 2022, it is implied that the only few EU countries support the measure to exclude Russia from SWIFT are the Baltic countries and some others, when in fact, there are only four countries that are against it (Germany, Italy, Cyprus and Hungary), according to CNN. I think it is very important to clarify this in the paragraph. --KajenCAT (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The foreign ministers of the Baltic states, Poland and Ukraine called for Russia to be cut off from SWIFT, the global intermediary for banks' financial transactions. However, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Cyprus were reluctant, both because European lenders held most of the nearly $30 billion in foreign bank's exposure to Russia and because China has developed an alternative to SWIFT called CIPS; a weaponisation of SWIFT would provide greater impetus to the development of CIPS which in turn would weaken SWIFT as well as the West's control over international finance. Other leaders calling for Russia to be stopped from accessing SWIFT include Czech President Miloš Zeman and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. US President Joe Biden ruled out blocking Russia from SWIFT after the invasion began, claiming that some European countries remained opposed to the proposal. He argued that sanctions being put in place would exceed the impact of cutting Russia from SWIFT.
Yes, please clarify. At least the Guardian recently didn't even include Hungary (but small Cyprus), I don't know what's newer, perhaps they changed their mind? Canada is in favor also, why is that even suggested to be a EU question? It's a global system, of nation states, EU or not EU doesn't matter much. When Biden said EU he probably meant Europe anyway, unfortunate but common. -82.83.169.119 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that the rest are in support. It means only six have expressed a position on the issue, that CNN was aware of at the time of writing and wanted to include in the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that it's very hard to say. There are real concerns for why Russia should not be cut off from SWIFT, primarily CIPS, and I think it's an oversimplification to say that X countries are in favour and Y countries against. Boris Johnson for instance says that he's in favor, but to be fair he's said a lot... some statements of which have been more accurate than others. The US for that matter if it wanted to could unilaterally cut Russia from SWIFT by threatening to break from the system, but it has not done that, which shows hesitancy on the US' part as well. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and in my edit I tried to mention the concerns the countries (who commented) had about cutting Russia off from SWIFT. Hopefully it explains the dispute somewhat, though further contributions to improve it would be very welcome! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image description currently in this article and the front page of Wikipedia possibly incorrect?
This image has been described as showing a missile strike site however the damage is incredibly minimal for what I would expect from a missile with no crater and I came across a video showing this exact scene but earlier in the morning closer to when the invasion began as it was still dark outside and before the wreckage of the missle was supposedly removed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I98Pt5sAh7s
I'm not sure about this but part of the missile did hit the structure, which technically counts as a missile strike (correct me if I'm wrong) Butters (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Butters, as it was a guided airborne ranged weapon capable of self-propelled flight. It isn't the "traditional" missle strike in the sense it was a booster from a missile, not the missile warhead striking the building. That being said, I don't know of a better way to describe what happened given the facts. Jurisdicta (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could call it "Collateral damage caused by missile fragment from an air strike.", or something like that. Make it the caption of the figure. It wasn't the target (since that is not here the warhead hit), but it was damage caused by the air strike. Maybe link to the source who says it was from a booster. I found a tweet from the mayor of Kyiv, who says it was the "result of the wreckage of the rocket in a residential building on kosice street, 7-A" (google translation).
I think the article needs daily maps of the front line in the end of each subsection of the section "Invasion": front line map at the end of 24 February 2022 (UTC+2), front line map at the end of 25 February 2022, ... and so on. It will be possible to compare front line changes. The subsection "24 February" had the map; why was it removed? K8M8S8 (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually support this, although longer term it might make more sense to just make it an animation of the progression of the invasion. Melmann10:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MaitreyaVaruna: But I have some notes. We should use local Ukrainian time (UTC+2). So, 24th February is the date of the beginning of the invasion, not 23rd February. And we should make edit request here, on the talk page, to include your animated map in the article. K8M8S8 (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with not cramming boldface into the lead sentence. It is not, or at the very least should not be, standard practice to have redundancy in the lead sentence, e.g. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine commenced on 24 February 2022 when Russia launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine.Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from the discussion on my talk page, contrary to the general expectation that we should usually bold the article title, WP:BOLDITIS (an explanatory supplement of MOS) explicitly says that ("[bolding] is not mandatory and should be followed only where it lends natural structure to the sentence" original emphasis). There's also the section on MOS:REDUNDANCY, which speaks specifically to the wording here. Jr8825 • Talk11:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple subsections of MOS:LEAD state that the lead sentence should not be distorted to include the article title, including MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:REDUNDANCY. Defining the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 does not help Wikipedia look serious. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That exception might only be said to apply in this case because - perversely - the opening words do not mirror the article name. This is contrary to standard. When the opening words are changed to "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" then the exception will no longer apply. The bolding will then be entirely correct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you suggest a full first sentence that uses the article's title but still conveys the same amount of useful information as the current one, and doesn't sound repetitious? I don't think it's easily done without twisting the sentence into a pretzel, to use the analogy at BOLDITIS. Jr8825 • Talk11:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing perverse in the opening words not mirroring the article name. MOS:FIRST: "If the article title is merely descriptive, the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." What is perverse is sacrificing lead sentence quality for some boldface. Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you boil that sentence down though, it effectively says "the ... Russian invasion of Ukraine commenced ... when Russia ... inva[ded] Ukraine" – which shows how repetitive it is. Jr8825 • Talk11:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The venue for discussing Invasion of Poland is Talk:Invasion of Poland. The problem with your second suggestion is the same as the problem with your previous suggestion(s): it introduces redundancy for no benefit, making the lead sentence absurd. Of course the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an attack on Ukraine by Russia in 2022. Is there any benefit to the reader in bending over backwards to include some boldface? Surtsicna (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Invasion of Poland article has been stable for quite some time now. I feel no need to discuss it at Talk:Invasion of Poland. On the other hand, it appears that Surtsicna may have a problem with it. If so, i suggest that you take your own advice. Be sure to tell the editors there Of course the Invasion of Poland is an attack on Poland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the Invasion of Poland article stated that the 1939 German-Soviet invasion of Poland was an attack on Poland by Germany and the Soviets in 1939, then yes, I would have a problem with it. Please focus on the subject at hand, which is the lead sentence of this article, and do not feel the need to presume my thoughts on other subjects. I will happily express them myself if and where I deem them relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were already three parties in the discussion (now four). Citing one guideline while dismissing other guidelines as "I don't like it" is not constructive. Likewise, you have made no attempt to explain why a sentence with repetition is better than the sentence without. Surtsicna (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if yas boldface (I assume this is about the intro) or not. Just be consistent about it, across all War/Invasion/Battle etc articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can have consistency among those that have established names and consistency among those that do not. There is no one size that can fit both groups, however. They can, however, all be consistent with the Manual of Style. Surtsicna (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with the Manual of Style. You are cherry picking from it. The quality of the sentence is more important than a boldface fixation. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I am aware, however yes vocal support and action is support, and NATO has made it clear they support Ukraine. Stating otherwise and going against what was announced via NATO is Original Research. While can be argued that the support is inefficient, to classify as support. Such nearly all reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine. If we establish a consensus that reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine, and NATO themselves state so stating otherwise is just OR, not only OR but it sets an dangerous precedent of ignoring citations when felt so.
I do however understand the argument that military source is not currently being provided, however we don't classify military support as being the only thing to add to infoboxes. As an example the War in Iraq (2013–2017), another example being the Russo-Ukrainian War shows many countries that supported the campaign but did not aid militarily. If we define that aid support is important then that classifies as support. Des Vallee (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What support? What reliable sources? Your edit had three sources. Two said NATO was deploying to NATO states which are *adjacent* to Ukraine, and the third literally says NATO and British troops will not be used to assist Ukraine because it would create an existential threat.[1]ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
details support and 1 Moreover the citations go into detail onto military aid being sent to Ukraine, the third is due to the announcement and other. I think a foot-note may be best while this is being discussed on the situation with Russia, perhaps linking to the reaction section. The info-box needs to make that clear as military support is not the only action towards support, and I concur with Maxorazon. Des Vallee (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both those sources precede the invasion, one is from 2018(!). I accept that NATO have supported Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War over the years, including the provision of arms and training. But this article is not about the war since 2014, or even the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, it's about the invasion of Ukraine, a narrow scope concerning a military conflict. AFAIK no country has agreed to provide substantive military assistance to Ukraine. I accept humanitarian aid etc is being given, and maybe further weapons shipments (which countries have said they're open to, although I'm not aware of any shipments since the invasion began) but I think that needs to be mentioned in the article body, where it can be properly contextualised to avoid confusion. Though I'm back and forth on this, as I said in the other section, seeing some people, including editors, be confused by the NATO (etc.) additions in the infobox leads me to feel this addition is a problem without proper contextualisation. We know a lot of people just read the lead+infobox and nothing else. To them the suggested presentation could give–and indeed has given–the impression that NATO states are actually doing something substantive to help Ukraine militarily against the Russian aggression, when obviously we know they aren't, as the Ukranian PM[2] and ambassador[3] have said and as everyone acknowledges. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the source is from 2018 such a source does however detail Military support to Ukraine, and the other is deom the recent. The statement that no country has agreed to send extensive military support is not correct. I do however agree with your statement that it may be best to take the complexities of the situaiton. However the situation has passed. According to this citation 1 NATO forces are already deploying troops.
"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Friday that U.S. President Joe Biden and his counterparts have agreed to send parts of the organization’s response force to help protect allies in the east following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Speaking after chairing a NATO summit in Brussels, Stoltenberg said the leaders decided to send parts of the NATO Response Force and elements of a quickly deployed spearhead unit. He did not say how many troops would be deployed, but confirmed that the move would involve land, sea and air power."Des Vallee (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The details are unknown but even if it did, it's still direct military support towards Ukraine, if we take an example of say the Congo Crisis, UN forces could only operate in neutral provinces or counties and only fire once fired on, the are still listed as a belligerent. Moreover the article proves the foundation of non-military support in infoboxes as countries like United States, Soviet Union are listed despite not sending in troops, and only providing material support, another example being the Soviet–Afghan War listing supporting nations. Des Vallee (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User @Mellk: has started an hostile revert cycle, willing to maintain the two puppet states of Donetsk and Luhansk as prominent belligerents in the main infobox. I don't think it is appropriate, since we are talking about a conflict concentrating the world's attention, between two main states widely recognized. Maxorazon (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the notes are sufficient. Or have them bulletpointed under Russia. Omitting them because they are not "widely recognized" states is not a valid reason. Mellk (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, the Belligerents section of a conflict infobox includes all parties to the conflict, including coalitions, militia groups and unrecognized states. e.g. International military intervention against the Islamic State. For a while, there were even wild animals listed as belligerents on some pages (eg. [4]), although in this case I believe it was decided that Emus in general don't constitute a unified group that could be party to a conflict. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I advocate to omit them from the belligerent section only, the PRs still appear in the strength section of the infobox below. This is clearly a hot topic. Currently, visually, the Russian camp seems to have much more actors and belligerents than the Ukrainian one - while Russia is immensely isolated on the international scene. Having these PRs in belligerents is biased towards Russia mind share in my opinion ; hence why I propose to remove these two states that have been made-up last week. Maxorazon (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine is the only armed party fighting on their side of the conflict, while the rebel "states" constitute distinct groups from Russia. These are just facts, and we do not need to obscure them to metaphorically balance the tables or make Russia appear to be less supported. In fact it is our duty not to. Furthermore, we cannot remove groups from belligerents and then reference their leaders and troops further down in the infobox, as these are breakdowns of what is already listed in belligerents. Lastly, I believe that the rogue states have been declaring themselves prior to Russian recognition of them "just last week". At the end of the day a state being "recognized" is an effectively arbitrary construction anyway. Wikipedia should be not be omitting groups that are verifiably participating due to their international diplomatic status, which is unrelated to their coverage on this wiki. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there is a soft consensus at wikipedia on this topic. I am willing to challenge it. I think that, not having a clear definition of what is a belligerent in a war between states, is not acceptable for wikipedia, which is handling hot conflicts.
With the surge of cyber warfare and in the information age, if "distinct groups" is the definition for a belligerent, what will you do if someone adds Anonymous or the subreddit r/ukraine as belligerents? They can be considered as virtual as the diplomatic venues of the discussed "popular republics".
To me, having a threshold of united nations recognizing a state participating to the war is a good definition of a belligerent - there surely can be other definitions agreed upon, but they need to be more formal IMO. Maxorazon (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In fact it is our duty not to." I believe that is actually our duty to question this representation that wikipedia currently exhibits here, and which favors Russia. In such a global polarizing conflict, remaining neutral is venturing on the utopia land, and not being naive about Russian cyber influence manoeuvres as important as the ones from the Occidental imperialism. Maxorazon (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is an extreme tension in my opinion between the ability to cover a hot topic live, and the goal to only follow others. A curfew/delay of several weeks on hot events could be imagined? Maxorazon (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If belligerents must be UN recognised to appear on the belligerents section then this poses a problem in pages such as International military intervention against the Islamic State or Islamic State–Taliban conflict where one or both sides are not UN recognised. Either way, why should UN recognition determine whether a state is a belligerent or not? There's no precedent for it on Wikipedia and I can't see any good reasons for it to be made into a new precedent now. Armed groups on the ground that refer to themselves as the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic are engaged in active fighting, is that not enough for belligerency? Groups like Anonymous or r/Ukraine aren't engaged in combat on the ground, so that seems like an odd counterargument to make, especially since there's no precedence on internet actors' inclusion either (that I am aware of). ArlodhTrevanion (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is to be expected, since this is as much of a physical conflict than a conflict on representations, and the Russian government is heavily accused of revisionism. Maxorazon (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Different parts of the same article can have biases towards different parties, resolving them individually is not inconceivable to me. I wanted to stress that the whataboutism on the "arbitrary construction anyway" may be dangerous, because here we deal not only with facts but with a whole lot of arbitrary representations, it matters to everybody to define and differentiate these. Maxorazon (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose, as discussed two sections above, to add to belligerents NATO support to Ukraine, very carefully explaining that this is not direct involvement. And also to mention the unrecognized status of most Russia's allied states - this as a whole would better reflect in my opinion the actual balance of power. Maxorazon (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely direct involvement in combat is what defines a belligerent? Again, it feels like you are arguing from a perspective of wanting to promote a particular perception rather than reporting the facts per established consensus. I'm sympathetic to this - I am wholely on the side of Ukraine personally - but I am not convinced that the specific wording of a Wikipedia infobox, as decided by relatively uninvolved volunteers, is materially relevant to the outcome of the conflict (at least not without butterfly-effecting the matter to oblivion). Given this, we should stand by Wikipedia's principles of aiming to report reliably sourced facts per editor consensus, and what you are suggesting is such a broad change in how we present parties to armed conflicts that you'd do better proposing it at WP:VPPRO and starting a discussion about how we word the relevant templates. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am surely culprit of this. But I don't think that Wikipedia needs such a butterfly effect to be impactful: there has been 2 million hits on the page in 24 hours. IMO it can help boost or defeat the morale of Ukrainians and Russians alike, so this should not be treated lightly. Maxorazon (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can see in the above talk sections on belligerents 1 & 2 that ProcrastinatingReader is trying very hard to strike a balanced and accurate view on the involvement of NATO. This conflict is a great risk to the global peace so this is fully understandable. I personally agree to adding more prominent support from NATO in the infobox and the reaction paragraphs.Maxorazon (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My original point has been made moot by the newer changes to the article structure. In any case, I surely didn't mean to criticize anybody's efforts to keep the article focused. I appreciate all of the editors who have been herding cats here. - Featous (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict is only a 'great risk to global peace' if the Russians happen to "get lost" and wind up in a NATO territory, unlikely in the most extreme. The news services like to whip up a lot of rhetoric for ratings purposes - editors need to ignore this. Stay calm, combat is liable to be over in a week with no wider war.50.111.36.47 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Map legibility
The excellent map of course can be expanded, which is OK for cities. But can it be given another level expansion so that all relevant place names can be read? Davidships (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russian losses need to be updated?
Russia's 74th Motorized Rifle Brigade recon platoon surrendered near Chernihiv, as stated with sources in the article, but I do not see it counted in the infobox as Russian losses. Any reason why, other than oversight? — Kiutsushou (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a form of organising references I have seen before, is it common on military related articles? As a concern of mine, though, are there references used in multiple sections; and, to which I think the answers are both yes: 1. could there be dup refs in future and 2. could the system be too hard to interpret for other editors to easily add new references in its format? Lots of ways to break up the references without needing to label everything. Kingsif (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not widespread at all. I discovered this way of handling references on the French article of graph theory. I would need to test, you are right, handling cross-references this way could be tedious. And it definitely puts a higher cost on maintenance and addition of new references - the last point could be welcome? Maxorazon (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (2)
I think we need a new zero tolerance policy directed at anyone who actually decides to deliberately post a false claim about the use of nuclear weapons in and around Ukraine. At this time such lies not only can result in panic and even increase the risk of escalation. Anyone who does this shouldn't only be banned immediately they should also be reported to the authorities. This rule needs to also be retroactive from the 24th of February because of the seriousness involved. Experiment632 (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sanctions page in the introduction links to the sanctions in place between 2014 and present. That should go in the Russo-Ukrainian War page. As it stands, countries have introduced new sanctions specifically related to the invasion, shouldn't this be the stuff linked?Angele201002 (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (4)
In think it should be added into subsection "Sanctions":
On 26 February 2022, Dmitry Medvedev stated that Russia would arrest accounts of foreign companies and natural persons, reintroduce the death penalty, and denounce New START as response to sanctions.[1]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
In think it should be added into the article (maybe in new section "Censorship"?):
Novaya Gazeta reports that Russian authorities order to remove from newspaper's website the video message calling against the war of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov.[3]
Probably not, but the deliberate reprehensible tank rolling over a civilian's car should be. I think it will become an iconic image of Russia's sadistic violence. WWGB (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not done "The enforcement mechanism is sanctions against the person or company." wouldn't replacing it with "is sanction" make the grammar worse? >>> Ingenuity.talk();13:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The State Border Guard Service of Ukraine alleges that Belarusian soldiers are involved as belligerents in the invasion. I suggest Belarus is changed from a supporter of the invasion to an (alleged) or (disputed) belligerent in the infobox.
@Laurel Lodged: I understand your rationale, but my concern would be that by listing Belarus next to Russia and the two breakaway entities, it will cause readers to think the Belarusian troops are directly involved. Perhaps a footnote is enough to clarify this, but I think some caution is wise. Also, ProcrastinatingReader suggested in a below discussion that the resolution is non-binding/ambiguous? Jr8825 • Talk11:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, it's original research to take some original text like a treaty or piece of legislation or a resolution that interprets part of said treaty and then for Wikipedia editors to decide that definition is met in a given case and therefore label it as such. Reliable sources should make that judgement. Secondly, the infobox documentation suggests we should use the format most likely to be clear to the reader, which seems to be the current formulation for now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In infobox, Belarus is designated as "supported by". According to paragraph (f) of the article 3 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, the action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State, is qualified as an act of aggression. Russian Kyiv Offensive (2022) is carrying out from Belarusian territory, and it means that Belarus is aggressor just like Russia. That is why I think that Belarus should be designated as direct belligerent, and the note "b" should be supplemented by reference to paragraph (f) of the article 3 of the aforementioned Resolution. K8M8S8 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not waiting for a Security Council resolution. I am (or was) waiting for a (non-Wikipedia) consensus that Belarus is a belligerent (via reliable sources, government statements, etc) rather than just supporting. Nevertheless, I think the point that the invasion effort is significantly enhanced by Belarus's involvement is quite strong. I still feel like it's OR for editors (including myself) to decide that, but I guess the criteria is which infobox presentation is clearer for the reader, and that decision is subjective and does fall on Wikipedia editors. I'm neutral overall, as I can see the pros and cons of both approaches. Would prefer more opinions from others, and ideally a consensus here before any change is made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any available reliable information anywhere of the financial cost of this conflict... for both sides in hryvnias and rubles of how much this is all costing for both sides ?? Would this info merit inclusion to the article? 81.108.244.153 (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very good overall effort, especially the top map of invasion progress.
But re Casualties Section:
Very unclearly done, as with "per Russia" etc.. Should say According to who: Losses suffered by who, and so on... 188.65.190.65 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Per United Kingdom"
I've seen several people now who read this article and misunderstood what the different sections under "casualties" meant, thinking the UK has joined the war. I would suggest changing the subheadings for the different sources to "According to Ukraine", "According to Russia", "According to UK" etc to minimise confusion around what these actually mean. 78.150.114.169 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Misinformation regarding Kazakhstan's reaction
The following information:
Following its intervention in protests against the government earlier in 2022, Moscow requested that Kazakhstan send troops to assist in the offensive, but Nur-Sultan refused the request, reiterating that it does not recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk separatists
Is completely false. Russia never requested troops from Kazakhstan. The only official statement from Kazakhstan at the moment is below:
Senate Speaker Ashimbayev: The conflict zone is not in the territory of CSTO member states. Therefore, Kazakhstan does not have the right under these treaties, under ratified agreements, to send peacekeepers within the CSTO to a conflict zone. "But if any situation arises and a decision is made at the UN level within the UN mandate, Kazakhstan can send peacekeepers to any point in the world if there is a decision to do so," Ashimbayev said. [1]
Which is quite different from what the text in the article says. The fact of misinformation was confirmed by Zakon.kz in its telegram blog [2](In Russian). The NBC article does not have any references mentioned, what kind of credible sourcing is that? The recognition of Donestk and Luhansk was never even mentioned.
Which is why this text needs to be removed from the Other countries and international organizations to avoid misinformation. If somebody has the rights to do so, please do accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is more or less a reputable news agency in Kazakhstan, publishing political and legislative news. If that is not enough, factcheck.kz has analysed the misinformation and concluded:
In line with editorial methodology, we conclude that the story is a manipulation. A clickbait was used in the headline, the source data does not correspond to that presented in the story, the author of the distortion does not rely on verifiable sources - there is no evidence of Russia's request to use Kazakhstani peacekeepers in the Russian-Ukrainian war. The report that Kazakhstan's position was welcomed by the US National Security Council is also not confirmed by open sources at the time of publication; it is only available on the NBC website and in re-publications. We do not exclude that such a statement could have been made, but it is not currently available in other publications. [3]
Foreign support to Ukraine
Oughtn't there be a section about in the article about lethal and non-lethal aid supplied or being promised to the Ukrainians from several Western countries? Right now there is nothing about it, it seems to me a not completely unimportant part of the story considering how much Ukraine has been insisting on it? Yakikaki (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. sl (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. sl (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done "The enforcement mechanism is sanctions against the person or company." wouldn't replacing it with "is sanction" make the grammar worse? >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)