Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Azov Battalion putting lard on bullets

Should the info on Azov Battalion coating lard in bullets targeting Chechen muslims that was posted on the National Guard twitter account be added to the article? or wait until it is properly reported in the media.-UtoD 20:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait to see if it's picked up by a number of secondary WP:RS, which might indicate its notability. Jr8825 • Talk 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like baseless, lazy propaganda. Every war since the British in India has always had reports of Muslim personnel being shot with bullets coated in some form of pig fat. It's the laziest and most "phoned-in" made up story in history. It should not be lent any credence at all.Jersey John (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The video was distributed BY the Azov Battalion. It's hardly a made up story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbrettcooper (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, and I also fail to see how it would not be undue anyway even if true, its one unit targeting another in a war involving 100,000's. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Whether it's made up or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is supposed to present information as reported by notable sources, not report things itself. If the pig lard on bullets story isn't being reported by WP:RS, it's a non-issue as far as Wikipedia is concerned. John Bullock (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It has been picked up by Al Jazeera and Vice which I believe is WP:RS enough to be mentioned. As the post is made by the official Twitter account of the National Guard of Ukraine I believe it should be mentioned somewhere. -UtoD 17:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, and I also think my initial response thread (made when events were fast unfolding) was wrong. Given the scale of the invasion, isolated incidents such as this are not significant enough to be included here. At most, they might warrant mention on articles with a narrower scope. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:SUMMARY. Jr8825 • Talk 07:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey! about the "tank" that crushes the vehicle. It has been debunked and is still being shown in the article. Some example by press agencies: [1] , [2] , [3], Even those who see the complete videos, the place, the facts and the moment in time it happened realize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.78 (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?

Should the individual countries that are supplying arms be added to the infobox? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Update : several users rightfully asked what sort parameter I would suggest. I suggest adding the collapsable parameter "Arms suppliers" (cf. Korean War, etc.). - LouisAragon (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Arms suppliers" isn't a parameter. You're suggesting using the belligerent param |combatant2a= with {{collapsible list}} (and I'd note that collapsed lists do not work on mobile, they auto-uncollapse, so this is going to extend the scroll length by several scrolls as well). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

How is there not a WP:Skin auto-collapsing on mobile :/ Maxorazon (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom. There are dozens of WP:RS making world headlines for more than a day about the millions of dollars worth of (lethal) weaponry that are being sent to Ukraine. In fact, this very article includes numerous of these RS already.[4] In addition, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia which likewise list arms suppliers in the infobox, such as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and First Nagorno-Karabakh War (FA-class). Thus I don't see why this should be an exception. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, the FA-class article you reference didn't have arms suppliers at the time it was promoted to FA, plus its current title is probably OR. The 2020 article is not the best example to use either - I remember closing an RfC on that article where the majority position was not policy compliant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support countries have been sending hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment, including lethal weaponry. Even though they aren't committing their armed forces, their assistance is vital to the Ukrainian war effort. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, just supplying or selling weapons (like by Turkey) does not make any country a belligerent in a military conflict. Secondly, what exactly list of countries do you suggest to include? This is a long list, and they must be explicitly named in the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, per comment by ProcrastinatingReader, one needs multiple RS saying that "country X is a participants of a war against Russia", not that "country X delivered weapons to Ukraine". Claim that delivering weapons makes country X a participant of the war against Russia would be WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: UK, Poland, Germany, Netherlands, etc., cannot be labelled as "belligerents" by any reasonable definition. Any of them would deny that they are participants in a war against Russia. The claim needs to be contextualised and explained, which is best done in the body (incl the lead), lest people start thinking half of Europe is at war with Russia, which would be quite problematic indeed. I also think it's an excess emphasis on Western military involvement; the equipment I'm sure is valuable but as the Ukrainian President said they're defending Ukraine alone and, absent further context and considerations (best done in the body, as infoboxes are space-limited), that does seem correct. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support obviously - only if USA is at the top of the list. Let the peacekeeping friendly USA take the spotlight with the peacekeeping friendly Russians.Maxorazon (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - most articles have countries that sent support to any belligerant in the infobox, so i think that it would make sense for it be the same here. EpicWikiLad (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - this is a significant part of the story. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 00:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support if they can be reliably sourced or are otherwise notable for inclusion. --lomrjyo (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. per My very best wishes and ProcrastinatingReader. Much of NATO and the EU as well as the US is selling or giving weaponry, or has done so. Any list would be absurdly long and fail to give context. The infobox is not the best place for this information and supplying arms certainly does not make a country a 'belligerent'. Even with more 'normal' wars, this would not be done ordinarily. Of course this is a significant part of the story, but that story is not simplisticly reducible to an infobox list. Pincrete (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Question and alternative How big is this list going to be? An extensive list would not fit with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An infobox is intended to be an "at a glance summary". Bloating an infobox with extensive and intricate detail defeats the purpose. Also, the infobox detail must be verifiable and supported by the body of the article. I am not opposed to such inclusions subject to the preceding. However, I am almost certain that such a list would quickly become inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The alternative is to place a note that would direct the reader to a section in the article eg - See section Foreign military support to Ukraine for countries that have supplied material aid and arms to the Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

PS adding what would be an extensive list becomes a matter of WP:ACCESS. Collapsed lists do not display as collapsed on mobile devices. Consequently, a mobile user must navigate past a bloated infobox to even get to the second para of the lead. Links to a section and, even better, to an article are the best options to indicate "support" from the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support The arms shipments and now calls for foreign volunteers is not an isolated incident and appears to occur on a continuous basis, with vocal government support from the supplying nations. The inclusion of individual countries supplying weaponry appears in other major conflict pages including the Vietnam War and Iran–Iraq War. This precedent, in conjunction to the ongoing aid, provides added weight that such information should be added to this conflict. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment, good point. I'd add the Korean War article might be a good guide for layout.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 05:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, very good find. I like how it is broken down into sub-categories. ElderZamzam (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support per precedent and if reliable sources indicate the arms support is related to the invasion. Suggest adding the European Union. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support but only if they are clearly indicated as providing arms and not as belligerents. A separate portion of the infobox would be helpful if the infobox can be tailored that way. (Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly analogous to the "supported by" section in the Iran-Iraq war infobox. Meets the H:IB criteria for infobox inclusion. 李艾连 (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Robert McClenon. Peter Ormond 💬 07:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support Although I suggest the title be called Arms Suppliers unless countries are not providing support beyond supplying weapons. Viewsridge (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• General support - This is common practice and actually communicates something important about the conflict appropriate for a summary, though if need be make it a collapsible list or direct it to a section (and inevitable new article) on "Foreign support for Ukraine" or something. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the belligerent section should’t be included in any form the name of countries which are just selling weapons to one or even both factions, without fielding any soldier nor shooting any bullet. The process is just a supply of weapons, no different from what always happens between countries. The said countries are not involved in the conflict, nor have received any aggression from Ukraine or the Russian Federation. The fact that military competence is the cornerstone of statehood and sovereignty shouldn’t be a push for including as participant in a war every country that has shown preference or hatred for a determined part in conflict. --Foghe (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Copying my statement from the previous survey. Only entities participating in combat operations should be included as belligerents. I understand the desire to include ever more information in the infobox, but it is one area where we should be ruthlessly prioritising. Too many conflict infoboxs end up overburdened with minor details, and it simply distracts from the essence of the situation. Ukrainian is at war. NATO is not. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems you didn't read the RfC. I never mentioned NATO. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I did. However my position that only entities participating in combat operations should be listed in the infobox applies just as much to the Netherlands or Estonia as it does to NATO. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support As long as it is material support and not merely diplomatic. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of countries (may be around 40) have provided some support that was not merely diplomatic, including imposing sanctions, even Switzerland. And even Finland promised to supply weapons. Sure, this should be noted on the page, but listing all of them in "belligerent" section would be misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support They are included in similar articles so I don't see why this should be an exception. The supply of (at least) hundreds of millions of $ worth of military aid is not a "minor detail", especially when you take into account Ukraine's yearly military budget of around $5 billion. Qowert (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose under the basis this should be elaborated on beyond a simple infobox mention. The International reactions section would, I believe, be more appropiate, and enable more contextual elaboration. Calling them belligerents is a bit overboard though, even if it is for organizational purposes. Mooshua1857 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't go in the infobox; it would lead to infoboxes that are huge and useless for... well, most wars. For example, 1948 Arab–Israeli War correctly does not include Czechoslovakia as a belligerent on the Israeli side, despite their arms support for Israel being so huge and significant that there's an entire article on it at Arms shipments from Czechoslovakia to Israel 1947–1949. And that's correct: for basically every single Cold War conflict, we'd have a useless infobox of half the countries in the world if we adopted such a lax standard. Now, if something like armed Ukrainian insurgents start operating out of Poland with Polish support, then we can talk... but not merely arms shipments. (Canvass warning: saw this RFC on a neutral request for comment at the WP:DISCORD.) SnowFire (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Relevant, suppliers are partial belligerents in all cases, and main belligerents in some ( Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy war.)
• Acceptance criteria would include:
  • Listing the countries as arms suppliers
  • Listing the countries as supporters
  • Listing the countries individually
  • Listing the countries under groupings (like NATO)
  • When combined with other reasons, and if this extends over time, listing the country as a main belligerent. --TZubiri (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• 'Support As previously mentioned by others, this adds to the value of the article, is important information and it demonstrates which countries support the Ukraine by action and reflects values exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support if we're listing them as arms suppliers and not "belligerents". I myself came to this page to see who had officially sent Ukraine lethal aid, it would have been useful information to have clearly listed. I don't support them being listed as belligerents, however. NATO nations are going to great lengths to avoid ending up at war with Russia, and while I personally don't understand why shooting a Russian plane down is a declaration of war but funnelling weapons to Ukraine and explicitly trying to bankrupt Russia are not, that appears to be the reality of the situation. John Bullock (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Provisional support (edit: on reflection, I now oppose adding this per Lyndaship's point about the difficulty of distinguishing what level of support warrants inclusion and the concerns about mobile accessibility raised below Jr8825 • Talk 08:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)) - while it's useful information to show, as many point out above, arms suppliers shouldn't be listed below (i.e. within) a "belligerents" section/header, like the Korean War example given above. Either {{Infobox military conflict}} needs to be adjusted to allow for a dedicated section, or the | combatants_header = parameter should be used to change the section name to something broader than "belligerents". I oppose adding it if neither of these changes are made, as it'd be inaccurate. Jr8825 • Talk 11:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support infobox, so long as it is clearly not under "belligerents". Belligerent has a very specific meaning, and supplying arms does not make one a belligerent. It is however, useful information that would be nice in the infobox (preferably in a collapsible form so it doesn't take up too much space). BSMRD (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support as nom.--BlackShadowG (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest speedy close to RfC, overwhelming support. Viewsridge (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter how much support a proposal gets if it's not feasible (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). As already pointed out, these infobox sections auto-expand on mobile, which is how 70%+ of readers will see this article. An "arms supplier" list of 40+ anything in an infobox would render the mobile infobox unusable, so it's a non-starter. Infoboxes are not for every single true fact, just the ones short enough to be summarized. (At best, we could have a "see section/list" for Arms Suppliers that was an internal link.) SnowFire (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

    would render the mobile infobox unusable Not just the mobile infobox, but the article in general. The infobox, which appears after the very first paragraph, goes on forever (on mobile devices) if it's too long, and it's a heck of a scroll to get further down to even the second paragraph of the lead, even though the actual summary of the events is contained in the lead and not in the infobox. So a lot of people might just not, and that means they're deprived of actually useful information. It's considered a given in web development at this point, to design for mobile devices first because that's how most people consume information these days; I feel like the same principle should be applied to editing Wikipedia articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• support I want to know it, in addition to arms dealers. also those who put sanctions on Russia as it this war is more than just Ukraine now, but that's an opinion. as for the arms dealing it's not just selling there is a fair amount of just throwing weapons at them and telling the Ukrainians here use these. or that is what it looks like.... i could be wrong I don't have proof on hand. Bruvlad (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

    i think another way to satisfy this is maybe have a separate list to show supportersBruvlad (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. A pointless bewildering of our readers. The epitome of what shouldn't be in an infobox. Refer readers to the text, or a separate article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's my perception and many readers' that the rule is actual belligerents are listed directly in the infobox, and material support goes into a "supported by" list. Pretty much every article does this in some way, and readers are able to make this distinction that while the US may not be directly fighting Ukraine, they're a participant in the war in the sense they're sending lots of weapons. I can see the argument that this is technically incorrect based on the definition of belligerent, but the fact is that pretty much all the Wikipedia articles on wars list the countries actually fighting and then provides "supported by" in a separate list within the infobox. This isn't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm advocating encyclopedic consistency with how pretty much all the other articles on wars deal with this issue. If we're going to change this, this should be both a global change and done after the top 6 most viewed pages on the English Wikipedia aren't related to the current conflict. [5] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is how things work..... that is two sides getting arms from other countries. Definitely not worthy of being included under belligerents. This paramater was taken out years ago...so we dont list 100 places in the infoboxMoxy- 00:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Significant material support is important to mention. Also per the arguments put forward by User:Chess and User:Ingenuity. --Inops (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Arms suppliers are not belligerents. This will just clutter the infoboxes and detract from the readers' understanding. Arms and equipment are often secured from many neutral countries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Bewildering indeed. Nazi Germany would be added to the nations supporting the Allies in World War II, and Sweden in the Vietnam War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Arms suppliers, especially of defensive equipment, are definitely not classified as belligerents. Involved parties in infobox must be extremely clear. Tellarin (discuss) 01:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose frankly, this is pointy nonsense, and a rabbit hole that would severely bloat the infoboxes of almost all modern conflicts. Mention in the body is all that is needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not against naming supporting countries per se if they are actually notable, but it's difficult to say whether supplying equipment by itself is worth mentioning. Maybe in huge quantities, or in combination with other gestures or actions that, taken together, might be significant, but otherwise it's debatable. CurryCity (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose mention in prose (if adequately sourced) but it's too much detail for an infobox. Think we're going to hit a problem here defining just what level of arms supply qualifies Lyndaship (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There are way too many countries and individual donations to keep the list accurate.Mozzie (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, because now there is a dedicated article. P1221 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit: I would support however to add a link to that article in the infobox P1221 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose - Infoboxes should be summaries of key points about an article, not a replacement for the article itself. Additionally, adding these countries with only minor roles to the infobox would overplay their role and minimize the efforts of the actual belligerents. Finally, this would set a bad precedent for other articles' infoboxes. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Would add clutter for little benefit. Infoboxes are meant to be a simple summary of key facts, and the more facts you try to squish into them the less useful they get. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support as it is already done on conflict pages --Spafky (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose No problem with it being listed in article as its an important part of what is happening but would make for an extremely long Infobox which is not desirable for all the reasons listed already. Thx811 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and move discussion to infobox talkpage - On a basic level, I oppose listing out the countries per User:My very best wishes's reasoning. Listing countries there would redefine what "belligerent" means. That said, this discussion would be moot if the infobox had an "Arms Supplier" param per User:LouisAragon's idea. Adding that parameter to the infobox, then listing the countries under it seems like the right idea to me. NickCT (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would argue it still should not be used in this specific case. In this case, the issue should be handled by creating a separate list, i.e. List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War that we already have. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as this is against the purpose of infoboxes and creates issues for mobile accessibility. We should link out to a section or a different article for the context being sought here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per TZubiri . He points out that this has been done in other pages, and it makes sense to be consistent with them. If this measure is not passed, then Belarus should be removed as a supporter of Russia as well to be consistent. If not, then at least provide some sort of criteria. E.g., if the argument is that Belarus provided recon, the U.S./U.K. have provided sat recon. That they've housed troops, then the U.K. has trained Ukranian troops. At the very least, they should be place under the "Supported by" column, right? Fephisto (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Note: this RfC differs from the one above, in which the inclusion of NATO as a group was specifically discussed. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• I feel that the RfC question should specify which parameter will be used to add this information? I am inclined to support the inclusion but not if the supplying countries will be listed as belligerents in the conflict.--John Cline (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• @John Cline: Thanks, yeah. Suggesting the collapsable parameter "Arms suppliers". Will add that to the description of the RfC. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• BlackholeWA mentioned in a previous section the idea of a WP:VPPRO to better define belligerence in armed conflict infoboxes. I think that wikipedians should not be comfortable stating that only direct armed forces on the ground can be qualified as belligerents. I am a supply chain advisor and know that, for one soldier firing a rifle on the front, there are 10 other soldiers providing for him in the background. Ensuring the supply chain of war - as far as simply financing the operations, is belligerence in my eyes, and tracking the chain of responsibility up is beneficial for a wider understanding of the reader. The risk is WP:OR, and turning to geopolitics, then philosophy, then void. But some wise geopolitics coverage cannot hurt. I think that this deserves a systemic discussion and attention. Maxorazon (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a bit moot – even if you have experts saying that belligerence means what you say it does (so it isn't OR), Wikipedia is for readers (WP:RF/WP:AUDIENCE) so we should be using words in layman's terms, as they're commonly understood. My concern is that many people may take "belligerent" to mean "someone involved in a fighting". Jr8825 • Talk 12:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is how I think, proposed infobox to the left should look like, with a collapsiple for arms support, and note describing what arms have been provided by the countries. Viewsridge (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice job. I vocally disagree with full alphabetic state. I can find another wikipedia article if you want as precedent, but sorting by descending order on the budget of supplies is mandatory in my opinion. Maxorazon (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I dropped off a neutrally-worded notice of this RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC_@_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_No._2. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Also, while I'm here: I stated my opposition above, but if this RFC is seen as passing anyway (which I would not agree with), having a mobile-readable infobox is required, not optional. I would humbly suggest that a simple link to Military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or an internal-link to the relevant section of this article ("Foreign military support to Ukraine") would be better - just one line. Even if this is decided to be pertinent to the "belligerents" field of the infobox, it's simply not feasible to list so many countries. Note that the infobox at, say, World War I cuts off a "full" list of Allies and Central Powers and simply has an "and others" link at the end, and that's for countries that are non-controversially part of the Belligerents field. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are two issues here. The first is about recording foreign support to the Ukraine. I am not arguing against that. The second is where and how it should be recorded. The responses don't necessarily distinguish the two issues. There is some perception that the infobox is the best and perhaps the only place to do this. Such an extensive list is contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Bloated infoboxes help nobody. Even in the body of the article, such an extensive list details would be a disproportionate section. List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War is perhaps a better article to link to. It currently lists (almost exclusively) aid provided leading up to and subsequent to the invasion. There is a discussion to merge this with Military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is also a suggestion to rename this to better reflect that it is primarily focused on recent aid - leading up to and subsequent to the invasion. Linking is much better than bloating the infobox in the first instance and the article in the second. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

PROPOSED INFOBOX
Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War
Date 24 February 2022 (2022-02-24) – present (2 years, 6 months and 1 day) Location {{{place}}} Status Ongoing (list of engagements · control of cities · timeline of events)
Belligerents
Russia  Donetsk Republic  Luhansk Republic  Belarus	Ukraine Arms Suppliers: Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Spain Sweden United States United Kingdom

---

The following notelist & reflist consists of the notes & references of the proposed infobox:

Notes

References

Contradictory Pages Regarding 'Nazification' accusations.

From [2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Russian accusations and demands|this section]:

>and no far-right candidate won a single seat in the Verkhovna Rada, the national legislature

But one of the sources in that section:

>one far-right party, Svoboda, is represented in Ukraine’s parliament

The two facts appear contradictory, or at least 'sneaky' ('sneaky' as in, "It's technically true because one is referring to the Rada, while the other is referring to Svoboda"). When I first read that section, I thought there was _no_ representation of the far-right in government.

In general, is there a better way that paragraph on far-right nationalism could be written? Because to an outside reader, it's very confusing. On the one hand, it sounds like it's trying to completely dismiss the far-right nationalism claim (to quote the section as of writing this, Putin was using a "false 'Nazi' narrative"), but many of the links and citations have something that seems to back up little bits of that particular claim (this link in the middle of that section gives me a lot of troubling cognitive dissonance and confusion). Perhaps to try to keep it NPOV, not directly contradict other articles in Wikipedia, and strike a middle ground here, it would be more appropriate and fit the available source material push the wording and tone to say something more like "While Putin's points on this particular matter do have some basis, analysts have found them to be greatly exagerrated?" That way, the section isn't contradicting itself so much? Fephisto (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion of Ukrainian nazification claim is being made in a shallow and biased way, for two main reasons. First, it is biased toward the (common in the West) view that nazists persecuted only Jews, or that Jews were the most numerous victims, which is factually false. Shallow because, acknowledging that invocation of Nazism is somewhat exaggerated (but not false, anyway), one must take into account the historical fact that German forces at Word War II killed soviets indiscriminately, leading to the (documented) worst genocide known to mankind [6]. For Russian people, many times Nazism echoes as Russophobia. Despite Putin's populistic move, it shall be acknowledged that the existence of russophobe active militias officially supported and paid by Ukrainian government [7], whatever their size, is a fact (not a fake). The use of Wolfsangel logo is not a coincidence [8]. In the context or Russian-Ukranian war, the continuous support of far-right, russophobe groups against the Donbass separatists is viewed inside Russia (by many but not all) as something quite similar in essence to the Nazi assault to soviets - a move to annihilate the Russian people (and by extension, Belarusian, since they were also victims of Nazi genocide). Finally, everything must be viewd in the context of the historical division of east Ukraine and central/west Ukraine; it is not possible to understand what "Nazism" means for a Russian or a russophile Ukrainian without understanding the dynamics of the internal Ukrainian divisions and the historical context of WWII's Soviet genocide. The western view of the Nazism is completely distorted in this regard. That said, one must also acknowledge that Putin's move is a populistic one; however, what is being claimed here is not a dispute of opinions, but a more comprehensive and factual expression of the context that dictates the historical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.255.226.128 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

In the current context, the term "Nazi" is a defamatory label. Without going into details, the correct applicable terms would be "Neonazism" and "ultranationalism", see eg. Category:Neo-Nazism in Ukraine.

P.S. the article says there is no widespread support for far-right ideology. That's correct. However neonazis are well-organized minority, and armed, too, therefore I can readily believe they are used as a brute force by some groups. Funny thing, some time ago I have read about clashes between neonazi groups, because they were hired to defend interests of different oligarchs :-) On a more serious note, neonazis were used to quash protests by small businesses and independent businessmen (ФОП - a cyrillic abbrev; there is ukwiki page uk:Фізична особа-підприємець with no link to enwiki, which would be translated as "natural person-entrepreneur" or "individual-entrepreneur). Loew Galitz (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that this "russophobia" train of thought is a driver for Putin indeed, when he talks about denazification. On top of the disinformation spread that Ukraine is actually run by neo-nazis. Stalingrad is only what, 400 kilometers away from Donbass? So it is very far fetched from him, but seeing Ukraine trying to recover Donbass can be seen as a sign of aggression to the heart of Russia, in my opinion. But WP:NOFORUM, let's source... The general omerta from Europeans on the involvement of US in the Ukrainian conflict does not help :<, see my RfC about NATO. Maxorazon (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be said that Nazi influence is exaggerated, but cannot be dismissed entirely. Azov has state sanction; it is an official part of the Ukrainian National Guard. Also, the increasing rehabilitation of the UPA, an ultranationalist guerilla group during WW2. While not Nazis they were fascists who committed pogroms against Poles, Jews, and Russians and sometimes collaborated with Germany. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Our article isn't misleadingly worded, it's factually incorrect. The tl;dr of how the Ukrainian election system works is half the seats are first past the post elections in single member constituencies, like the USA or the United Kingdom. Everyone in a certain region votes for their regional representatives. The other half of the seats are allocated by party-list proportional representation where everyone chooses one party to vote for on a national level. The seats are then allocated so that every party that gets votes over a certain threshold (5% in Ukraine) gets a number of seats proportional to their vote totals allocated to the "party list" of candidates they want elected (see Elections in Ukraine).

What happened in this particular example was that Svoboda combined their list with several other ultranationalist parties to do better in the party list part. While they didn't get above 5% nationally, they did win one seat in one of the first past the post constituencies, specifically constituency number 83 where Oksana Savchuk won most of the votes. [9] It's only technically true because the united party list didn't win any seats, while a person representing Svoboda won a seat. Also, the source that NBC links to support their claim [10] says nothing about Svoboda. On the other hand, our recounting of this claim is demonstrably false, since we omitted the "coalition" part. I'm going to cut that part out of the article per this discussion. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chess:The article reads better now. Thanks. Fephisto (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Timestamp for Military Situation map

The description below the map currently only shows the date, but since the map is being updated so regurlarly, may I suggest that the time also be added? -- Sentimex (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sentimex. I think timestamps would be great for a news site that strives to keep readers up to date with the very latest information. If that's what you're looking for check out sites like BBC's live coverage, or AlJazeera, and a variety of others. For this map specifically, you can see the time (and description) of each update at mw:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg under "File history". For the purposes of this article I think it might be best to leave timestamps off if only to help emphasize to readers that Wikipedia is not news. After all - we do eventually expect that the regular updates will slow down or stop altogether. In the meantime, the {{current}} tag at the top of the article should also help readers understand that the information will be volatile for now. --N8 14:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Thank you for your very detailed reply! -- Sentimex (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

N8wilson What about including timestamps for each frame in the animated map then? Since there are multiple frames in a single given day, that seems like an appropriate place to include timestamps? -- Sentimex (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this seems really helpful Sentimex. Timestamps would help clarify the pace of events. I don't know how to got about it but I like it. --N8 15:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems the animated map has been removed as per one of the discussions. Should we still make the suggestion to the creator to include timestamps when the animated map is to be included in the article after the war? -- Sentimex (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

the oblasts

look I'm a stinky american could we get links to the oblasts when they are mentioned same with the cities. Yes it's me being lazy not wanting to spend an extra 45 seconds to look up where they are on the map. I would be bold and do it my self however this article is under reasonable protection, if its done thank you if not... oi Bruvlad (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the general issue is MOS:DUPLINK prescribes that things should not be overlinked. But in this article, with how it's currently being used by its readership, it's reasonable to think (even more-so than normal encyclopaedia articles) people will read some parts and not others, so IMO this article is a good case to ignore that particular MOS guidance for now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree. In the circumstances, it's a reasonable exception. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wp:In the apocalypse, there are no rules - make it useful now and clean it up when it becomes historical? Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Graphic videos and pictures

Hi there,

I wanted to discuss the issue of graphic content on Wikipedia. Some of the images and videos show graphic content on this page or related pages. At the Battle of Kharkiv (2022) shows a woman with her leg blown off and many numerous dead civilians. Personally I find dead bodies less graphic than a living dismembered person. I think these videos should be treated with caution and perhaps are best not linked on any of the main articles since we do not know who may be watching them and they can come with little warning. I could not find much policy on them but thought I would ask here first since there is more traffic. Words in the Wind(talk) 17:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

War is hell and Wikipedia isn’t censored. Thousands will be left maimed by this war. The images should be seen. Thriley (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy = WP:NOTCENSORED · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

From ed.confl:

As for me, still remember the capture of Saddam Hussein on a video, whom to blame, my photographic memory, or, the editors who published the video? Anyway, removed File:Russian shelling of Kharkiv, 28 February 2022.webm ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 17:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Such video clearly belong to pages. If an attack was in fact horrific (as it was), that must be reflected in text and images. This is nothing special. There are iconic photos and images about the Vietnam war, for example. Same will be here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Horrific things can be noted in some warning, but they can't be a reason to delete relevant content. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No, of course you do not expect an article on a war to contain only child-friendly pictures. If you have problems with this, maybe you could work through the democratic process of wikipedia and try to change WP:NOTCENSORED into something more censorship-friendly instead. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleague, I do not know who are you answering to. I never denied this. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sneeuwschaap: I know, I should have made a new bullet instead. But when i realized my mistake i thought it was not big enough to fix.. :) · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would give WP:NOTCENSORED a careful read which refers to Wikipedia:Offensive material that clearly states though Wikipedia is "not censored" it does not favour offensive images over non-offensive images. The video can remain in the Commons link but given the stub nature of the article there is no need to shoe horn this video in. There is no need to turn Wikipedia into a replacement for Live Leak or Kaotic video databases, purely for salacious reasons that "war is hell", which is clearly obvious. Words in the Wind(talk) 18:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, the video is not gore, it shows the reality of russian shelling of civilians. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree as well. I'm not sure how including the video is favouring offensive material over non-offensive material. I think this sentence makes more sense in regards to something like graffiti. You can easily illustrate an article about graffiti using a non-offensive image rather than use an offensive image. I'm not sure how we can convey the reality of the situation if we censor bits that we find offensive. RicDod (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think the video should remain. I'd also challenge the use of the word gore, gore is something you find on 4chan it is the grotesque for the sake of the grotesque, this is fundamentally different. The video shows the reality of the situation as it currently stands. The situation in Kharkiv is horrendous, and so it appears. The video isn't linked for some sadistic thrill but to show the events that are unfolding. I'd go further and say that if we were paint a white washed picture of the situation as if suffering were not present then we'd be guilty of WP:POV. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• The video should remain. WP:NOTCENSORED applies but not Wikipedia:Offensive material for the reason already made clear by RicDod. Shoestringnomad (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Another vote for the videos to remain for all of the reasons stated above. The videos are factual depictions, and we should have as much of them linked in the articles as possible. How anyone feels about them shouldn't be any concern to change something factual. -- Sentimex (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support for video remaining. Such images are reality of war, and Wikipedia is not censored. General content disclaimer already covers this. Melmann 17:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• While I agree that the video should remain, would it hurt to indicate clearly that it contains graphic content? While I refrained from watching it, I'm assuming this discussion is about the "Russian shelling of Kharkiv on 28 February" video, since it's the only video I can see at the bottom of the Battle of Kharkiv (2022) page. And I don't see any warning on that page about graphic content in the video or otherwise. 109.98.21.177 (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

I just would like to thank all the writers and administrators of this article. Perfectly presented and developed, exalting the freedom to share true information.

With gratitude,

Lucas Lucas B. Lestido (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lucas B. Lestido well said. came here to say that. 51.155.195.31 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's all buy a big fat round of imaginary beers after this is over for everyone who is contributing to this article in such a timely manner to make it as detailed as humanly possible. This article shows that there is still hope for humanity! I just wish I could help out. -- Sentimex (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree! I’m glad wikipedianians (Is that how you say it?) across the globe were able to help in creating and supporting this article with the underlying belief of truth and freedom. Regarding the imaginary beer’s, I’m down. MateoFrayo (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Haha, truth is not a belief. It is true whether you believe it or not. Janneman27 (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Page size

The page has finally reached a size that some content should be split/removed. Right now it's at around 90 KB of prose, and increasing quickly. Right now the "invasion" section is by far the longest, with the 24 February section alone at >40000 bytes. The reactions section is also fairly long. Are there any other sections that can be condensed or split? >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Shortening the reactions and moving more to International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a good idea. I do think the 24 February section could be shortened. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No need for WP:HASTE. The subject is rapidly evolving and natural subtopics may become more apparent with time. Let's see where things are at in a few months. VQuakr (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A natural spinoff is "Timeline of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", where all daily sections must go. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it already exists: Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine. Most of the content from the invasion section could be split there. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The page should become as big as Russia itself 93.170.84.242 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Why British English?

Why does the page use British English (and the talk page has the banner saying so?)? The first instance of the article used American English and according to WP:ENGVAR and MOS:ARTCON, this should not be changed without a reason. This should be reverted back in compliance with Wiki policy. Eccekevin (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The initial revision was a WP:SPLIT from 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis which uses British English (see Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wether or not it was a split does not matter. The original page as written/split contained American English. And WP says that there should be a socifci reason to change styles, which in this case there is not. WP don’t say anywhere than the style or English should be inherited from other pages. Eccekevin (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It isn't American English. The original revision contains the word "recognized", yes (currently present in the original article too), but it also contains "authorised". Clearly the issue is just that we've moved past the days where people spend extortionate amounts of effort standardising English varieties within articles, so you end up with inconsistencies. Regardless, the original revision can't be called American English, both in isolation and by considering the fact that it copies content from an article explicitly labelled as being BE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Consistency is one thing, but the template should be removed because, even if the article is written in BE, there is no requirement nor strong reason why it should,. That template is reserved for articles that have a clear reason for being AE or BE. Eccekevin (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

What argument would there be for US English? Precedent seems to be the only reason applicable either way.Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

And in support of BritEng there is the geographical argument that when European countries (like Ukraine and Russia) use English, they use British English. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

[citation needed]. EU does use British English. These are not it. —Michael Z. 05:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to conclude that first revision is in American English. The -ize ending is called Oxford spelling, and is a valid way to spell British English. I can also see use of -our in 'favour', so it seems quite evident that the first revision is in British English. Melmann 17:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Well for God's sake let's not start World War III over it. EEng 05:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks pretty much like Canadian English to me. —Michael Z. 05:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because the -ize endings are used in Oxford spelling, which also complies with Canadian spelling too or pretty much any variety of English except NZ English. SHB2000 (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Second Cold War

The article, rightly, listed in the See also section is in serious need of updates concerning recent events. Any assistance from contributors on this article would be great. Thanks!--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some contention over whether or not the article should even exist. I support its existence, but should that issue be clarified first, so that we can then move on to discussing how the article should be structured, which would facilitate other users contributing to the article? Perhaps we could initiate a discussion on its talkpage? -- Sentimex (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kyiv

I think including information on the Ghost of Kyiv would be a very interesting addition to this article. Although most of the information currently presented is still uncertain to be fact or propaganda, our collection of media does play a significant role in the interpretation of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardenclyffe2302 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is getting pretty long as it is. We're going to have to trim and cut. This article can't include every single thing from this war. Ghost of Kyiv is on Kyiv-based subpages and that's where it belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It is linked in the template at the bottom of the page (and all those related), for whatever it is worth. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 04:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The "Ghost of Kyiv" story is likely a product of the fog of war. I've not seen any reliable confirmation that this person even exists, nor is it clear that this many aircraft have been downed. I suggest it not be linked yet. Also there's a good chance that it will not be possible to confirm his kill tally until after the war is over - possibly long after. --Maxcelcat (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia taken down?

I'm watching NBC News Now after the 2022 state of the union right now, and a reporter on location in what appeared to be Ukraine said that Wikipedia was being taken down in Russia. I did a quick search and the only thing that comes up is Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia which took place in 2012. Keep an eye out for RSS about this.

I was also wondering earlier today if we should be making lists of reactions/sanctions on Russia by individuals and private companies. Apparently the pornhub ban was a hoax, but I've heard legitimate stories about Visa and Mastercard, semiconductors, BP and Shell, ice skating events, Warner Bros. film releases and others. I also see that Russia itself is blocking twitter and Facebook, and facebook and tiktok are blocking Russian media.

I just think at some point this project can expand to include lists of such actions in the same way that these three lists were made about the George Floyd protests. Something to think about. Hope it helps. Kire1975 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is this article on RT Russian media watchdog warns Wikipedia over ‘Ukraine invasion’ entry, a deprecated source WP:RSP. Rusty5231B (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps that's it. I seem to remember the reporter stating it was the other way around. Wikipedia would be punishing Russia by taking itself down, but that really wouldn't make sense after some contemplation. Hopefully, that's all it is. Thanks much. Kire1975 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We discussed it on current talk page (see "Blocking Wikipedia in Russia"). Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media is furious about Russian version of the article and wants to block Wikipedia. The technical aspect is that blocking of one article means the blocking of whole Wikipedia (Russian, English, Ukrainian, Spanish and others Wikis). K8M8S8 (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything recent on Talk:Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia. Kire1975 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems we should update the article Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by We discussed it on current talk page (see "Blocking Wikipedia in Russia")? Perhaps provide a link pointing to this discussion? Kire1975 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It was moved to archive Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 5. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces enter Ukraine from Russia, Crimea, and Belarus

For those totally unaware of the relevant geopolitics, this implies that Crimea is not a part of Ukraine. It doesn't necessarily imply that it's a part of Russia either, but the wording here should be revised such that the implication is clear that Crimea is a part of Ukraine but occupied by Russia. Maybe the addition of something like "Russian-occupied" prior to Crimea. -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, the intro states that Russian forces openly crossed the international border and entered the breakaway territories in Ukraine on Feb 22, but then “Russian ground forces entered the country” on Feb 24. This falsely implies that the occupied parts of Donetsk and Luhansk are not in the country, tacitly recognizing the mainly unrecognized “states.”

Why is February 24 the start of this invasion, when it’s stated forces invaded two days earlier? —Michael Z. 06:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Call for feedback in article overhaul

I terminated my somewhat still very superficial analysis of the conflict (3 days of work).
I am synthesizing, and look for opinions.
I consider making only one big section without subsections for background, moving all my synthesis in the Russo-Ukrainian War article, in its own background section. And transvasing most of the nato reaction part into this latter. Maxorazon (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
P.S. Another option is to severe the redirect from Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War to the article documenting the 2014 unrest, and make a new article out of it? The thing is I'd like to try to paint a full picture, not only a historical one...Maxorazon (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
A third option is to place the analysis in Russia–Ukraine relations.
A fourth one is to make somewhat of a portal as in the first link above... Maxorazon (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but if it is synthesis it has no place here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that synthesis has its place here, WP:SYNTH clearly states that if done right it can be accepted. And synthesis belongs to the fundamental essence of this encyclopedia. Maxorazon (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Which part of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any so" implies that? Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think that synthesis necessarily implies an ideological payload, a thesis? It can be just putting ideas together, make links, as the basis for our web? Maxorazon (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal on changing article structure re recentism

Proposal The structure of this article is highly skewed by recentism. The worst section is the Invasion section, which has an unstructured daily account. As per The 10 year test articles should be written so that they make sense in ten years time. Some good examples of similar tenish year old articles are: Russo-Georgian War, War_in_Donbas and 2003_invasion_of_Iraq. I propose that at least in the invasion section, it be restructured along the major themes, e.g. Initial attacks, Air battle, Battle of Kyiv , Battle of Kharkiv etc. Alternatively they could be called Kyiv Offensive etc. I would welcome any comments and feedback, including on improving the rest of the article. I feel this is something that is best off happening now, even if quite a bit of content gets culled temporarily. It really needs consensus because any WP:BOLD restructure will just get reverted.Mozzie (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally Approve, even if WP:NODEADLINE, godspeed with the overhaul. Maxorazon (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Approve. I've been trying to put the text into past tense, but that is clearly not enough. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It's too early to move away from a chronological structure, as it'll inevitably risk turning into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH until more sources are available. As a tertiary source, we record history but we don't write it ourselves, we follow what expert sources have to say. Most of the invasion section should be moved to Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and you're welcome to start transferring/cutting some of the less important details (you can use the section sizes tool at the top of this talk page to help, which shows that the sections most in need of shortening are "24 February", "Sanctions", "Reactions#Other countries and international organisations", and "Protests#Outside Russia"). However, it's important to emphasise that's there's no rush, and we don't want to end up losing valuable information in the process. Much of the information in the invasion section is still helpful to readers, and it's far too early for us to build a sophisticated account of the invasion's history – not least because we don't know how broad the topic scope will be – will this article eventually transform into coverage of a longer war? Will it cover a month-long invasion? Or a year-long invasion? These possibilities would drastically change the appropriate level of detail. The secondary sources, which we will eventually want our article's structure reflect, haven't been written yet. Let events unfold, shorten where necessary to maintain a decent overall length, and we can collectively make editorial decisions when things are a bit clearer. Jr8825 • Talk 09:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:NORUSH apply here. The idea is about how to structure the article in some semblance of what it would look like in ten years time, it isn't about adding original research or synthesising conclusions. And NORUSH doesn't talk about these kinds of large structural changes. This is about directing people's efforts towards making a good wikipedia article, because as it stands the house will have to be torn down and rebuilt anyway.Mozzie (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No rush is general guidance, but OR & SYTNH are policies, so always apply – particularly for a subject such as this where scholarship will take time to catch up with news. Jr8825 • Talk 10:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules... Mozzie (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and it is down to you to convince people this is a valid suggestion. And IAR is not carte blanche to ignore consensus and do as you please (I will also invoke IAR to ignore IAR). Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I didn't have time to write a long post..... WP:IAR doesn't say ignore all rules. It says we should improve Wikipedia. Jr8825 wrote "but OR & SYTNH are policies, so always apply" I see two ways of interpreting the word apply here. One is that because it is a policy it is a hard rule. That is clearly false. Policies on Wikipedia don't always apply (unless there are legal implications). The other is to that because policies always apply anything that whiffs of synth is forbidden. Also clearly false. Moreover, SYNTH explicitly states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.". How is changing and rearranging articles to reflect the style of more mature (with mature consensus articles). How is that combining information to reach different conclusions as per the wording of the policy? To quote from WP:EDIT: "This page in a nutshell: Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong"". Mozzie (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

To clarify further, your suggestion is likely the way this article should go in time, but it's not possible to create such sections yet without restoring to synthesis, as all we have is news reports and disjointed facts. Jr8825 • Talk 11:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, the "Invasion" section is not the worst, but the most important part of the page because it provides the most of the factual information about the events. So, I do not see this as something problematic, at least at the moment. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Caution advised: I'm not totally against this. I agree Mozzie that the article structure may need to be changed at some point but I think Jr8825 nailed it with: "The secondary sources, which we will eventually want our article's structure reflect, haven't been written yet." The Russo-Georgian War article focuses on a 12 day conflict in Aug 2008 but uses reference material written in 2010, 2015, 2016, even as late as 2021 - 13 years after the focal point of events. History is barely one week into the topic of this article and we still lack a clear (and WP:NPOV) indication of how long it will last. To be blunt, the subject of this article as currently titled is recent. At this early stage I think my sentiment on WP:10YT is "proceed with caution." Editors making decisions now about what will have lasting significance is not impossible but it might flirt with WP:SYNTH or other WP policies. I note that WP:RECENT guides us with, "Proper perspective requires maturity, judgment, and the passage of time" (emphasis mine). --N8 18:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Mozzie - I just noticed and am very confused at the recentism tag on the invasion section. That whole section is exclusively about recent events, not slanted towards them. The notice suggests keeping things in 'historical perspective' and adding more content about 'non-recent events'. That's a really tall order for a topic so young. Are you sure this is the best tag for the type of clean up this section needs? I see Brandmeister reverted once already so asking here to be sure. Please double check the text of that notice. --N8 20:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The maintenance tag may not be worded the best way but it is the underlying principle of WP:RECENTISM, a tendency to focus on every little recent detail without regard to what details are historically significant if you were looking at the issue from a WP:10YEARTEST perspective. Notwithstanding the fact that we don't have a crystall ball, it can still be quite obvious when a certain detail is obviously NEWS-y and not something you'd include if you were writing about something that happened 50 years ago. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps {{Overly detailed}}? --N8 21:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that would probably raise less eyebrows. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

All good points. The overly detailed tag seems much better suited.Mozzie (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Warcrimes and racism: Indian and African students assaulted by Ukrainian border guards

Shouldn't this data be in this page? It is clearly a humanitarian issue. Such reports came from official sources, BBC, Al Jazeera, different Indian and African channels covered this issue too. SReader2101 (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It might help if you produced these sources. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree this issue should be addressed in the article. The Independent: Concerns mount as black people report racism while fleeing war zone, CNN: Foreign students fleeing Ukraine say they face segregation, racism at border, NYT: Africans Say Ukrainian Authorities Hindered Them From Fleeing Viewsridge (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, lets see a suggestion for an edit. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets see what other editors think about the subject. Viewsridge (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is already something written in this section, I added only the last sentence. P1221 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know whether things have changed since this section was started, but it now looks like this is appropriately covered. If anything, I think 4 sentences might be a bit too much detail, but it should be fine for now. Jr8825 • Talk 16:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Should Lukashenko be added to commanders?

Seems like he should be, even if Belarus hasn't 'officially' joined the war. He seems at least as important as the separatist commanders. 2003:C8:CF04:6389:FC8D:D71:3CC8:14AF (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As you "Belarus hasn't 'officially' joined the war", so he is the commander of a combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Konotop on map

Konotop's mayor still in control. https://novosti.dn.ua/news/321278-konotopu-postavili-ultimatum-sdaetsya-ili-ego-raznesut-artilleriej GordonGlottal (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal: I believe the surrender narrative refers to putting up a insurgency type resistance here, as the city was widely reported to have captured by Russia, including by Ukrainian officials on 25 Feb. Viewsridge (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy

This section seems incredibly biased. We only see negative portrayals of Putin and positive portrayals of Zelenskyy. Could we maybe have some level of balance here, as the article is verging into propaganda. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Care to give some examples? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some examples, but as a general note: almost the entire world is against Putin's war, and this extends to reliable sources discussing the war. So it's not really surprising that most sources portray Putin's involvement negatively and Zelenskyy's positively, especially given Ukraine's predicted odds. Since Wikipedia reflects reliable sources (per WP:DUE etc), it follows that the same portrayal will exist in this article, otherwise we'd be doing WP:FALSEBALANCE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The section looks more like an op-ed piece that have no business being on wikipedia. Moreover, your claim that almost the entire world is against the war is simply untrue as proven by the International Reactions section, close to half are neutral, made no comments or are supportive.Nebakin (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Close to half are neutral [...] or are supportive" is an interesting way to put it, as there are only a handful of countries supporting Russia here (and Belarus and Syria are Russian puppets). Phiarc (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I have at least tweaked this section slightly https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1074838524&oldid=1074838374&title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diffmode=source given the existing sources. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 13:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

In the context of this war, what "positive portrayal of Putin" would you like us to give? Maybe we could praise his dress-sense? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets see some RS praising him.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Made no comments" doesn't mean appraising Putin. In addition, no comments means there isn't anything we can write... P1221 (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, kind of my point. Not having an opinion is not the same as having a positive opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed the section for now and copied the text below for discussion, as I think it needs a heavy rewrite before it's ready. I agree it reads like an op-ed piece/WP:OR, in particular the WP:TONE isn't impartial/detached, which means it violates WP:NPOV, one of the core content policies. There are also a lot of exceptional claims and subjective statements, which require excellent sources and clear in-text attribution. Wikipedia doesn't have the authority to say, in article voice, claims such as "Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine" – who is this according to? Which experts of Russian politics say this? Or "His leadership was characterised by his failures to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to oppose the invasion, the worldwide backlash, and the poor performance of his own forces" – again, who knows what Putin was expecting? This is the viewpoint/analysis of several journalists. These kind of analyses need in-text attribution, e.g. "According to the Economist..." Also, we should prefer subject experts/academics over columnists/journalists writing in magazines. I appreciate that a lot of effort has gone into the section, and there are some good ideas to work with, but it needs a careful rewrite before it's ready, especially given how highly trafficked the page is currently. Jr8825 • Talk 16:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE is also a concern (and a part of NPOV), So far we have seen no sources praising Putin, so to argue "we have to be neutral" when it's clear RS is not is a false balance argument. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don't largely object to the substance of what's written, my issue is with how it's written. All of these claims, which I largely believe are correct, are written as fact in article voice, which is inappropriate. Pretty much every sentence is problematic. In-text attribution is required for assessments of how Putin may have been thinking, or subjective assessments. We don't write "Hitler thought X", or "Churchill believed X", we write "According to historian X, Churchill believed X". For example, "Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies for support" – according to who? Writing "Zelenskyy was widely seen as being highly effective in lobbying his allies for support" is different from stating this assessment (a judgement of effectiveness) as fact. We don't make our own assessments, because Wikipedia is a tertiary source. "Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community" – this is a subjective opinion, not a fact: what constitutes a "pariah"? What does "shunned" mean? How much of the global community is "much"? We need to be accurate and factual, not sweeping and subjective. Jr8825 • Talk 16:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Except, of course, the Ukrainians are getting help from all kinds of places (even countries traditional Nuetral), and Russia has pretty much been treated as a pariah. So do we really need to attribute what is staring us in the face? Sure if it was open to some doubt that Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies" (in truth allies should be removed, as many of them are not allies) you might have a point (the same with Putin's Pariah status) but it's not the case. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Zelenskyy's effectiveness is perhaps the least controversial claim, so I accept that may not need attribution. Putin's status as a "global pariah" is not something Wikipedia should proclaim in article voice, however. Kim Jong-un doesn't say "he's a pariah". Has China (world's largest population) condemned Putin? Or Iran? Or Venezuela? These are also members of the global community, even if they have unpleasant regimes. The democratic world is not the entire world. That's why such a statement should be attributed to whichever expert is saying it. What do the sources supplied actually say? And yes, we do need to attribute the obvious unless the reliable sources are unanimous about it, in which case we don't need to attribute it. So if all the sources say Zelenskyy was effective, that's fine. But the reason we need to avoid stating as fact the things we find obvious is that we don't all agree on what's obvious - tertiary sources collate other sources without adding any additional analysis, which is why readers can trust them. Jr8825 • Talk 16:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

True, but if we list the countries that are outright sending arms compared to those not condemning which is larger? But we do in fact say (in the first line "According to the portrayal in Western media") and we go on "was shunned by much of the global community", and this https://www.statista.com/chart/26946/stance-on-ukraine-invasion/ implies it is most of it (look at all that blue). If anything we downplay the degree to which he has been condemned. Hell he is being stripped of honorary titles and wards, by people like the IOC (hardly known for not being neutral) Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need to compromise on what's being said or water it down – the general content is fine, it's just large parts of it are clearly analysis, and Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) do analysis in its own voice. So we can either attribute the analysis, or demonstrate the validity of the analysis by providing relevant facts. Unfortunately, the use of these sources in the paragraph below is poor. Look for example at the Guardian article for the statement "Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community". It takes the attention-grabbing headline and repeats it as fact, directly contravening WP:HEADLINES. The actual article itself says "Putin was facing ... the prospect of pariah status" – not the same as saying he already has it. Our sentence should reflect what the article actually says, and could go something like: Putin faced international isolation after the invasion; in the global condemnation and outrage which followed, even long-term allies such as China and Hungarian president Viktor Orbán refused to support his actions. Jr8825 • Talk 17:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, this is all wrong for a number of reasons. For example, "Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine." No, he was not "the sole architect of the war". General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was, not mentioning a lot of other people who are now sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• As the primary contributer of this section, I welcome the use of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and than Jr8825 for using it. In writing this, I found it very difficult to adopt a neutral tone. The best available contemporaneous reliable sources say are highly praising of Zelenskyy and generally damning of Putin. How do we come up with NPOV tone here? Is it even possible? To quote WP:NPOV "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." and then goes on to say with respect to bias in sources: "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." Is this article better served by leaving leadership out altogether? It is clearly a significant issue in the conflict.Mozzie (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If RS say it’s bad leadership, then it is neutral to say it is bad. —Michael Z. 05:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy

The leadership of the presidents of Russia and Ukraine was a prominent factor in the conflict. According to the portrayal in Western media, as the autocratic ruler of Russia, Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine. His leadership was characterised by his failures to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to oppose the invasion, the worldwide backlash, and the poor performance of his own forces. Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community. This contrasted with the leadership of Zelenskyy, who quickly became a national hero, uniting the Ukrainian people and rising from obscurity to become an international icon.

In the beginning of the conflict, Zelenskyy refused to leave the capital, pledging to stay and fight. When the US offered to evacuate him, Zelenskyy replied that he needed ammunition and not a ride. He used social media effectively, posting selfies of himself walking the streets of Kyiv as the city was under attack to prove that he was still alive. Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies for support. He appeared before numerous gatherings of international leaders, telling a conference of European leaders that this might be the last time they would see him, and appearing before the European Parliament where he earned a standing ovation.

References

|}

cbignore

Why is {{cbignore}} being added to every ref? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader I had a look on WikiBlame. Special:Diff/1074118070 provides part of the answer.

@Rlink2 are you able to shed light on why this tag ({{cbignore}}) is needed? Also, while we're at it, is there a reason for using "ghostarchive.org" instead of the Internet Archive? (the latter is, as I understand it, quite well established?). Your input would be appreciated.

Local Variable (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Local Variable cbignore fixes a phab bug with iabot.

To answer your second question: Usually when preemptive archiving refs at large on articles like these, I would use IABot (which would use archive.org), but alas this article is too big for IABot. IAbot was run on the article when it was smaller though. I have a workaround for this which will extract the URLs for archiving for me to place manually, but archive.org has enabled CORS on their website again, hence the usage of other sites. Archive.today has CORS disabled too but the site hasn't been working for me recently, preseumbly due to the events the article in question is describing. Rlink2 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2 I see, so effectively it avoids an issue with IABot. Thanks for providing the detailed response. Local Variable (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: what phab bug? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Detention of children at anti-war action in Moscow

Russian police detained 7-11 years old children who wanted to lay flowers at the Ukrainian Embassy in Moscow. Police juvenile inspectors threatened their parents with deprivation of parental rights.

It's fucked-up! I feel like a character of dystopia. K8M8S8 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's get a picture of the locked up children in the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Russian allegations of nuclear armerment

2/27/22 the russians have stated that they will be arming nukes should we add this?https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-nuclear-forces-ukraine-fighting/ due to this i feel like it is important to add your opinions? Diepanzerwaffles (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

THis is old news, discussed before. 12:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Civilian casualties per Ukraine

Not sure what's going on but civilian casualties announced by Ukraine just went from 346 KIA to 2,000+ KIA. It is reliable sourced so I've added it into the article. It could still be some sort of reporting error though. Viewsridge (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Viewsridge, it has already been added. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 14:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The map illustrating the situation in Ukraine is wrong

• Not all red zones are territories occupied by Russian forces. The only zones really occupied are the Crimea annexed by Russians and the Donetsk zone controlled by separatists.

• These red zones are not even "zones of control" understood as areas where Russian military denies Ukrainian military presence. We know that the Ukrainian military successfully operates on these areas and is able to attack Russian's backs.

• Most of these red zones are simply territories with Russian troops presence.

• Therefore painting these zones red and describing them as occupied is greatly misleading.

• Also, there are no clearly defined „front lines” in this war. It's not a trench war.

Here's a Twitter thread explaining this in more detail: https://twitter.com/Calthalas/status/1498998318755680260

77.255.79.188 (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You will need to provide more reliable sources than just a Twitter thread. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 15:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This source looks reasonably reliable.[11][12][13][14] I have seen other sources make similar statements, but sorry, I don’t have one at hand. Is there a source saying we should treat this the opposite way? —Michael Z. 15:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The Twitter thread not only question the accuracy of this map but maps as a whole. Arguing that the colored territory does not imply total control, but area denial. The Twitter thread also questions the accuracy of BBC, NYT and Die Welt maps (that are almost exact with the one used on Wikipedia). WP:FRINGE Viewsridge (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The maps from BBC or NYT are misleading too. And it's not a fringe view, military maps are looking very different for a reason. Recently retired US Army general suggested live in BBC that these big swatches of red are misleading and that they [Russians] “ain't controlling jack.” 77.255.79.188 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think it questions the accuracy; it discusses better ways to represent the information in them, with implications on how to interpret them. Granted, it does recommend that some ways to represent it are better than others. —Michael Z. 17:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As per the Geneva convention and UN Charter, the zone described as "Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia and pro-Russian separatists" is incorrect. I highly recommend that we all read the article on | Military Occupation. My understanding is that the Donbass (area prior to Feb 24) is occupied by pro-Russian separatists. Most of the rest is an area of denial or - and I find this term more intuitive - a zone of control.

Additionally, we should probably have a third type of zone to indicate where the conflict is active, the zone of control is fluid or uncertain. P4p5 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting map [15]

Showing more clearly the lines of troops / military vehicles. Could we do something similar? Maybe with the red being darker. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Invasion of Moldova?

Shouldn't we mention this in a way or another, despite nothing being official? Here are English and Romanian sources. I added it yesterday, but it got deleted despite one user at first accepting it and making some corrections.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/01/belarus-dictator-alexander-lukashenko-appeared-to-show-russian-plans-to-invade-moldova-through-ukraine/

https://news.yahoo.com/belarus-president-lukashenko-appears-stand-101548955.html

https://observatornews.ro/extern/va-fi-invadata-si-republica-moldova-lukashenko-ar-fi-prezentat-o-harta-in-care-ucraina-e-impartita-in-patru-transnistria-face-parte-din-una-dintre-aceste-zone-460990.html

Lupishor (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit speculative, so I can see why (at this time) it should be left out. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Has this been reported on by more established newspapers/media than the ones listed? NYPost is a tabloid and Yahoo is a news aggregator, this particular article is lifted from Fox – neither have good reputations. Jr8825 • Talk 16:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable UK press reporting on it:

• The Independent Ukraine crisis: Belarus leader may have inadvertently revealed Russian invasion map on TV
• The Telegraph Bumbling Belarusian leader lets slip Vladimir Putin’s secret plan for more attacks
• iNews Will Russia invade Moldova? What Lukashenko’s ‘battle map’ could indicate about Putin’s plans after Ukraine

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to evaluate non UK sources, beyond looking for their entries on RSN or RSP. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s been reported in multiple sources, and is no question it’s a fact that Lukashenka showed a map that might show an invasion route into Moldova (I must say there’s a weird colour change in the line), and it could be mentioned in this article. We should not read anything else into it, like “there’s an invasion plan.” —Michael Z. 17:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is interesting. It shows the map used by Lukashenko, and the map shows the strike to occupy Moldova from the south of Ukraine. The Russian forces made a lot of "progress" on the south of Ukraine, but they probably need to take the city of Odessa before striking Moldova. Also, the division of the entire Ukraine territory into 4 zones of occupation on the map is significant. But one probably needs a little more coverage for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, I think this now should be included because of coverage here [16]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Is this other source considered reliable? [17]. For further backing of the claim. Super Ψ Dro 18:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think The Week is fine. Definitely superior to tabloids, my guesstimate is that it's probably about the same standard in terms of reputation as the New Statesman. Jr8825 • Talk 18:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Opposed to inclusion, The Hill isn't a great source either btw but I'd be opposed even if CNN/NYT posted it. It's WP:CRYSTAL with a hint of fear-mongering and speculation. Opposed to inclusion until either it happens or government officials start raising the alarm (rather than tabloids raising the alarm). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a WP:CRYSTAL. This is a fact that the Belarus president was standing in front of map indicating Moldova invasion plans as multiple RS say. That is significant because Belarus is an active participant of the invasion. Hence the coverage. EU just sanctioned 22 Belarusian officials and military for involvement in Russian invasion of Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

EU just sanctioned 22 Belarusian officials and military for involvement in Russian invasion of Ukraine. which is relevant to an alleged future invasion of Moldova how...?

If this were a credible rumour I'm pretty sure US/UK intelligence would be ringing alarm bells, as they did for the Ukraine invasion and various specific events relating to it. There's no way we should be increasing fear based on speculation that seems to originate from the Daily Mail (according to The Week), before spreading through the tabloids and then into culture and political magazines, all based on a supposed interpretation of an old map. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Existing article content is not essential, Read/listen Chomsky

https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.222.125 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, it's not clear to me what you are asking for... Please remember that this page is used for improving the article, it is not a forum. P1221 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia is not a forum. But, the world is in a major crisis. Thank you for the link. I am hoping to put online the above synthesis during the night. BR Maxorazon (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Maxorazon: A concrete place to start editing would be to create the article arms control in Europe, as suggested at the draft WikiProject Peace page. I'm sure Chomsky would agree that an article about Chomsky's own analysis is a lot less useful or interesting than an article about one of the core topics that he discusses. Arms control mechanisms, and the multi-decade European construction of security agreements+institutions, and its decay during the last decade or so, have plenty of sources, and Chomsky's analysis is highly relevant to that topic. Boud (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The root cause analysis of this conflict is blurred, sidelined, and politically correct ie. it follows strictly Western media disinformation - in this article. Chomsky is quite clear: Russia's concern about its security is understandable: US with Ukraine in NATO, what was vetoed earlier by France and Germany but ignored by US would give US possibility to further encircle Russia putting its ofensive missile systems too close to Moscow and other Russia's vital centers--109.93.67.114 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, Obama funded the regime change in Ukraine in 2014 https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/--109.93.67.114 (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The link that anon intended to post literally says that is a complete lie.[18] Chomsky’s is a minority opinion, possibly WP:FRINGE. Anyway, do conspiracy and other theories exonerating the Russian Federation for its aggressive stance and actions (including the Munich speech, Russo-Georgian War, etc.) belong in this article? Isn’t this topic covered somewhere in detail? Maybe Russia–NATO relations or Foreign relations of Russia. —Michael Z. 18:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I read that post - just a clumsy denial of the facts, far from the "complete lie". An illustration of a "manufactured consent". As to Chomsky it's laughable to mark his analysis as a "minority opinion". Now, a bit more about true nature of this issue: "US wages global color revolutions to topple govts for the sake of American control" https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240540.shtml-109.93.67.114 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. This is not the place to carry out exegesis of a 4 Feb 2022 interview with Chomsky, which is mostly off-topic for this particular article, but mainly related to arms control in Europe, a much broader article that none of us (including me) have made the effort to start writing. I would recommend someone start that article (properly, which would require some intellectual work; start looking at arms control first) and then argue about whether Chomsky's text is mainstream, fact-based or fringe on the talk page over there. (In fact, the discussions would hopefully focus on improving the article.) There is a popular tradition of exegesis of anything that Chomsky writes (or says), but this is not the right article. Boud (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how many ways one can interpret “pants on fire.” —Michael Z. 02:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the issue -in the Backgound section we read: "American historian Timothy D. Snyder described Putin's ideas as imperialism.[92] British journalist Edward Lucas described it as historical revisionism.[93] Other observers have described the Russian leadership as having a distorted view of modern Ukraine and its history.[94][95][96] Ukraine and other European countries neighbouring Russia accused Putin of irredentism and of pursuing aggressive militaristic policies" This is a logical falacy - the truth is: Russia is fighting the US in Ukraine. The US has no friends, only enemies and subjugated. (or Henry Kissinger — 'America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests') The US, using printed greenbacks, subjugated Ukrainians, installed its "friendly" regime ready to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. --109.93.67.114 (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Information

The casualties of Russia and Ukraine are not right Russia has actually lost 6000 men as dead, wounded and captured, not all dead. Ukraine states that it's losses are low but actually it's losses are really high, not as army loses but as civilians, materials, buildings, equipment and what not. About 4000 Ukrainian civilians have become casualties. 2409:4052:98A:8FDC:7B10:1CBB:6AB9:3C88 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox contains up-to-date estimates from the various governments and media (WP:RS). Phiarc (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Civilian casualties according to UN should be 136+ not 136 (by the reference). 2001:7D0:88F8:ED80:BC36:DE8F:D407:D413 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022 (3)

Please add this into the subsection "United Nations" of the section "Reactions" of the article:

United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to reprimand Russia over its invasion of Ukraine and demanded that Moscow stop fighting and withdraw its military forces, an action that aims to diplomatically isolate Russia at the world body. 141 of the Assembly's 193 members voted for the resolution, 35 including China abstained and 5 countries including Russia and Belarus voted against the document.

K8M8S8 (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

A variation of this seems to have been  Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Fix the link

Please, fix the link #17 (about crashing of Su-25, in infobox). K8M8S8 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Map

Please change the map or its provider. The Russian army does not control the rear and much of the territory in which they advanced. Example of a correct map at the link: https://t.me/ssternenko/3990 Block Baby (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The "International reaction to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" Map's key is wrong.

The key says countries colored pink say NATO is to blame for the invasion, but the map colors those countries orange. JorikThePooh (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!  Fixed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022 (4)

Add Alexander Lukashenko and the Belarus Prime minister, and other Belarusian Generals to the "Commanders and Leaders" section of the chart. LeftistPhilip (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Horlivka offensive (2022)

The map was updated to show the new Ukrainian offensive (capturing of Horlivka), but no offensive arrows were added to the map, so can someone update the map with an arrow showing the Ukrainian offensive? Elijahandskip (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Please remove section

The first paragraph of the Feb 25 section should be removed. It was most likely included because it was seemingly a case of friendly fire... but friendly fire is bound to happen in all wars. However, if one reads the third (and final) source it can be seen that it is hardly mentioned amidst all the other reporting done by CNN. If the press does not see it as a major incident then we should not either. If it is not agreed that it should be removed, at least change the first sentence to read that there were many blasts heard, not just two. Sectionworker (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022 (5)

Change:

Escalation (21–23 February) In the evening of the 21st of February, at 22:35 (UTC−5),[147] Putin announced the recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics.

To:

Escalation (21–23 February) In the evening of the 21st of February, at 22:35 (UTC−5),[147] Putin announced the recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics. In the same presidential address Putin also claimed that Ukraine never had "real statehood" and was part of Russia. Historian Timothy Snyder argues that is a myth that Putin used to justify the invasion. Similarly, according to Ukranian correspondent Olga Tokariuk, the speech "was perceived as a declaration of war on Ukraine" by Ukranians. 213.31.111.73 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Cancellation of Switzerland's neutral position

On the 28th of February 2022, Switzerland has canceled its neutrality for the first time since 1815 due to the dishonorable Russian invasion of Ukraine. Bern has already joined EU sanctions against Russian Federation and its president personally. Source: Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/neutral-swiss-adopt-sanctions-against-russia-2022-02-28/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тимур Сорока (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

quick point of clarity: This WP:RS doesn't mention 1815 as a reference point, and there have been previous sanctions from the country. That's not to say these aren't unique in some way of course. Thank you for the reference. --N8 23:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Protests

Text required: Should to mention most of russians scared to criticise govenment since october 1993 crisis when protests in Moscow were suppressed by tanks. PavelSI (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Casualties and losses: "Per X", "Acc. to X", how about "X's claim"?

I've noticed frequent changes on Casualties and losses section. It was "Per Ukraine", then it became "According to Ukraine", now it is "Acc. to Ukraine". I suggest: "Ukrainian Claim", "Russian Claim" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThalesMML (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why this has been changed. "Per" is used in most such articles. Indeed, this article still has instances of "per" in the infobox, and I would favour reverting to that state pending a proper discussion. I don't mind "according to", but would expressly oppose "acc. to". I also don't mind the above suggestion. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We discussed it in a previous discussion. WikiUsage (and WikiFrequency of usage) of "per" is not the traditional dictionary definition, and a lot of people were complaining about the term being confusing, which is reaasonable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to the discussion in Archive 5, a grand total of three editors responded to it and only you agreed that it was confusing - neither myself nor Maxorazon supported this change. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"Supported By"

If Belarus is noted as supporting Russia in the sidebar under Belligerants because they are providing materiel and passage, then shouldn't the list of states providing military arms to Ukraine be listed? As noted in the introductory paragraph of the article:

>Both prior to and during the invasion, various states provided Ukraine with foreign aid, including arms and other materiel support.

Shouldn't these "various states" also be listed? Asking because I don't know what all constitutes needing to be under the "Supported" listing in the sidebar. Fephisto (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It's listed as supporting Russia because Russian troops are entering through, and firing missiles via, Belarusian land, and potentially now we have Belarusian troops involved in the invasion too. That's a significant tactical advantage, indeed it's the quick route for Russia to get to Kyiv. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader:I'm not questioning why Belarus is listed as a supporting party, I agree with you there (obviously). I'm questioning why other countries are not listed as a supporting party. E.g., the U.S. has provided sat recon and Estonia has given Ukraine a lot of Javelins, while the U.K. has offered volunteers, material, and recon so why wouldn't they be listed as supporting Ukraine? Is the ruling condition for "supported by" in the sidebar as used in other, similar military articles just "right-of-way?" Fephisto (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I now see the above talk on this, sorry. Fephisto (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Letting another state use your territory for aggression is aggression, according to the UN’s definition (Article 3f).[19] Sounds like a belligerent to me. —Michael Z. 05:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename please the article

It is not good to tell 'germans' instead of 'nazi'. In the same way it is not good to tell 'russian invision' while it is just one president's army. Russians are in most keep anti-war side. But most scared to declare their position. Simple russians does not see ukraine enemy. Sory my bad english. PavelSI (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Although "some" of the Russian people oppose this invasion, this is still an invasion by the country of Russia and the Russian military into Ukraine. Oppose this request to move the article. Natg 19 (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• • As for me, the more correct to name the article 'Putin's invasion of Ukraine (2022)' while it is just his own war. .... English language does not distinguish details: russian ethnic group and Rossia'ns (meaning Russian Federation attribute). So You should be more correct. County is Russian Federation to be exact, not shorten it in this case. Russian Federation mean the Federal govenment and oficial forces which make the Federal control. And please mention them as agressors, not 'russians'. And should to note russian ethnic group is just one of multiple in 'Federation'. For example, my father has never been russian while being RF-resident till his end - he was ukrainian by ethnic, so my own family-name is ukrainian. And in return, there are numerous russians in Ukraine and they does not invade. And not call federal troops 'russians' while there are chechens for example. If so, write at least '2022 Russian Federation invasion of Ukraine' to note it is NOT an ethnic conflict. PavelSI (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

An RM was already attempted for this and failed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about this invasion, it is an invasion by the Russian Federation, which is commonly shorted to Russia - our page on the English Wikipedia about the country is simply titled Russia. "Russian invasion of Ukraine" does not imply an ethnic conflict, but one country invading another. Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• • It is bad. Article name is incorrect. PavelSI (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

In russian, my english is too bad... Попробуйте донести идею. Русскоязычная статья названа абсолютно корректно - Российское вторжение. А не русское. Это нейтральное название. А англоязычная статья - названа совершенно некорректно. Не надо разжигать ненависть между русскими и украинцами. Не 'русские' вторгаются, а Россия как государство и политический режим. PavelSI (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Pavel. Perhaps the distinction you are able to make in idiomatic Russian is between "Russia's invasion" (the state) and "the Russians' invasion" (lots of individuals). In idiomatic English, "the Russian invasion" is the normal phrase which could mean either, but in this context it means the former. If we wanted to mean individuals, which we do not, we would change the title somehow. Google translate uses "Russian" for both Российское and русское. Mirokado (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Am sympathetic, and I would be in favour of making the title more specific: “2022 Russian Federation invasion of Ukraine,” making it clear that it is the Russian state, under its government, that is persecuting this war, and not the Russian citizenry, or the ethnic nation, or something else. However, the great majority of reliable sources use “Russia” for the name of the state, and our guidelines are to follow RS’s. —Michael Z. 06:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki is a powerful resource to change humans opinion, even the 'great majority'. Wiki to declare trueth, not common opinion and common fake. As for me, it is "Putin's invasion" to be the best tittle. PavelSI (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry this is a Russian invasion, ordered by a democratically elected leader, who is up for reelection if a couple of years or so. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine military to murder prisoners of war ??

It would seem the ukranian military are losing their head in more ways than one. :S They are saying on their offical facebook that they're going to murder any russian prisoners of war: https://www.facebook.com/usofcom/posts/3212999028931719

"Отныне никаких пленных русских артиллеристов больше не будет. Никакой пощады, никакое "пожалуйста не убивайте, я сдаюсь" уже не пройдет. Каждый расчет, не важно: командир, водитель, наводчик, заряжающий - будут зарезаны как свиньи. Ссыте в штаны, мы за вами уже пришли."

Google translate: "From now on, there will be no more captured Russian artillerymen. No mercy, no "please don't kill, I surrender" will not pass. Every calculation, no matter: commander, driver, gunner, loader - will be slaughtered like pigs. Piss in your pants, we've already come for you."

Seems like an insane decision, this is textbook war crime. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

1) it would have to be reported in RS for inclusion; 2) it would have to actually happen for it to be a war crime (as opposed to just being Facebook venting or a hacked account, neither of which would make a strong case for inclusion). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly think it should be added to the article (it's rather extraordinary after all) but no, I would not argue that it should be added as "Ukraine are murdering prisoners of war" unless there is any confirmation of that actually happeing. It could just be a mere threat (I have no idea about the legality of threathening war crimes) but it certainly does deserve mention as what it is, "the Ukraine military said on its official facebook that it would execute any russian prisoners of war". Could also give their stated reasoning, "due to claimed russian shelling of civilians" etc. Much like other claims of war crimes under the same section.

Also, here are some RS for it. Ukranian media are not making any secret of this. It's not a hack.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/03/2/7327569/

https://ukranews.com/news/838284-za-bolnitsy-i-detskie-sady-spetsnaz-vsu-obyavil-ohotu-na-rossijskih-artilleristov-v-plen-brat-ne

78.78.200.165 (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Pravda isn't [online_an_RS... considered a reliable source]. Misread this as Pravda.ru. I couldn't find an entry for Ukrainian News Agency. Given the rampant misinformation in and around the invasion, ideally I'd want to see stronger sources before considering adding this.

As for it being added because it's extraordinary, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If there are reliable sources stating this, then it should be added. But right now the sourcing is thin. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Struck comment about wrong Pravda Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This is Ukrayinska Pravda (ie literally "ukranian pravda"), not the russian one. Ukranews is a ukranian paper as well. Both are pro-ukraine, not pro-russia. Why would they be unreliable exactly? (the "reliable sources" page mostly just discuss why certain sources should be regarded as unreliable btw, yes?) The sourcing is not thin I'm afraid, I can provide more if you want. See below. Yes, I know this seems kind of a crazy thing to say. But are we really going to say that everyone saying this, from newspapers (pro-ukranian newspapers), to the official bluemarked facebook of the military itself.. thats just some.. what exactly? The russians have taken over large parts of the ukraninan press? The pro-ukrainian press no less? (and they're still pro-ukranian..) The evidence is quite extraordinary (of the claim/threat, not of them actually doing it, mind, but I don't suggest writing that either). If any claim seems extraordinary, it's the claim that this is not a real statement. There's absolutely nothing to support it but that we don't want it to be real. Should really stick to NPOV here, not wishful thinking.

https://newsmedia.com.ua/mainstream/59148-plennyh-ne-budet-sso-ukrainy-obyavili-ohotu-za-russkimi-artilleristami/

https://ua.tribuna.com/others/1107350870-komandovanie-sso-ukrainy-rossijskim-artilleristam-nikakoj-poshhady-nik.html

78.78.200.165 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

With regards to extraordinary, respectfully, you said the following I certainly think it should be added to the article (it's rather extraordinary after all). As such, you've already said that this is an extraordinary claim. I agree that it is, and as such requires strong sourcing.

With regards to Pravda, I apologise. I had misread the domain name and confused it with Pravda.RU. I've struck this above now.

As for the claim potentially being false. I would draw your attention to the following; Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, The Guardian, ABC News, Reuters, the US Department of State, and the European Commission. As I said, there is a substantial amount of Russian misinformation being spread currently. Given the circumstances I hope you can agree that such extraordinary claims require stringent verification and sourcing. The more reliable sources that can be provided, the easier it is to show that a piece of information is verifiable and DUE for inclusion.

At present, I don't have an opinion on whether or not this is due. As it's now 2am in my timezone, I won't be able to check the sources linked thus far in detail until tomorrow. That said, I am open to be convinced to add some of this information; that what appears to be the Ukrainian Special Operations Forces has made a (put mildly) controversial statement. However unless they actually undertake this action, we cannot say they will commit a warcrime. As Wikipedians we state what happened, not what may happen. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I will agree absolutely that we need to be careful of disinfo. Unfortunately, it is really quite the stretch that both the pro-ukrainian press and it's own military is spreading russian disinfo. (though I assume that's not really what you're suggesting either) As for mention.. I'll repeat that I'm certainly not suggesting saying this has happened. Or even necessarily will. We have no confirmation of any action, only the threat of them. But the statement itself is certainly warranted to include, because as you say it is very controversial (and maybe I should have used that word instead of "extraordinary", I am no expert on wiki terminology but I don't think my choice of word is the issue either. And I would also say that several news outlets, all of them pro-ukranian, and the bluemarked account of said military, is quite alot of RS?). Further, to consider NPOV here: Would there be a discussion about whether to include this if it was the russian military saying it? (and they might reply to this with some nasty statement of their own so should probably be on the lookout)

The war crime section is already about various claims, accusations (or comments if you will) about potential war crimes so far so it certainly belongs even if just a statement/threat. There is very little confirmation of any warcrimes, including russian ones.. yet. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Against. Needs several Reliable Sources. The talk has been over Pravda and a Facebook page, if it were to be included then the sources being discussed should be the NYTimes, BBC, Economist, etc.: sources of unquestionable journalistic integrity. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

What an absolute piece of fluff. This discussion is as serious as Mike Tyson asserting "I want to eat his children". Cheap talk is nothing more than bravado. WWGB (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This (assuming it is true) appears to be the orders given by the commander of one formation, so its inclusion would violate wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Impact on Ukraine's unique airfreight industry?

Ukraine is home to Antonov Airlines, which has a fleet of unusual aircraft, including some of the largest and indeed the largest aircraft in the world, the AN-225. This airline could do things that no other could, carrying large and heavy cargo halfway around the world in a matter of days.

It appears that on the 24th and 25th of February, during the Battle of Antonov Airport, Russian shelling destroyed the AN-225 and a number of other aircraft, effectively hobbling this important Ukrainian company. Which will in fact have a global impact, their planes were often involved in humanitarian missions, and delivering vital equipment of great economic importance. For example, they shipped a huge generator from Europe to Western Australia in a matter of days, rather than six months, which prevented a vast mining operation from having to shut down.

Anyway, perhaps a section could be added called "Long Term Economic Impact on Ukraine", and a section beneath that called "Destruction of Antonov Airways Fleet".

Thanks for your attention!

--Maxcelcat (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably better to make a separate article if there's sufficient material and sources, and just bring back a brief summary here. There is already a discussion above by people trying to improve the structure of this article, which is huge in size. The COVID-19 pandemic has a huge number of more specific, related articles, so it would surprising if this one didn't. Boud (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

There's already an "economic impact" section but two subsections of that called "Long Term Economic Impact on Ukraine" where such could be included, and "Long Term Economic Impact on Russia" respectively (which could then include the effects of sanctions and so on) could be a good idea to add eventually I think. But it probably should not be added now right, because how could anyone know the long-term economic impacts of any of this.. a long time has not passed yet. :) 78.78.200.165 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Day by day - too much

I don't have any specific changes in mind, but prior articles like the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq don't give a day-by-day account of the war. This article will get extremely long if this continues; I suggest a lot of that content be moved to a "timeline" article. Although we aren't deep enough into the future to know what will be relevant to people 10 years from now, so I'm not sure. 162.200.70.94 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly do agree with you. I went through only one day and there was way too much detail. I suggested a cutback of the first paragraph a day ago and was ignored. Now I suggested a few more paras that could be cut but will perhaps again be ignored. Sectionworker (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs to contain the most important things only. Everything else can be moved to a subpage or cut entirely, if it's too minor. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, its clear this wont be over in a few days, a day-by-day is already too much, and is only going to get worse. Perhaps a week-by-week summary may be more appropriate as it goes on, and potentially month-by-month if we reach that stage. BSMRD (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine might be a good place for specific details that don't belong in this article. It might be helpful to add content there and then specifically request it be removed from here. At least then cautious editors know it hasn't been lost entirely. I've also updated the tag in the section to {{Overly detailed}} to reflect these concerns. --N8 03:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I may just be a filthy IP ;) but yeah.. I absolutely agree.

There's just so many claims being made about this conflict that this article is going to go on forever if every supposed little engagement is to be reported separately. Of course, there's also a problem of picking what to report and I don't know whether a good job has been done so far... and I don't really think anyone who's not there can say that much about the military action at this pont. Unfortunately, almost everyone who is there is pretty much aligned with one or the other side. There is very little to prove the various claims being made: The only thing that seems somewhat certain is where there's battles going on and whom holds what.

Not to soapbox too much but having followed some other conflicts.. the "fog of war" here is downright insane and I think social media is a really a big contributor to it. Unlike most wars where the reporting is done by people with some actual clue (and people in general stay out of it) people who are on the ground. Here everyone is cheering for a "team" (mostly Ukraine of course) and while understandable, it also becomes a real problem for verifiability and trying to keep some neutrality in terms of, let's call it reporting. Various claims instead go viral near-instantly and is even picked up by the media. And obviously, especially when they're good news for the popular team so to speak. (See ghost of Kyiv etc) I think denialism and echo chambers is going to be - likely already is - a real problem here. I don't think this is going nearly as bad for Russia as some claim (no food, no fuel, enormous casualties etc) and I don't think it's mostly smooth sailing for Russia either as its supporters in turn seem to believe.

Basically, I'd say we know very little. We want to know more than we really do.

I'd suggest day by day summaries of the major, undeniable, changes (and lack thereof) for now.

Might need to be weekly summaries, even monthly if it drags on.

78.78.200.165 (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I definitely support moving the day by day stuff to a new article, and Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine looks like a good fit. I strongly oppose simply deleting any of the text... it might be overly detailed for the main article, but I think the content is well sourced and useful to keep. However, when splitting off an article, we usually leave a summary in the main article. What should go here to replace the day by day stuff? Fieari (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please remove two paragraphs from August 25

Please remove the two one paragraph sentences from August 25. They are both unconfirmed and all things considered not needed in this broad review of the activity of that day. Here is the full ABC report for the first one re the school bombing: "— The mayor said a school building was hit by a Ukrainian shell in the rebel-held city of Horlivka in eastern Ukraine, killing its headteacher and a teacher; rebels who hold Donetsk said the city's main hospital was damaged by shelling but there were no casualties." The second paragraph that needs to be removed from our article reads, "reports circulated of a Ukrainian missile attack against the Millerovo air base in Russia, to prevent the base being used to provide air support to Russian troops in Ukraine." The source is written in Russian. "Reports circulated" is not encyclopedic. Sectionworker (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Error in the casualty box

Source 16 is an article that doesn't state anything about Russian civilian ships being hit. Plz check the source and refresh 2607:FB91:481:595F:91DE:7B67:E98D:576A (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The source states the following:

Meanwhile, Russian news agency TSS reported that two Russian ships had been hit by Ukrainian missiles in the Sea of Azov north of the Black Sea, causing several casualties. The report claimed the vessels that were hit were civilian commercial ships.

Seems to check out to me. BSMRD (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Mind reading

"Before the invasion, in an attempt to provide a casus belli, Putin accused Ukraine of committing genocide against Russian speakers in Ukraine; accusations that were widely described as baseless."

This assumes to know what Putin was thinking and what motivated him to say this. Barring some kind of mind-reading device in Putins head that I'm quite sure we do not have (though it would likely be highly interesting) this is actually unknowable and hence unverifable. Yes, it might be "my source is that I made it the f*ck up", but he might believe this too. It's not really for us to speculate on. And apart from not being verifable, it would be original research. (atleast as fas as someone can call speculation "research")

This also (fortunately) seems to be the only place in the article that attempts this mind reading, whether on Putin or anyone else.

So that part should really be removed. Just that he said it and that it was dismissed. Ie "Before the invasion, Putin accused Ukraine of committing genocide against Russian speakers in Ukraine; accusations that were widely described as baseless."

78.78.200.165 (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If the source stated the goal of cries of genocide was to provide a justification for war, and that is clearly the objective (which it is), then it is to be written in the article. Unless, of course, contradicting info arises.Mebigrouxboy (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please Add This to Article: 3 March ICC (International Criminal Court) announcement (Citation is provided, see below)

Please add this to the article, feel free to re-word if needed. **Citation is included.

On 3 March the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC (International Criminal Court) announced that evidence was being collected of alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed by Russian forces during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This after 39 nations petitioned for an inquiry to be opened.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Typo fix in "Invasion" section, change:

"3 March The Chief Prosecutor of the ICC (International Criminal Court) announced that evidence was being collected of alleged war crimes, cries against humanity and genocide committed by Russian forces during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This after 39 nations petitioned for an quiry to be opened."

to

"3 March The Chief Prosecutor of the ICC (International Criminal Court) announced that evidence was being collected of alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed by Russian forces during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This came after 39 nations petitioned for an inquiry to be opened." 135.180.45.197 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The typo is "cries", which needs to be changed to "crimes".

See the original source (to which the citation links). It is crimes, not cries, in the source article.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesapeake77 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Btw, Chesapeake77, you're 30/500, not sure why you don't have a EC flag yet, you don't have AC either for some reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes strange. I believe I actually have about 460 edits now.

Thanks again.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction, I (just) now have 514 edits according to my account. I may have crossed the threshold while editing this.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Pop-ups and xtools both also say 514 (now 516). If the flag doesn't show up in the next day or so - if you want to wait - you may request it to be manually added via WP:PERM. I'm fairly certain it's added at 500 edits, not 500 mainspace edits. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Typo in section "War Crimes"

A paragraph begins: "On 27 February, Ukraine filed a lawsuit against Russian before the International Court of Justice...". Should "Russian" simply be "Russia", or should it be "Russian [entity]? Mckenzie Weir (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct in the first instance that you mentioned. I better let someone else fix that, however. My account is acting strangely.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"Map" of the invasion

I want to ask all of you: Who the fuxk made this map? Russians are not occupying whole territories, they are just moving through Ukraine. 195.205.75.1 (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@195.205.75.1: The map was created by the contributors to the file File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg (click 'History' to see the full list). Yes, military experts talk about zones of control and the fact that some of the shaded areas are arguably still under Ukranian influence but the map is reasonably accurate given what is publicly known and what can easily be communicated in the visual form given the complexity of a multi-pronged invasion. You are, of course, more than welcome to contribute civil and constructive feedback at File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. Melmann 07:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Liquidation of Russian independent radio station Echo of Moscow

Board of directors decided to liquidate Echo of Moscow.

References

That's known in mafia circles as complying with "an offer that you can't refuse".

Chesapeake77 (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Z symbol - colors

Wouldn't it be better to change the colors to white (for the letter and border) and military green (for the background)? Ngfio (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The picture just disappeared from the article, but for the record I was talking about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Z_(2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine).svg Ngfio (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ngfio You can't change the colour of the image here, as the file is hosted on Commons and overwrite it there, but you cannot because it violates c:COM:OVERWRITE. SHB2000 (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Info box - Belarus

Lukashenko has officially denied Belarusian troops in Ukraine. Whether or not it’s true it needs to be listed as (officially denied). Other countries have also denied. Also, I would argue that unless we have concrete evidence (and not only Zelenskyy’s claim) we should add (alleged) but that’s minor

Source : https://www.politico.eu/article/belarus-russia-war-ukraine/ Angele201002 (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone edited while I was posting so disregard thisAngele201002 (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This Man is Now In Charge of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine (and is under orders to intensify / accelerate it)

From the BBC (source link at bottom of this post)--

"Viktor Zolotov

...he runs Russia's national guard [strength 400,000 troops]...

...Vera Mironova believes the original Russian plan was to complete the invasion within days, and when the military appeared to be failing, Russia's national guard [led by Victor Zolotov] took the lead. The problem is that the national guard's leader has no military training..."

SEE CITATION / SOURCE LINK HERE: Ukraine conflict: Who's in Putin's inner circle and running the war? (See section near bottom of article-- "Victor Zolotov")

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

How would you like to have Zolotov added in the article? As a commander in the infobox or as a sentence somewhere in the article? However, to me, the source seems to state an opinon rather than a fact... P1221 (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add 3 to Russia aircraft shootdown. Which is 2 Sukhoi 35 (Kyiev) and 1 Sukhoi 30 (Irpin)

Please add 3 to Russia aircraft shootdown. Which is 2 Sukhoi 35 (in Kyiev) and 1 Sukhoi 30 (in Irpin). 103.47.135.149 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Source? P1221 (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022 (2)

Change "Luhansk Republic" and "Donetsk Republic" to "Luhansk PR" and "Donetsk PR" respectively. Spartacus but Russian (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done P1221 (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

TRUE NUMBER OF RUSSIAN AKA PUTINIST STALINIST CASUALTIES ARE 9000 SOLDIERS + TANKS ARE STUCK AND EASY HIT + URBAN WARFARE GIVES UKRAINIANS ADVANTAGE!!!

https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-advantages-urban-warfare-russia-invasion-kyiv

as it was in kosovo 1999:

encyclopediasupreme.org/nato

1) There is no need to shout

2) The source doesn't have any reference to the 9000 casualties

3) 9,000 is the Ukrainian claim (already reported in the infobox) and very probably it is exaggerated. P1221 (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Historical Negationism vs Revisionism hyperlink error?

In the section titled, "Euromaidan, Revolution of Dignity, and war in Donbas (3rd Paragraph) it refers to - British journalist Edward Lucas described it as historical revisionism.

However, the hyperlink directs users to Historical negationism

I'm not an expert on the two topics, but this feels erroneous in nature or a simple mistake -- the historical negationism article also ironically instructs that it (negationism) should not be conflated with historical revisionism, a broader term that extends to newly evidenced, fairly reasoned academic reinterpretations of history. Happy to hear others' thoughts, or to get the edit done, I just don't have the access due to the protection. Cheers OfficerManatee (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Naming of article as “invasion”, should other articles be renamed?

Hi

With regards to previous articles including Iraq, Syria, Lybia, they are regarded as “interventions”, this article as “invasion”.

I think and worry that the naming of those articles creates a “white knight” subconscious bias, thus I raise this discussion.

Those interventions, especially Iraq, are not widely regarded as invasions, and illegal.

Eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_%282014–2021%29

Thanks 2A04:4A43:45EF:E03F:1908:6E10:9B91:2551 (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please address the titles of other articles on the talk pages of those articles, and offer any reliable sources that use the terminology you feel Wikipedia should use. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This is widely regarded as an invasion, like – for example – the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Foreign volunteers

According to President Zelensky, 16,000 foreign volunteers have arrived in Ukraine to fight in its defense. Should this number be added to the infobox? Viewsridge (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion it is worth adding this info. P1221 (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1499311646690492417 P4p5 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Fix citation for French Finance Minister Quote

The inset image with the caption French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said that the EU "will bring about the collapse" of the economy of Russia inside of the Economic impact section has a broken link for it's citation, it resolves to https://www.thelocal.fr/20220301/french-finance-minister-we-will-wwring-about-collapse-of-the-russian-economy/ when it should actually resolve to https://www.thelocal.fr/20220301/french-finance-minister-we-will-bring-about-collapse-of-the-russian-economy/

 Done Thank you for pointing out the problem. P1221 (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Qatar

Just to put some balance to the investment withdrawals, heres qatar. Oddly al jazeera has been markedly different from the govt itself, but this is off al jazeera, which ive not seen there.

Also, "see also" can use a link to the Georgia war since this is eerily parralel in the build up, entrance and sakkazhvili/zelensky reactions changing from agressive to defensive.78.109.69.246 (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian media attention previous to the invasion

Should the treatment of the issue by private and state-backed media in Russia in the days prior to the invasion be included? Anton Krasovsky#Premonitory comments on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (wiki article with external references) 190.192.176.38 (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)