Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?

(The heading above is a link to the archived RFC as it is significant and I'm assuming this will be discussed more while not cluttering the talk page with a 29 page discussion Phiarc (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC))

Same link: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? --N8_wilson 12:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia's reasons for this ?

I can't find anything of this topic. Why did Putin invade ? And what is the Russian goal ? Are we in the West not grown up enough , for listening to both sides. West are censuring Putin and the Ukranian president is given an extreme amount of time and space in television and in papers. (I can watch TV news from Germany, UK, France and Scandinavia - and for every word from Putin, the Ukraine president gets like 5000) There's a lot we do not know anything about related to the reason for the invasion and Putin, which free people should be entitled to here. And this could well be a topic for this article. Neutral balance. 83.250.73.248 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the "Background" section of this very article for the what experts believe are the reasons Putin is doing this. The last paragraph of the section in particular... he believes Ukraine is spiritually part of Russia and should be re-integrated into the nation. So according to experts, the invasion is purely imperialistic in nature. Fieari (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The last paragraph is probably the most one-sided piece in the whole article. According to a real expert (notable, serious, world-renowned academic studying precisely topics like this one) called Mearsheimer (relevant 2015 talk on youtube [1]) this has has absolutely nothing to do with imperialism. The last paragraph should focus more on established theory of International Relations/Politics/War and Political Realism (and of course other schools of thought) rather than just rely on US/British historians. Also references to public speeches are a terrible source for drawing conclusions about actual reasons since they give nearly 0 context into the actual reasons behind any sort of arned conflict or policy.

Hopefully someone with appropriate permissions will replace that part with something that at least mentioned other academic sources and viewpoints. KMourat (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I should've made a better job in my previous comment to further substantiate claims about what the actual reasons were. In my opinion, it is a much better idea to focus on topics discussed in peace talks, like Ukraine not joining NATO. An article from NYTimes references this topic 1 month before the conflict even started, and according to another NYT article published yesterday discusses the progress of recent peace talks and again references the same issue. I believe this gives us more insight into actual reasons. KMourat (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"West are censuring Putin" what exactly makes you think that? Putins Feb 24th speech was widely covered (in fact, it has its own article: On conducting a special military operation) as are many of his public appearances and speeches since then as well as appearances of Lavrov and Maria Zakharova. Phiarc (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fieari gotta laugh at “according to experts, the invasion is purely imperialistic in nature”.

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that prints factual information, not edicts from “experts”. Do you understand the concept of NPV? Do guy understand the role of propaganda in wartime? (Rhetorical questions, no need to answer.)

Contentious political articles on English Wikipedia will, by design, always present a POV sharply slanted towards the prevailing Western perspective. It doesn’t help matters that even apparently earnest contributors don’t understand what a neutral point of view is and why it’s important for an encyclopedia to uphold that principle.

Getting articles like this one to reflect a NPV is a Sisyphean task that will never be achieved. A more honest Wikipedia would brand itself as an amateur driven western-based encyclopedia project instead of pretending it’s a noble, high quality repository of NPV knowledge free from political and cultural biases. User2346 (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot we do not know anything about related to the reason for the invasion I mean, Putin did two hour-long speeches a few days preceding the invasion, rambling on about global power dynamics, NATO, and apparent nazification in Ukraine, etc. And he wrote a long essay about his views on the status of Ukraine and its people. Much of it isn't very justifiable, so it's hard to take you seriously when you decide to ignore Putin's own words, fail to even attempt to articulate exactly what content the article is missing so that it can 'be neutral', and instead make vague references to 'Western bias' and 'things that are unknown'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

We go with what wp:rs say, that is what wp:npov means. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone find RS that tell us what Putin said in his speech? Any RS that summarize what he said? Can we add that (briefly) to the article? Is there another article that explains more fully the Russian viewpoint on the war, and can we put a link to it? There's a link to "Russian irredentism", but that doesn't seem to relate specifically to this war. What reasons did Putin give for the military operation (or whatever he calls it)? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Oops. Never mind. I was just looking at the lead. I see there's already a section about that, "Russian accusations and demands". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above that (the right wing) Mearsheimer's analysis should be mentioned here. Also, the article doesn't really mention much about how the US & colleagues misled Russia: James Baker is famous for saying "not one inch eastward" to M Gorbachev about NATO expansion (which the naive reader may not know from this article alone was a military alliance whose main purpose was to oppose the Soviet Union). (see https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early for the Baker quote & US documents on misleading Gorbachev.) In Mearsheimer's exposition, all this is more apparent. A variant of Mearsheimer's view can also be found in (the left wing) Noam Chomsky's recent comments on the current situation & also during the Russian invasion in 2014–2015 in various media including Democracy Now (which is less pro-US government source than, say, the NY Times, etc.). – ishwar  (speak) 21:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like it should be possible to work in a prose link to John Mearsheimer#2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine somewhere. --N8_wilson 22:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

World war 3 claims

Should the claims about this being the start of WW3 be added https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/world-war-iii-may-already-started-russian-invasion-zelenskyy-says-rcna19967 https://thehill.com/policy/international/598459-zelensky-world-war-iii-may-have-already-started https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-president-zelenskyy-warns-ww-iii-may-have-already-started https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10620665/Zelensky-says-World-War-Three-started.html https://www.businessinsider.com/zelenskyy-russian-invasion-could-lead-to-start-of-wwiii-2022-3 Persesus (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No, his comments are meant to spark emotion, much like how he used 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as event comparisons to US lawmakers and the Holocaust to German lawmakers in attempts to increase their involvement. KD0710 (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting question. In this wise Pope Francis spoke of a "piecemeal WWIII" in 2014. On the other hand we have to wait on a reliable source for the nomenclature. On the other other hand, can WWIII be non-nuclear? Stay tuned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III#cite_note-94

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war#cite_note-6 kencf0618 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well it can start off as conventional then escalate from there Persesus (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Nuke fears

Should the fears of people buying iodine tablets be put in as well Persesus (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this aspect. Do you have a link to a source? --N8_wilson 14:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I heard on CBC radio as well as I remember that in a neighbouring country, sales of potassium iodide supplements were very high and people were scrambling to increase production to meet the demand, because of fears of nuclear fallout. Sorry I forget which country. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes that I was referring to Persesus (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Last chance to supply an RS or something. EEng 05:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Largest war in Europe since WWII?

The introductory paragraph of the article claims that this war in Ukraine is the largest one in Europe since world war II. However there was the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s, for which the Wikipedia article claims the total deaths at 100000+. How come it's being claimed that the Ukraine war is the largest? 2607:9880:4018:11:CDC0:2C25:68DD:8E6A (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes...WARS as in more than one. This is just one war. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Your response is a non-answer to anyone with background knowledge on the topic, Slatersteven. Both of the major Yugoslav wars resulted in tens of thousands of deaths each and the larger resulted in over hundred thousand dead alone. Ukraine presently comes close to neither (although it's rapidly approaching Croatia's civil war in deaths). The reason for Ukraine being considered larger, has nothing to do with plurals as you've suggested twice or thrice now. IP, it's because of the number of troops committed to this offensive. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that "largest military conflict" is somewhat vague, perhaps we can add some qualifier? Such as "by some measures", or just specifically "by number of troops committed"? I agree that "by number of troops committed" is plausibly implied by "largest military conflict", but it's not obviously implied. And this is a really strong claim. Ornilnas (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

And my next answer is, how do we define size of war, number of dead, area, number of combatants, duration? But yes my answer was an answer for the reason just stated. We can't compare one war to a series of wars, no matter what metric we use. We can only judge it, by comparison, to one war. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a matter, I think, of sovereign nation-states. There is no Wikipedia article "Yugoslavian Civil War"; rather, its constituent republics had a suite of very complicated and messy wars. Hence the "Yugoslav Wars" article. No one is calling this the "Slav War", after all. kencf0618 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If we say "largest" in the Wikipedia article, I think we should know what we mean, not just parrot the words of sources. Do the sources cited explain what they mean by "largest"? I think a qualifier such as Ornilnas suggests is probably a good idea, but would need to reflect what the sources mean. If we can't figure out what the sources mean, maybe we should say "has been described as" or "widely described as" or something. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

A plain question was asked: how is this the largest war in Europe since WW2 when the Yugoslav civil wars (YCW) resulted in 100,000+ dead? There are several plausible answers to that question, however, none of them are 'this is one war'. Why? well answer the question: how is this war larger than the Bosnian War? (that's one war, not a series of wars, with 100,000+ dead). How do we define size of war? Well, if you look at our article... we don't. Neither explanation nor qualification is provided. Hence why the question is asked. To consider your mentioned metrics: by deaths (Bosnia at 100,000+) ; by area (Ukraine, presumably) ; by troops (Ukraine at ~500,000 active and ~1,000,000 reserves) ; by duration (Croatia at 4.5+ years). To consider Ken's comment about sovereignty, 'military conflicts' are not confined to sovereign nations and the article claims 'largest military conflict' not 'largest military conflict between sovereign states'. With that qualifier though, it'd be fine, and we might have fewer inquiries about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, which is why we go with what RS say, and not our own wp:or based upon what we think is significant about any one war. RS have said it is, so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I wrote and then removed, because I did not think it necessary to include, but since you're taking this route: none of the three cited sources supports the claim 'largest military conflict'. One says 'largest ground war', one says 'largest conventional military attack', and one says 'biggest assault on a European state'. And do not cite OR at me, when you're walking around saying the distinction is in the plural. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

We also do not say "largest war", but I am more than happy to see this changed to something like "largest ground war" (per sources). Slatersteven (talk)

'Military conflict' is a synonym for 'war'. In fact, if you type in 'define military conflict' on Google, it'll link you to 'war'. Just thought to check, military conflict is a redirect to war. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

And I have said I am happy to see this changed to match at least one of the sources and say its the "largest ground war since WW2", I am unsure what you opposition to this is (if you have one, I am also unsure you do). Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not WP:OR to merely notice an error in a source. 'Largest war in Europe since WW2' is a weaselly claim, and we shouldn't repeat it blindly, even from WP:RSes if we have valid grounds to doubt such characterisation. If anything, taking 3 sources that claim different things, and then interpreting them the way we are currently doing is WP:SYNT. Melmann 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. We do not mindlessly parrot reliable sources. If. RS said most people have 6 fingers on each hand we would never consider including it. Hollth (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think a bit of clarification may be necessary. Several RS have made this claim due to total military build up. The size of the war isn’t based on casualties, but on military involvement. I think it is accurate, but understand the confusion. https://www.foxnews.com/world/russian-invades-ukraine-largest-europe-attack-wwii.amp KD0710 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Largest ground war [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]]

Largest land conflict [[6]]

Largest assault on a Europe State [[7]]

Do we need more? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we agree that none of the sources are terribly good? They are all (?) news articles making a very strong claim, without substantiating it at all. Some are quoting individuals; others just state the claim outright. So I think we should either quote the sources verbatim ("largest assault on a European state" etc.) and add something like "has been claimed to be" before the claim; or remove the claim outright. If we later get a good source that makes less nebulous claims with clear arguments and numbers, we can turn that into a sentence with more elegant (and accurate) wording. Ornilnas (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

OK more then [[8]], [[9]], [[10]]. Note a couple of these are not "not terribly good sources". Want any more?Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course not, I want good sources. They should be unambiguous, consistent with other good sources, and preferably substantiate the claims. None of the sources I've seen so far qualify (although I haven't looked carefully at all the links you posted). Ornilnas (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(I missed your double negation on my first read, but I don't think the quality of your three new sources are better than the earlier ones.) Ornilnas (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

These are good sources, and they are not ambiguous, they clearly say it is the largest ground war, with no ambiguity. We also do not try and second guess wp:rs we assume they say what they say with good reason. The only reason we might is if other RS dispute a claim (well the is another, which is it is wp:bluesky wrong, which RS do not tend to be (it's they they are wp:rs)), none have been produced that do. So we have no reason to assume there is a dispute, what this is is wp:or being used to argue what RS unequivocally says is wrong. If you think these are not RS for this claim, make a case at [p[wp:rsn]], other wise they are. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

To the extent they're not ambiguous, they're inconsistent with each other: if it's actually the "largest land conflict", why does another source make the much more limited claim "biggest assault on a state"? I think it's clear that the former claim is intentionally vague/ambiguous, to avoid having to go into detail about what exactly makes this war special. That's fine, but it makes it a worse source for our purposes. I'm not saying we should definitely ignore all these sources and remove the claim entirely. But I think the current wording is too strong, given these sources. Ornilnas (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

One clarification: I don't think it's obvious that "largest war" implies "largest number of soldiers involved in war". Indeed, Wikipedia's lists of wars tends to rank them by death or casualties tolls, not soldier count. That's not to say that "number of deaths" is an obvious definition either. It's just that "largest war" is inherently vague. Ornilnas (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected to using the wording from one of the sources, I've done that. I delibirately chose one of the more limited claims ("the biggest assault on a European state"), for reasons stated above. Ornilnas (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s the best call for now Persesus (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Noting that this has been discussed previously at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive_4#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (3) and Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive_4#Largest European ground war since WWII? --N8_wilson 22:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we really going to go for "Acc. to" instead of "per" on the infobox?

Why are we using an abbreviation instead for the infobox on casualties? This is entirely unnecessary when we could just be using "per" Flalf^Talk 14:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Have there just not been a conversation about this? Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking in the archive it seemed to be a small discussion with no proper conclusion. "acc. to" is far more confusing than per. Flalf^Talk 15:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think "Acc. to" is more likely to be understood than "per". "Per" is the Latin word for "through", I believe; would it mean casualties that occurred while going "through" the territory mentioned? "Per" is also used to represent ratios: does it mean as a ratio of the population of the country mentioned? Perhaps some sort of survey could be done (including people who speak English as a second language, and beginning speakers!) to see which is better understood. "Per" is also used in Wikipedia discussions to cite someone's comment, so Wikipedians might think it sounds natural, but I found it strange at first when I encountered it in Wikpedia discussions being used like that. Hah! I just moused over "Acc." and it says "According". So that's explained, and unambiguous. What would happen if you moused over "per"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You're looking at a tooltip template. See {{abbr}}. Just adding 'acc. to' doesn't result in an explanation. You could feasibly do per. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The tooltip isn't intuitive either. Only shows a question mark unless you hover for quite a few seconds Flalf^Talk 16:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Quite a few seconds? I just timed it and it takes less than a second to show its meaning. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Although that could just be me and it differs depending on device? Either way it does not take that long for me. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that per is better. There was a discussion about it, see Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#"per"_is_confusing. I would support switching back to 'per'. Melmann 16:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Per is well established, which acc. to is not. Plus it's more compact, which matters in infoboxen. EEng 09:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Jr8825 • Talk 10:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is saying it should be left to the citation or a note. What is being said in the infobox is another matter. The infobox should represent an "executive summary" and not a regurgitation of multiple sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've supported 'per' in each discussion prior when this has been raised, and I'mma support it now. The fact that 'per' has more than one definition – which is the argument presented to modify – does not make it ambiguous. Context determines meaning. And if 'acc.' needs a tooltip at each instance, that makes it a worse, not better, replacement for per. I'm neutral on 'according to'. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If we didn't have 24h archiving, perhaps one of the previous 3-4 discussions could've come to a resolution. See Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries; neither have a definition of "per" like Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia talk pages do. Further, I'll note that we've varied between styles since this article began. When we use "per", new accounts tend to post on talk saying they're confused by the meaning. When we use "acc. to", established Wikipedians post on the talk encouraging the use of the word "per". I feel like that does say something about the comprehensibility of using "per". Mind you, I'm not saying I support "acc. to" either. I would much prefer something like "Russian claim:" "Ukrainian claim:" etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

»I would much prefer something like "Russian claim:" "Ukrainian claim:" etc.« why aren't we doing that? It's plain English. Phiarc (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Let’s just do that. Wtoteqw (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to that from "per" in the first 24 hours of the invasion, and hoped that it would stick, but someone reverted me at some point along the way. "X claim" is concise, unambiguous, and relies neither on an usual abbreviation nor a somewhat jargony usage of a preposition. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I've implemented that given the apparent consensus here. Alternate words for 'claim' may also work, e.g. 'Ukrainian data:' etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"Claim" is contrary to WP guideline which guides us to avoid the term since it casts doubt on the credibility of the person saying it. See MOS:CLAIM. So based on this I was obligated to remove the term. Sorry. Lets continue discussing. I'm for "per" by the way. EkoGraf (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't actually think that applies in this context, because all the data supplied is being labelled as a claim, from both sides and uninvolved parties, so a 'casting doubt' interpretation isn't reasonable (whereas in prose it might be). Nevertheless, how about "Russian data:" "Ukrainian data:", etc? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"Russian estimate:" "Ukrainian estimate"? EkoGraf (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm... "estimate" might actually imply that these are objective numbers with no motive for potential distortion. I could see "estimate" used for 3rd party analysis, such as from the US, but I think I prefer "claim" for both the Russian and Ukrainian numbers (even though I believe the Ukrainian numbers are likely most accurate given the photographic evidence provided). Fieari (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"Putin echoing antisemitic conspiracy theory"

What? I am very confused by the Times article and the Guardian article cited in particular. The Guardian article is talking about the antisemitic cabal conspiracy, which seems quite nonsequitur? I can understand there is a problem in Russia, but I'm not sure this is relevant? Not defending Putin, but there might be another reason that Russia uses the memories of WW2 than antisemitic tropes when making war propaganda? Namely the fact that Slavs were the #2 or #3 target of ethnic violence and persecution by the Nazis (Jewish people being the #1 victim of violence)?

I'm not opposed to these articles being cited in themselves, but is there a more nuanced position that can be included than simply saying "Russia is the real Nazi"? 24.44.73.34 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

There might well be, but if RS make a claim we can say so. But we do not say they are the real Nazi's what we do is report what RS has said about the claims (And directly link this to the invasion). Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Admittedly a hyperbolic statement to say that this article calls Russia the real nazis, so I apologise. But I had said that because to say Putin is "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany." seems far fetched to me. I think it would be justifiable to say if Putin were dismissing or even denying the suffering of Jewish people in WW2 but to my knowledge he didn't do that so it's very out of place to me. There are definitely groups, including in Russia that do that but from what I know no mainstream politician says that. The Guardian article makes a strong assertion but doesn't really elaborate on how Putin is doing that.

That said, I know it's WP:RS so I am not calling for its removal but I'm hoping there can be an alternate perspective from another RS to be more balanced. Part of WP:NPOV is: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". I am not aware of other articles analyzing this aspect of Putin's rhetoric during the invasion but (see my next response below for citations) there has been alot of nuance on this issue in the past, as its a very complex topic. So it would be consistent with Wikipedia policy to have all that's available and relevant from RS.

@Mzajac Fair point about Russian propaganda, but it doesn't really explain how Putin is an antisemite, it just says he is. I think that is a problem. It implies that because Putin is anti-Zelensky that Putin has a problem with all Jewish people, this seems quite disingenious to me. Of course if Putin had said that or anything resembling it you would see no objection from me with regards to it being included in this article - however not even The Guardian article says Putin outright said such things, it's just extrapolating that because he is a Christian nationalist therefore he is complicit in propagating an antisemitic conspiracy. However, a few examples from the past would show that there is a more nuanced reality than that, see:. Of course there is also this on the contrary:. So it's a mixed bag, I think that any article talking about this subject should reflect that. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s not a non-sequitur, but maybe can be clarified. It is all part of the fallacious, indiscriminate, and even contradictory way Russian propaganda uses the memory of WWII, accusations of “fascism,” and conspiracy theory in its propaganda. Part of it is an extension of official Soviet antisemitism. There’s more in Putinism. —Michael Z. 18:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, could you clarify which part of "Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism, invoking the history of collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine during World War II, and echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany" is nonsequitur? Do you have any suggestions to improve it? I spent a long time rejigging this sentence so that it's coherent and reflects the sources. I'm keen to hear others' feedback/thoughts, as I personally think the sentence now does a very good job of accurately & succinctly summarising the sources cited. I appreciate it's a complex sentence, but it's hard to expand on as there are space constraints and I think the preceding sections on Putin's portrayal of Ukraine as a threat to Russia provide the necessary context. I'm also mindful that further fleshing this sentence out could result in too much emphasis on antisemitism, leading to undue weight issues. Regarding the Guardian article, the author is Jason Stanley, a well-known academic who specialises in fascism. Jr8825 • Talk 20:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

How about simply removing the word "antisemitic" from the sentence? That would weaken the implication that Putin himself is an antisemite, while retaining most of the relevant information. Or do the sources clearly try to imply that Putin is an antisemite? (I haven't read them.) Ornilnas (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ornilnas: the language of the sources is clear that antisemitism is linked:

• "By claiming that the aim of the invasion is to “denazify” Ukraine, Putin appeals to the myths of contemporary eastern European antisemitism" [11]
• "The Putin regime has once again consciously sought to instrumentalize Russian and Ukrainian antisemitism for its own purposes" [12]

The flipside is that while there's an antisemitic tone aimed for Russian consumption (i.e. Ukraine is a threat to Russia as it's a Nazi regime that wants to genocide Russians; Zelenskyy, its Jewish president, and other global Jews seek to mask Ukraine's Nazism – and historic Nazism, e.g. the Holocaust – by presenting themselves as the only victims, at the expense of Slavs), there's also an attempt to utilise/leverage accusations Ukraine in order to prove its Nazi nature [13]. It's a case of Russia accusing others of what Russia itself is doing (similar to the accusations of indiscriminate fire on civilians). Jr8825 • Talk 10:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The sources do indeed seem to imply that Putin is playing on domestic antisemitism, although they're a little unclear on the specifics (so much so that they left me a little confused). To me, it looks a little opinionated; perhaps some qualifier, such as "has been described as", could be used? Ornilnas (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Mobilizing antisemitism in politics and war is antisemitic. Putin’s abusive and insincere accusations of Nazism and genocide are an offence to the memory of Holocaust victims, Holocaust distortion, and arguably antisemitic. Putin’s favourite and oft-praised “historian,” Russian fascist philosopher Ivan Ilyin, was antisemitic. I don’t think there’s any need to censor quotations from RS’s about Putin’s antisemitism because we can’t find a direct quotation of him saying “I hate Jews.” More: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. —Michael Z. 21:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jr8825, I meant this part in particular "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany". I hope my previous responses help to show my position adequately - the problem to me of course is that it makes strong assertions but does so more by extrapolation than solid fact. So I say it's nonsequitur because it makes a strong statement but with little direct backing in fact. Obviously this is a complex problem in Russia, especially due to the history of the country. There's definitely a problem but (see above sources in previous response) there is alot of layers to it. So I think this problem could easily be solved by also including an alternate perspective on the topic from another RS. As I said earlier, not sure if there's been more WP:RS analyses on this rhetoric of his during the invasion, but I think that it should be included if and when it is found. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Wouldn’t that be Stalinist propaganda with nazis running the country and should we include the azov battalion as a combatant Persesus (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Am I right about that? Persesus (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Rally

I've created a stub for the 2022 Moscow rally, if editors are interested in helping to expand. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll try Finton the magical salmon (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Great for doing that Persesus (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2022 (6)

There was consensus on the talk page of the [21] that it should be merged into [22] so perhaps the main article should link to it as well? (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Genlef please be specific as to what edit you think should occur. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderlla157 I think that this sentence "Numerous companies withdrew their products and services from Russia and Belarus" should be linked to [23] rather than [24] (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguity in infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see two problems with the infobox: first, the "Equipment Losses" listed under Donetsk PR could mean losses for Donetsk, or (probably) losses for both Donetsk and Russia. There are a number of ways to make this clear. I suggest fixing it by putting the heading "Casualties" before the Russian flag, in the same font as the heading "Equipment Losses". Secondly, "Acc. to ind. res." has superscript "expand acronym", and when you mouse over it, it says "The text near this tag needs the full version of its acronym at first occurrence". I don't know what the expanded text would be; incidentally, it's also an abbreviation, not an acronym, but that might be OK. Generally, great job creating this article, everyone. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

On the second point, the 'expand acronym' is a maintenance tag (i.e. like cite needed). I'm guessing 'ind.' means 'independent' and 'res.' means 'research'. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

So does anything need doing here? EEng 00:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes; see my first message above. Add "Casualties:" as a heading before the Russian flag, in the same font as the heading "Equipment Losses"; and also expand or explain the abbreviation. It's been changed to "Acc. to ind. researchers", which removes the abbreviation on one of the words, but the word "ind." is still an unexplained abbreviation. Find out what it's an abbreviation for, probably "independent"; give it a tooltip the way "Acc." has, or expand the word, or do something else to tell the reader what it means. Thanks! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Equipment Losses

My concern is the fact that the article doesn't show estimates for ukrainian losses (independent sources). Currently, losses by the ukrainian military are displayed in the article acc. to russia only. It gives a bias view if you don't add indepedent estimates to ukraine.

These are some solutions: - Add independent sources that are estimating ukrainian equipment losses. - Delete independent sources estimating russian losses

Im favoring the first option. 2.205.129.206 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Please find those sources if you’d like the change. Thanks! KD0710 (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This website documents visually confirmed losses on both sides: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html P4p5 (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This BBC article describes Oryx as a blog? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_8#wikipedia_please_stopped_spread_Russia_propaganda for prior discussion and a viable source Phiarc (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Albania sent military equipment to Ukraine

Can someone update those two maps [25][26]. The source is [27]. Maybe other countries too need to be updated. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

someone needs to get on that fast Persesus (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"According to the United States"

Why do we need the United States' estimates for the casualties in particular? Are they a reliable and neutral observer of the conflict? No, they are clearly aligned with Ukraine. Furthermore, it's not clear why America's opinion in particular needs highlighting. This seems to be a simple situation of Americo-centrism ("America thinks so, so it must be true"). Like I could understand having the UN's estimates or something, but why America? 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C053:F038:23A:2CB8 (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what a gov't support of Ukraine could translate into false losses - that would be counter-productive, and there isn't any proof of such in any case. 50.111.16.144 (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

They are a third party, but it might be better to have a NGO claim, do you have any we can use instead? 10:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

They are the only third-party source that has been presented. Belligerent sources are generally inherently unreliable as attested to by a source in the article body of this article for this particular case. There are no "good" sources being presented but the US sources are better than the belligerent sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"America thinks so, so it must be true" if that were the case, these numbers would be claimed as fact, which they are obviously not.

"Like I could understand having the UN's estimates or something" the UN does not publish military casualty estimates. The civilian estimates come from the OHCHR.

At this point I'm kind of wondering what's up with CA v6s, by my estimation 80 % of all v6 IP edits on this TP are CA and always odd straw-men... Phiarc (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you should ask them Persesus (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Are equipment losses being recorded elsewhere?

Are equipment losses being recorded elsewhere - ie in another article related to the 2022 invasion? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, chiming in b/c you've been #patiently waiting: not that I know of on WP. Closest I can offer is List of ship losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War and List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War both from the navbox on this article. There's also a list of weaponry used but it doesn't tabulate losses and isn't invasion specific. Outside WP I've seen some editors reference the "Oryx" site for numbers. I expect the reason few editors have replied here is the difficulty in giving your answer a definitive "no". They might be in an article sub-section or a draft somewhere but if so, I haven't seen it yet. --N8_wilson 05:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes Persesus (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Persesus, where please. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Transnistria and the war

Much has been talked about Transnistria and the role it could play in a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine ever since Russia started amassing troops on its border. I've thought about writing an article about this but I don't know if it would be a good idea. Transnistria definitely does not have the same level of involvement as Belarus or Chechnya nor is it as important as China in the international arena (all of these 3 have their own involvement in the invasion articles). I also thought about expanding the scope of such article to the whole Russo-Ukrainian War since already since the annexation of Crimea it was said that Russia could attack Ukraine from Transnistria. What do you think? Would such an article be notable and independent enough? Super Ψ Dro 08:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I... am not sure about that. I don't know what stakes Russia holds in that region other than being a big factor in its partial recognition, and to that extent I also don't know how many scholarly articles will uphold recognition of the Transnistrian state.

Geographically I don't see what Russia could do to ask for resources either, planting troops there if there weren't any already would require either further pushes into Ukraine. They can't enter NATO countries, that's for certain. I'd say for now there's not much reason for the article to exist :/

Icepunchies (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

We need to see examples of "all this talk" in RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a Russian military base in Transnistria. Transnistria is demographically about a third Russian and a third Ukrainian. It's not a bad idea to create this article if there are enough reliable sources, and there probably are enough reliable sources. --JECE (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this exactly the kind of thing WP:Draft is for? --N8_wilson 04:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Such an article would not have an obvious notability. Thus, I can't leave it as a stub, so I'd need to write an extensive page which will require work I am not willing to put in for it to only become a draft. I first wanted to see opinions. By the way, here are sources to show Transnistria's context in this is being discussed: [28] [29] (American senator saying Transnistria might get involved soon) [30] [31] [32] (how Transnistria might end up in a Russian invasion of Moldova) [33] (Transnistria on Lukashenko's leaked map) [34] (Transnistrian puppet president had to talk about rumors of Transnistria attacking Ukraine) [35] (Ukraine blew up a bridge connecting it with Transnistria amid fears) [36] [37] (analysis on Transnistria's reaction and potential role in the war) [38] (Transnistria supposedly bombed Ukraine and Moldova denied this). And I did write a bit of this article, see here [39]. Super Ψ Dro 19:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I just meant that starting the article in the Draft namespace allows other editors to assist you with evaluating or establishing notability. Drafts can be tagged to WP projects so that other interested contributors can find them and help develop the topic. Plus, a lack of notability in the Draft: namespace is not grounds for removal. (Except I think in cases where there's clearly no chance of notability such as patent nonsense.) --N8_wilson 16:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m Not so sure Persesus (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Joint Slovenian/Czech/Polish visit of PMs to Ukraine vs Turkish FM visit

The article doesn't mention the visit of Prime Ministers of Poland, Czech Republic and Slovenia to Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv that took place on 15th March 2022 - I don't know if it is a notable event that fits the scope of this article, so I don't appeal for adding this information. I mention it merely as it provides context that invalidates the claim of "On 17 March, Çavuşoğlu was the first foreign minister to visit Ukraine after the start of the invasion."

Clearly a delegation of four ministers from three countries on 15th makes a "first foreign minister to visit" claim in regard to Turkish MoFA unsubstantiated . Some sources about the visit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/world/europe/european-leaders-ukraine-trip.html

https://twitter.com/MorawieckiM/status/1503652747647799298 89.75.169.132 (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Economic Impact Outside Ukraine and Europe

To Economic Impact I think it would be fair to add the effects outside the front? Prices of oil in Turkey are skyrocketing. Food across Eurasia is affected. ^[1] Icepunchies (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Icepunchies Pls be specific as to what you would add where, if not already done. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Activity of Russian authorities against Wikipedia and Wikipedians

I've added the following text (see below) into the article Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia. Perhaps this text (or its part) also will be useful for the subsection "Censorship".

" On 16 March 2022, Russian Agency of Legal and Judicial Information (РАПСИ — founded by the RIA Novosti, the Constitutional Court of Russia, the Supreme Court of Russia, the Supreme Court of Arbitration of Russia in 2009) published the interview of deputy chairman of the commission on the development of information society, media and mass communications of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation Alexander Malkevich. In this interview, Malkevich said that Wikipedia (both Russian and others) was becoming a "bridgehead for informational war against Russia". Also he stated that Russian law-enforcement agencies had identified 13 persons, who were carrying out "politically engaged editing" Wikipedia's articles, and about 30,000 bloggers, "participating in informational war against Russia".

According to Novaya Gazeta, pro-Kremlin structures related to Yevgeny Prigozhin are actively involved in doxing "coordinators of an informational attack on Russia" including Wikipedia's editors. Also Novaya Gazeta reports that Special Communications Service of Russia (the division of Federal Protective Service) employees are trying to disseminate pro-Kremlin propaganda through editing Wikipedia's articles. "

K8M8S8 (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

I hope them guys get to safety Persesus (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Update animated gif

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I really don't want the progress updates to be missed. I believe the creator of the map has posted links to daily snapshots of the conflict map on the gif talk page on commons, but the gif itself only goes up to March 4th. Anyone good at compiling gifs? BlackholeWA (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There's little use bringing it here. The animated map has its own discussion page at File talk:2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine animated.gif. It's better to raise it there. Melmann 19:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Syrians in Ukraine

I found some stories about the Syrians fighting with both Russians and Ukrainians https://www.reuters.com/world/some-syrian-veterans-ready-ukraine-fight-commanders-say-2022-03-20/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/18/syrians-join-russian-ranks-in-ukraine-as-putin-calls-in-assads-debt https://www.mei.edu/publications/will-russia-deploy-syrian-fighters-ukraine https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-war-syrians-reportedly-register-foreign-fighters/ Persesus (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Rate of archiving - slow down

As EEng has observed, we need to steady up on the rate at which threads are being archived and removed from the talk page. Some of the threads here are pretty clearly "closed" because they are edit requests that have been addressed or because they re-raising an issue that is a WP:DEADHORSE. We still need to leave these up for a reasonable period so that editors can see that the matters have been addressed and why. Not everybody is hanging off every edit here. We don't need to remove threads as fast as new ones are being added. Some of the repetition on threads can reasonably be attributed to the rate at which threads are being archived. I have been marking closed threads with template:archive top to signal a discussion is closed. Closing allows a reader to quickly scroll past closed discussions while still seeing what has recently been discussed on the page. I think this is a better option than rapidly removing "closed" threads from the page. The other issue is that some threads need some time to mature. For example, I am patiently awaiting a response to my question at #Are equipment losses being recorded elsewhere?. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Small point: uncontentious edit requests that have simply been  Done, so that the requestor can see immediately in the article itself that the matter has been attended to, don't need to stick around at all. EEng 04:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Does the proposer get a notification when done. I can't remember. They could stick around for a little bit so the proposer (and others) can see they have been actioned or perhaps there would be further comment from the proposer. They could be closed though. Having them around a bit longer can be useful too if it signals what does get done. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Recently there have been a few threads that consisted entirely of someone pointing out a spelling error, and someone else saying  Done. I archived those the moment I saw them, no matter how recent they were. Presumably the OP is smart enough to look in the article and see that his suggested correction was made, and there's zero value to keeping the thread around. That's an extreme example, but you get the idea. EEng 05:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In favor. --N8_wilson 05:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Fog of war my friend it’s the fog of war Persesus (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines provide that archiving should occur when a talk page exceeds 75KB. Right now, this page is 88KB, so we certainly do not need to archive any slower. An overly-large talk page is bulky, uninviting and harder to navigate. If nobody contributes to a thread after three days, then nobody cares. This is the talk page of a dynamic unfolding war, not a leisurely report on a past historical person or event. ATM, I cannot support an archive rate in excess of three days. WWGB (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:TALKCOND and 75kB is a rule-of-thumb, which allows variance depending on the rate of discussions and even three days is particularly short to determine a discussion is dead. As far as I can see, all of the archiving in the last 1000 edits has been initiated manually. I searched for "bot" and the only hits are to SineBot for signing. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I see WWGB has, once again, reduced the time, saying this discussion yielded "no consensus". I didn't think I needed to pile on to the obvious, but I guess now I'm piling on. So now it's a !vote of 3 to 1, and I'm changing it back. WWGB, I'm really interested to know why you feel the need to micromanage this, giving that you don't actually participate in any of the discussions here. Keep this up and I'll be happy to issue one of my patented beat-downs. You're wasting everyone's time. EEng 23:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The rate of manually archiving is problematic too. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the rate of manually archiving can't per se be a problem, if those archivings are all appropriate (which requires judgment). If you can identify a few examples of someone doing that more than occasionally, we can address that. (I'm sure I've made a mistake or two myself.) One thing's for sure: "keeping the page tidy" is not a reason to archive. EEng 04:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, none of the pages archived in the preceding 1000 edits (then) had been bot archived but manually archived. Unless the edits are clearly disruptive, we probably should be letting the bot do the work. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Completely disagree there. No reason to bloat the page with threads that have served their purpose (broadly interpreted -- for example, some fully resolved threads might have value for a day or two longer, for example if the issue is likely to arise again, so that other active editors can mentally note, "OK, here's how we've been handling this issue."). Again, it's a matter of judgment. EEng 05:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Some sections can be immediately archived, like simple updates/copyedit requests, etc., that no reasonable person would object to. OTOH, discussions on key issues that have plagued this talk page across ~5 different sections in archives, and are still standing problems, should remain on the talk for longer so that we can actually reach a resolution rather than start–yet again–from scratch. Judgement is required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Is that mere agreement with my complete disagreement, or complete agreement with my complete disagreement? EEng 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Day ??? Invasion

What exactly is the point of all these links? Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

all of the links you can use for the article Persesus (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please put in a sandbox and leave a link here. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We do not need a huge list of sources, we are capable of finding them ourselves. What we need is edit suggestions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but what are we supposed to do with "Mickey Rourke Calls Putin 'A Man With Empathy' As He Talks Ukraine Invasion"??? This seems like a pile of random junk. EEng 22:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I collapsed the list. Comments are, not here. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Invasion wikilink (again)

I'd like to re-open the previous discussion on wikilinking "invasion" in the first lead sentence, as I'm not satisfied the last thread received enough input given the hecticness of this talk page earlier in the invasion. I'm against wikilinking. I explained my rationale in the last thread (which I invite others to read), but in a nutshell I think it runs against MOS:OL (as an everday word), WP:SEAOFBLUE (see the current revision) and all previous invasion articles. Would be glad to hear others' views and determine what the consensus is. Jr8825 • Talk 13:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael, Mr rnddude, Pabsoluterince, N8wilson, and Fieari: Courtesy ping to previous discussion participants. Jr8825 • Talk 13:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be wikilinked. People can get an idea of what an invasion is by reading the article here anyway, since it is about, well, an invasion. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The definition of invasion is disputed by a core element of the article, namely, Putin. Invasion is also centrally core to the article. Likewise we must wikilink Ukraine and Russia, as being centrally core to the article. Wikilinking Invasion is supported by MOS, and is also demonstrably useful to many readers. This isn't a pointless or decorative or merely emphatic wikilink, we have data to show that it's getting used. Fieari (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be linked, because it's central to the article, which is about an invasion & has invasion in its title. That means that it definitely isn't an overlink. The page views of invasion show that thousands of people want to read that article. It's even more relevant because Vladimir Putin says it's not an invasion, when it certainly is. Jim Michael (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• As I see it, WP:SEAOFBLUE is a question of how to wikilink, independent of whether to. I'd suggest postponing the sea-of-blue question for now b/c if we remove the invasion link this concern becomes a moot point. If we keep the link, then we can revisit the tension between sea-of-blue and the "first occurrence" guideline.

Regarding whether to link: MOS:OL could suggest we also de-link Russia and Ukraine. I think MOS:CONTEXTLINK is probably what's currently supporting links on all three of these topics. While I'd normally say invasion is commonly understood, and therefore an unnecessary link, this article may be a unique corner case. A portion of sources providing information on this topic are now forbidden from using this word. It's reasonable to expect readers coming from that environment to take interest in why it's used in wikivoice here (even in the title). Combined with MOS:OL's reminder to set aside demographic biases, I'm in support of leaving the wikilink. It has real potential to assist readers and minimal drawback (if any?) for those who have a common understanding of it. --N8_wilson 16:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure why we should not, but then we often wiki link to the bleedin obvious. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I checked all 16 entries in List of invasions#2000–present. Unfortunately, most of the article titles didn't actually include the word "invasion". Of the 3 that did, none wikilinked to Invasion. However, one without "invasion" in the title did wikilink (perhaps because it involved both an invasion and a siege). This matches my impression that it's by no means necessary to wikilink such a common word, but also not odd to do so if it can clarify the situation. Ornilnas (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I support not linking as per MOS:OL. Whether this was an invasion is disputed by Russia and its supporters, but linking to invasion doesn't help resolve or explain that issue. Content in this article is how we explain that. Bondegezou (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree that it's unhelpful. For readers who believe or have been told that this special military operation was necessary for noble reasons such as denazification or demilitarization, the invasion article offers clarity. It reminds readers in the lead that the term invasion applies regardless of the reason used to support it - however altruistic that reason may be. --N8_wilson 22:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Now, just how many bikes do we want in this WP:BIKESHED? Removing or retaining one link in a sea of blue is insignificant. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Combatants

Should we update the combatants list Persesus (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Mariupol art school bombing

New stub for expansion: Mariupol art school bombing ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian casualities

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to https://web.archive.org/web/20220321121337/https://www.kp.ru/online/news/4672522/ the infobox shall be updated this way: "Acc. to Russia (21 March): 9,861 soldiers killed, 16,153 wounded" --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Who are they claiming the casualties for? Themselves or Ukraine? KD0710 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

disregard. This is a tabloid paper, therefore not a RS. KD0710 (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

KD0710 Agree. The newspaper has in fact already removed the information, denied it and stated they were hacked. This has been covered by reliable sources who have questioned the accuracy of the information. I already tried re-establishing the original information cited to the MoD (from March 2nd), while still mentioning the whole event in the casualties section. However, I have been reverted twice [40][41], with an editor reinserting the cite to the removed & denied tabloid information in the infobox who considers it to be all a cover-up and is ignoring the RS-covered denial (unsourced OR in my opinion). EkoGraf (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if the website was hacked or not that's not important. We can't use unreliable sources for English Wikipedia it doesn't matter the numbers displayed there. It's just a simple No. Mr.User200 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I would also recommend to remove this number from the page. It's not reliable. Sifalot (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American Non-Governmental Weapon Aid

Hello, my edit was reverted twice as I attempted to put information pertaining to American non-governmental or private sector involvement. The original placement of this information with links and sources was near the “foreign military involvement” and “foreign volunteers” area of the page. The edit contained the following:

US based Ammo Inc. pledged 1 million rounds of ammunition to Ukraine and the National Shooting Sports Foundation introduced an step-by-step export tutorial for their 8,000 members to ship firearms on a wish list.

In addition to these details, other facts include multiple police forces donating helmets and vests, and a New York weapons drive that successfully added 60 rifles to the Ukrainian arsenal. I would like to try to get this information back into the page, and it was asked of me to come to the talk page and receive guidance before changing it back a third time. Some of the information also leads to a page not expressed on main, The Ukrainian American Coordinating Council Twillisjr (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, but this seems rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Maybe another page would be a better fit as this page is just an overview. KD0710 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Russian Armed Forces casualty estimate source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://archive.ph/f0A2Y has the sentence "According to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, during the special operation in Ukraine, the Russian Armed Forces lost 9861 people killed, 16153 people were injured." I can't edit the page, but presumably someone else can. Jsnider3 (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I was coming here just to ask this: The figures were on the news article for quite a bit of time (40 minutes?) until the article was edited to remove the figures. No explanation was provided.

Is this something that should be added to the article? Falconet8 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Internet Archive, earliest archived version of the KP article with these numbers is from 12:13 GMT, latest archived version from 19:39 GMT has them too; it was there for seven hours at least... Kuracyja (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

They've since said they were hacked. Falconet8 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Important to note the article also said Russian General Staff estimated 14.7 thousand. The 9861 figure is Russian Ministry of Defence. How would this tabloid have got this information however? They are not state controlled, although of course are pro-Kremlin. --CringeFringe22 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Important to note the article said according to Ukrainian HQ it was 14.7k, and Russian ministry supposedly denied the numbers and provided 9861 figure. The article was up for about a day without any edits, but it was then edited. KP said that their website was hacked. No where in any briefings does it provide any official numbers. For a comparison, in Syria Russia lost around 100ish officially, around 4500 to 5000 in Chechnya depending on the sources and 67 in Georgia. Those numbers were also not published right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.174.219 (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Since when is some yellow press that got hacked is a reliable source? Please refrain from posting anything that isn't from Russian MoD as "Acc.to Russia" DeiDrah23 (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove tabloid nonsense on russian casualties. even the tabloid says it's false. Goggo2022 (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That information is speculative and should be moved to "other estimates" or something... RomanPope (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Revert the Russian casualties to the official RU MOD figures thank you. This is simply not from a reliable source. It is not as if this article isn't already anti-Russia enough. Nebakin (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with removal, if it was the truth, where is the MoD statement it refers to?--Havsjö (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As I, and a few other editors already stated in our other discussion up above, the figure should be removed from the infobox and casualties table. First, tabloid newspaper - not verifiable/reliable source per WP guidelines. Second, the publisher himself removed the information, denied it and said the outlet was hacked. Problem is, some editors have disregarded the (un-)reliability of the source and that it itself already removed the information and made a denial it wasn't them who published, but instead that it was the result of a hack. EkoGraf (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove tabloid nonsense from infobox.

Even the tabloid says it wasn't them, which wouldn't be surprising. and even if it was them, it's just an unreliable source. Goggo2022 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

the desperation is pathetic

numerous sections already stated that the tabloid source for russian casualties in the infobox is not only FALSE but an unreliable source. yet in a desperate attempt for a few more propaganda points wiki editors are refusing to correct it. so much for wiki standards. Goggo2022 (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Dude chill out. This sort of thing happens on wiki especially in a time of rapidly changing events. Patience is key, this will work themselves out. Instead of getting so upset with an online website, log off and go cool off. What is written here isn't worth getting g so upset over. The Introvert Next To You (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

how much time does it take to figure out that a tabloid paper that says it's output is not reliable treated as an unreliable source, which is, you know, actual wiki policy? this is where the bad faith comes in. it's not about making a mistake, this is a clear attempt at propaganda and wiki is the battle ground. Goggo2022 (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What tabloid source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Goggo2022 The paragraph at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Casualties which say "On 20 March, the Russian tabloid newspaper.... other outlets," should be removed. We all agree that KP is unreliable source and is a tabloid. Why we need to provide coverage to the event in which their site got hacked and the casualties numbers were changed as if KP could have been used if it wasn't hacked at all? >>> Extorc.talk(); 11:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We are not only using it as a source, but also the BBC reporting on it. But I agree, we can remove it (the confusion came from the fact we do not use it in the Infobox). Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The problem that arose was that some people were trying to include it in both the infobox and casualty table and present it as if the Russian MoD is the primary source, while disregarding that the secondary source, that allegedly reported it, was a tabloid (inherently unreliable), plus they disregarded that the outlet removed the information, denied it and stated it was hacked (reported by RS). At this point I also agree that the prose paragraph itself should maybe be removed. EkoGraf (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Important to note that the figures referred to Russian Armed Forces casualties. That means it doesn’t include losses of the National Guard, OMON, Kadyrovtsy, or DLNR. —Michael Z. 15:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Civilian casualties" numbers in Infobox should have a "Greater than", ">", sign in front of them

This is because ALL of the citations attached to the numbers go to sources that ALL state that the real civilian death toll is far higher than the current counts. The sources point out that constant shelling and bombing have made it impossible to gather and count bodies, due to 24 hour shelling in numerous cities. Add to this that many bodies are buried under the rubble of collapsed buildings or are going into mass graves.

Therefore putting the "Greater than" symbol " > " before each civilian casualty number is the only accurate representation of the currently cited sources.

Can an Infobox Editor make this correction? Thanks in advance!

Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

+ is the prevalently used symbol to indicate "more than" that has been used in much of the war articles. EkoGraf (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Be that as it may, > is a better choice. EEng 13:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Beside the + being the symbol commonly used in virtually all of Wikipedia's war articles, > creates a problem when you add it in front of a ranged estimate that has a minimum and a maximum figure. It being in front of the minimum figure makes it redundant since the dash and upper figure are there, already indicating the number is larger than the minimum number. Thus, the + is inserted behind the maximum number in case its established that the number could be even higher than the confirmed maximum. EkoGraf (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What other articles do carries little weight unless you can explain why it's best. On that score, I can't tell what you're saying, exactly, about the ranges. Can you gives examples? EEng 22:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried explaining why it would be best to avoid >. If its for example ">1-10", since we already have "1-10", which indicates the range to be more than 1 (up to 10) there is no need to also redundantly add > in front of the 1 in an attempt to additionally emphasis the figure could be more than 1. EkoGraf (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Then don't add > in front of it. Either just say >1 or say 1-10. EEng 03:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• It is a case of trying to capture too much detail in the infobox, when it is meant to be a summary per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. None of these figures are accurate. Presenting them in the infobox is suggesting they are. We should just be saying "Reports vary - see section" Cinderella157 (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Best of all. EEng 03:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Problem is an editor was trying constantly to add > to both minimum and maximum, regardless of the dash (-) and plus (+) already being there, making it redundant. The inclusion of the fatalities in the infobox was previously discussed during our conversation on the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well that's idiotic of course, but then so is 1-10+, which is no different from saying simply 1+, or (better) >1. EEng 04:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine Casualty List Update

Ukrainian Defence Ministry has claimed over 15,000 Russian casualties since the start of the war. Of course this cannot be independently verified to be an accurate number, but it should still be added to the casualties list in the article under Acc. to Ukraine in Russian casualties info. --CringeFringe22 (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We seem to have removed both the entries for Russian claims about Ukrainian casualties and Ukrainian claims about Russian casualties. I am not sure this is a bad idea. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Earlier consensus has been to remove the belligerent's claims of their enemies losses from the infobox, but still show it in the casualties table in the casualties section. Its there. EkoGraf (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I thinks its good idea Persesus (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Equipment Subsection Deletion

This subsection seems to either need to expand to include Russia and Ukraine equipment use or (in my opinion) be deleted all together. The use of a hypersonic missile, while possibly interesting, has zero need for itself own section. Furthermore, the last sentence of it completely misinterpreted the article and reads as though Ukraine has lost air superiority. Which no reliable source has stated and hardly talked about, except in the respect that Russia still hasn't achieved total air superiority. The Introvert Next To You (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Support deletion. It's weird. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

same here Persesus (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, Perseus, because I removed that section 16 minutes before you said "same here" Tommy has a great username (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh I didn’t know Persesus (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Support deletion. As written, it was just another random indiscriminate factoid (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

NATO expansion

Currently the article states that:

Russian leaders described this expansion as a violation of Western powers' informal assurances that NATO would not expand eastward

However, that seem off according to this

In the NATO-Russia Founding Act of May 1997, the Allies and Russia pledged to deepen their security cooperation, strengthen the OSCE as a joint security organization, and adapt the CFE Treaty to the new geopolitical situation. The obsolete military bloc balance was to be replaced by national and territorial ceilings for each state party. They would also limit the number of stationed troops. NATO would not undertake any “additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces.” In addition, NATO noted it had no reason, no intention, and no plan to deploy nuclear weapons in the accession countries or to prepare logistically to do so.

These agreements overlaid oral statements made in 1990 by US Secretary of State James Baker and German Foreign Minister HansDietrich Genscher that NATO did not intend to expand further eastward after German unification. These statements reflected the situation at the time of the Two plus Four Treaty, when the end of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union was not yet in sight. Russia agreed to the first NATO enlargement of 1999 under the conditions set out in the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act.

Who are these Russian leaders? Are we talking about Putin's Russia after 1999? --Nilsol2 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Cite them please Persesus (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We are clearly talking about events prior to this invasion As we say (right before this) "several former Eastern Bloc countries joined NATO, partly in response to regional security threats involving Russia such as the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis,". Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

is this the infamous conspiracy theory about nato "betraying" Russia? Persesus (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea, as there may be many conspiracy theories emanating from Russia, you really need to be clear in what you are saying. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

that's the conspiracy theory that nato "betrayed" Russia in 90s I think because Russia thought nato was going to let them in or something. This is what I meant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg0OWPjdLzU

that video is context for what I meant Persesus (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Then yes. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Great thanks Persesus (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Please read the two sources provided for that sentence. They support the current text. The leaders are Gorby, Yeltsin & Putin. Jr8825 • Talk 19:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hypersonic misslile

Russia launched a hypersonic missile into ukriane is anyone going to post a link or talk about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We need an RS for this claim to be added. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are the links to it

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/moscows-claim-firing-hypersonic-missiles-hype-experts-say-rcna20925

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/22/hypersonic-missiles-why-would-russia-use-the-kinzhal-in-ukraine.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pentagon-demurs-biden-confirms-russia-fired-hypersonic-missile/story?id=83587994

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/your-world-on-claims-russia-has-hypersonic-weapons

https://www.axios.com/biden-russia-fired-hypersonic-missile-ukraine-9a4d0513-5d17-43d2-9a10-222ea3f58150.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/21/dod-official-russia-hypersonic-missile-00018872

https://www.space.com/russia-uses-hypersonic-missile-ukraine-war

https://www.npr.org/live-updates/russia-invades-ukraine-2022-03-19

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-confirms-russia-used-hypersonic-missile-in-ukraine-2022-3

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/europe/biden-russia-hypersonic-missiles-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html Persesus (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

These are all of the sources I can cite for the hyper sonic missile Persesus (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Good enough to make a case, now why is this significant? Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s the first time that it’s been used in combat or just add it to the timeline Persesus (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That would make it more relevant to the article about the missile. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be the first time (twice) that a hypersonic cruise missile has been used in real combat, not just in testing. 152.207.223.108 (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If included, it would need to be written into the article in a way that it is relevant and not just a random factoid (as was previously done). Perhaps somewhere in the timeline. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm unaware if this has been done, but it could potentially be lumped together with the use of thermobaric weaponry as a general note regarding newer or more advanced equipment used in this conflict. Augend (drop a line) 17:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: this would have to have some degree of discussion surrounding the significance of this equipment. I confess a lack of expertise in this field, so consider this but a suggestion. Augend (drop a line) 17:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

thermobaric weaponry is not new, they were used in Vietnam. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I'm nominating this article for good article status, but since I'm not a regular contributor to this article I'm making this topic. Regular contributors, feel free to add content to the article to make it even better as the article is reviewed. InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 23:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

No. It is way to early for GAN and it needs serious work before even considering GAN. Wretchskull (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Pigs might fly too. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Look, once Donald Trump's been president of the US, there's no ruling anything out. EEng 02:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Please keep your stupid personal comments to yourself. Keep on-topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.16.144 (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand it was a shock to realized you'd been duped by a criminal moron con man, but don't take it out on me. EEng 03:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

EEng#s, is that a comment on Trump's ability to fly or on this article? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The war hasn't reach a conclusion yet. Don't rush. PenangLion (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed to early, hell this article, could be totally out of date the second after I post this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with others that it is too early, although the page is coming together nicely. Thanks to all of those who have put the effort into improving the article.Mozzie (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

An unstable article cannot be passed? --Victor Trevor (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Image of killed civilian

@Hcoder3104 removed this image because Disturbing image, @Super Dromaeosaurus reverted because WP:NOTCENSORED. another reason must be given for the removal of this image. I'm not sure that the image increases our understanding of the invasion, but my main concern here is with source and privacy. The image has been uploaded on Facebook by the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs without providing information about the photographer, the subject and the context (they claim it's Kyinka or Pavlinka near Chernihiv). We should remove contentious material about living or recently dead people that is poorly sourced as per WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BDP, and we should be extra cautious in case of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE: the image could be a fake and, if it is genuine, publishing it might show lack of respect for the deceased and his loved ones. The image is not indispensable for the article and I suggest we remove it. P.S. the image is now also in Russian war crimes and in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove I don't see that its inclusion is IAW WP:IMGCONTENT and that it particularly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article's subject matter. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Much like most other article space images, this image is a window into viscerally understanding the meaning of the text next to it. If you find the image disturbing, that's good because war is disturbing, and this image serves to convey that reality. Not to mention that Wikipedia:Content disclaimer applies. I also don't agree with the privacy argument. The subject is not readily identifiable from the image as they are lying face down; thus there are no privacy concerns from where I'm standing. We regularly feature images of identifiable people who aren't public figures, for example, see human, so this argument does not hold water for me. Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs is a reliable primary source in this case, so I do not see the concern that this is fake. I obviously understand that Ukraine is engaging in a propaganda war, but there is every indication that civilians are indeed being killed, so this image fits what we know from corroborating reports.
  In summary, in my estimation the image serves an encyclopedic purpose in demonstrating the reality of the war which this article covers. Melmann 08:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Remove poorly sourced, we know very little information about this photo Ilenart626 (talk)
• Keep - Why should we devoid the horrors of war in an article related to a war? Per Melmann. There are more images and videos related to the war circulating around the internet that are far more disturbing than the image shown (i.e. people burnt to crisps / brains, guts, everything). Giving readers a taste of the reality of war invokes a stronger perception and concept regarding the importance of avoiding one in a pretty raw fashion. The image doesn't show or hint the actual identity of the person killed, that's another reason. PenangLion (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Wasn't this already answered with FAQ #1? It was also discussed here. Beyond that the new course of the war has increasingly been defined by attacks on civilian targets, such being the case from an informational standpoint the image is just as important if not more important than the image of burnt out Russian tanks in Bucha. This is what the war looks like. I'm not saying that we make this in to a gore thread, but Russia is currently carpet bombing Mariupol, which has mass graves and dead bodies in the street, this is the war. It's worth noting that pages about similar conflicts such as the First Chechen War also feature graphic images, the First Chechen War page having an image of civilians in a mass grave, and dead civilians in the back of a truck. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep. The photo is not 'disturbing' (as for example this from an identical reality to that of the indiscriminate mass bombing of another country we see now with Ukraine. It is moderate, objective, an obvious reality of what war does, without making viewers nauseous by exposing them to a brutal goriness few of us can watch without feeling unhinged.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment My !vote to remove (above) was not because the image was too confrontational but that it did not increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter (per WP:IMGCONTENT). If anything, an image sufficient to increase the readers understanding would be more confrontational. If the present image doesn't do what it should, it should be removed or replaced with one that does (IAW policy). Cinderella157 (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - Ditto Melmann. Recall photos on World War Two, the Korean War, the Rape of Nanking and so forth; so long as it is relevant, factual, and relatively informational, I'm fine with keeping. Obviously balanced writing is necessary, and gorification ought to be avoided, but I find no issue with this specific photo. Augend (drop a line) 17:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove - content from a self-published source that's currently involved in an information war. A similar image verified and published by an independent source would be much more inline with WP standards. Aside: the acceptable nature of the content shouldn't be used as an argument to override or sidestep sourcing and privacy concerns. --N8_wilson 22:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep because this definitely "increase[s] readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". That was already decided in previous discussions (link by Alcibiades979). There is no copyright issues if I understand correctly or anything problematic per policy with this image. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Images of the exteriors of shelled apartment buildings are commonplace. Cinderella157 argues that this particular photo does not "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter", but I disagree. This photo of the interior of an apartment where someone was killed at home significantly increased my own understanding, and when I see exterior views of blasted apartment buildings in the future, I will have a much better understanding what the people who lived in those buildings suffered, and the horrors that could be seen inside those shattered apartments if a photographer entered those devastated places. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 20y 22 (UTC)
• Keep (unless better alternative found) - As far as I'm concerned, the focus of this RfC is not about it being disturbing (though the edit war was about that), it's about whether the source is reliable. However, I see no reason to even suspect that the source has fabricated the image in any way, as there seems to be no need to do so. Suspecting this image as fabricated seems akin to suspecting the US of faking the moon landing-- it's literally easier to get the real thing than to fake it. Lack of photographer credit means little during war time, and the source is an official source even if it uses facebook. I do see the arguments made above that a better representational image might be found elsewhere, (which might be even more disturbing that this one) and I would support replacing this image with such an image if found and sourced... but I also have no objections to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs' facebook page being a source. Fieari (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question This image appears in the section "War crimes:Attributed to Russian authorities and forces". How does this image of a dead man contribute to our understanding of war crimes attributed to the Russians? There is nothing that would indicate this death actually results from a war crime? On the otherhand, deliberately targeting a well marked hospital is pretty clearly a war crime. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah. I think this is where I fall. I agree the image could be suitable for placement in the article at an appropriate part of the prose, but it's unclear how it relates to "war crimes by Russian authorities". Unless someone can clearly explain how this image depicts a war crime, its placement doesn't seem relevant in that section. The particular contents of the image (i.e. whether it contains a body) doesn't seem too relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Borderline Keep I feel that WP:NOTCENSORED gets unfair weight in these discussions, being used in the sense that the content should be included because not doing so would be censorship. We should really pay more attention to WP:OM, and in particular WP:GRATUITOUS. As this policy says "Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship." and goes on to say (my bold) "According to the Wikimedia Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment'; that is, we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." There is a point at which images become too gratuitous, and I feel that this image is probably somewhere around that limit.Mozzie (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Article Image

Can someone with experience in maps correct this (or state why it is consistent?): c:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#Inconsistent_with_source. Habitator terrae (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of the term "falsely accused"

I wrote this in my editsum, but whilst the RS does use the word "falsely accused" and the factual basis of the term is relatively well-established, the problem is that the term "falsely accused" is more partisan and accusatory than, for instance, "accused without basis". See WP:PARTISAN -

reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.

The truth is that the language used seems, at least from a semantical standpoint, to be potentially problematic. Augend (drop a line) 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In essence, we go with the language RS use. But without knowing what you are talking about its hard to say if the use of false is valid. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking here: "Russian president Vladimir Putin espoused irredentist views, questioned Ukraine's right to statehood, and falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority." As a side note I agree with the usage of "falsely accused" in this case. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand your issue Augend and agree with you that the usage of the term "falsely accused" is problematic. In my opinion it goes against WP guidelines on balancing our language and keeping it neutral. Maybe note in the sentence who considers it as a false accusation, attribute it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. Anyone who reads the article, or listens to the news, knows that Putin is lying every time he opens his mouth. However, using a finger-pointing term like "falsely" to hammer home the point here is both redundant and unencyclopaedic. But, there's already been a similar discussion some while back, and the outcome was to keep the term, so good luck with trying to get it removed or changed HieronymousCrowley (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment It is one thing to be quoting a source (directly or indirectly using non-neutral terms, it is quite another to be writing in non-neutral terms in WP's voice. The lead is a summary of the body. We might state that the allegations are false in the summary if this represents the consensus of opinion in good quality, independent reliable sources. Even then, we should (probably) not be saying this in a WP voice. The body of the text should be showing us that there is such a consensus to show that the allegation can be considered false. We are putting the "falsely accused" in a WP voice before the cart ... analysts have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence .... Of the two news sources cited to support this, one doesn't appear to be referring to the opinion of anybody particularly and the second refers to a representatives of an American expatriate Ukranian organisation, an American Jewish organisation and a former American ambassador to Russia. I think that the description of "analysts" is being a little free with the truth. Now, I'm not saying that the allegations are true but it does appear to me that we are probably being a little free with what should be said in a WP voice and WP:NPOV. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder, WP:NPOV does not mean we must be kind or take a middle-ground stance. It means we must report according to what the sources say. In this case, all reliable sources are unanimous that this is a false accusation. There are no reliable sources that say otherwise. This is exactly the time to use wikivoice. Fieari (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not said that we couldn't use WP voice but that we haven't gone about things the right way by which we could use WP voice. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As said above, even though they are considered RS by Wikipedia, they are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, so this has to be taken into account. Agree with Cinderella157, a right way needs to be found to convey the information in WP's voice. EkoGraf (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Casualty Numbers

An ongoing discussion has been happening regarding the casualty numbers in the infobox. We agreed that we would have 2 sets of numbers. 1.) self-reported losses and 2.) A third-party’s reported losses.

Are we still fine with that strategy and if so, since NATO released updated numbers on Russian deaths, should we now remove the U.S. as the third-party source for the Russian column? KD0710 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Conceptually I think that makes perfect sense, however, in practice I'm not sure how relevant it is that Russia reported 500 deaths 3 weeks ago. I'd also add I think the Donetsk PR numbers kind of clutter the symmetry, and decrease legibility. I'd also say that I don't quite understand their numbers: are they referring to only their soldiers or to Russia/Donetsk PR/Luhansk soldiers? Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I still support that strategy KD0710. I would leave both the NATO estimate and the US estimate for now since those are two different sources. The US stated a day or two ago that Russian losses were 10 percent of their overall strength at the start of the invasion, while today's estimate by NATO would be double that. Also, in retrospect while looking at the previous instance in which NATO and the US published estimates concurrently at the end of the first week of the war, NATO published a figure similar to Ukrainian claims, while the US published figures that were half that. Plus, the BBC or AP I think noted today that, compared to NATO's estimates, US figures tend to be "conservative" and with "low-confidence". So lets wait and see what is the next US estimate, I expect it to be in the next few days, they tend to give an intelligence update weekly. And then we go from there. As for the removal of the Russian claim of their own losses because it was made three weeks ago, we would then have to remove the Ukrainian claim as well since it was made almost two weeks ago. So no, I would not do this, at least not yet. Finally, regarding the numbers by the DPR, they are weekly updated, so they are relatively up-to-date, and as stated in the sources they refer to DPR soldiers only, while in the infobox we have clearly marked the losses are that of the DPR. EkoGraf (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

We are trying to capture too much detail in the infobox, when it is meant to be a summary per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. None of these figures are accurate. Presenting them in the infobox is suggesting they are. We should just be saying "Reports vary - see section". Cinderella157 (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

We need to change the name of this page. I think the word "war" definitely needs to be incorporated or else we're just feeding into the russian game of pretending this isn't a war. 98.53.116.63 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War already exists. EkoGraf (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Plus war carries a bit of a sense of mutuality. EEng 04:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Peacekeeping mission proposed by Poland

I think the Peace effort section should also mention Poland's proposal of a NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, which will be discussed at NATO summit in Brussels on March 24. I propose we use Reuters [42] as source. --Kotys ek Beos (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This should only be on the peace efforts page if it is passed by NATO. There’s not much relevance yet. KD0710 (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

Change the death toll according to NATO to 40,000 killed, as NATO just released a statement saying that number. It is said in the same source that is currently cited. DragonLegit04 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Rest assured, numbers will be updated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That 40,000 number was killed, injured, missing, or captured. KD0710 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

NATO said 40,000 killed, wounded, missing or captured, including 7,000-15,000 killed. EkoGraf (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

American and NATO concerns about possible imminent Chemical Weapons use by Russia

I did a "find" search and this is not yet mentioned in the article.

Today, President Biden also voiced this concern.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for this as well? Benjamin112 ☎ 07:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There should be more sources

Because this is such a controversial topic at the moment, many sources can be misleading or false. I think it’s important we have more sources so that the information on Wikipedia can be as accurate and neutral as possible. Benflyingace (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you familiar with our Reliable Sources policy? All 600+ sources used in this article are reliable. Is there a statement you've found that is backed by a misleading or false source? If so, please be specific and we will review it. Fieari (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2022 (2)

In the section Other Legal Proceedings, add Sweden to the list of countries which have opened domestic legal investigations of Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Source: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/aklagare-i-sverige-utreder-krigsbrott-i-ukraina (SVT is Swedish public service, i.e. a highly reputable source. I can add more if needed.) /2022-03-24 31.209.52.211 (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Checks out, Sweden added. Benjamin112 ☎ 07:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Great! Just change "Northern Sami" to Swedish in the footnote. /2022-03-24 31.209.52.211 (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that typo! I incorrectly assumed the language code would be the same as the domain, but it's been fixed now. Benjamin112 ☎ 08:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's new to me too. (Northern) Sami is one of Sweden's official minority languages. /2022-03-24 31.209.52.211 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Counteroffensive

The Ukrainian Army has recaptured several towns and are on the offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a specific url for your source? Just listing the publisher and date is inadequate. Benjamin112 ☎ 07:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's remove the Battle of Stalingrad comparison from the Eastern front section

The battle was described by a Ukrainian presidential adviser as the "Stalingrad of the 21st century".

Is there any valid reason for including the above quote besides "the guy said it"? I assume he said it to make the situation seem as horrible as possible to garner support and sympathy. Just basic war propaganda. However, I do not get why Wikipedia promotes such a biased take. I don't think it should.

How about we remove it? Dylath Leen (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Censorship in the west

Can we add more info on censorship from the West targeting Russian media? For example, early in the war most of Europe blocked access to RT. It now seems to be inaccessible from Canada as well. Can someone confirm? 64.231.158.212 (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)