Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

---

(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)

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.

Media depictions: Uncited OR?

Moving this here for discussion: "social media users showed sympathy for Russian narratives more due to cynicism about US foreign policy rather than support for the invasion as such."

While possibly true, this is followed by zero citations. There are quite a few in front of it though Elinruby (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It could be deleted or have a cite tag added prior to it being split to a new page or moved to one of the sibling pages, and deleted from this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Nod, just noting it as a change somebody might disagree with. I will restore the text if the citations that precede it support it or if somebody has another good reason why it should be there. I will need to verify those sources anyway. I have seen the kind of post this is talking about but it should be cited. Has anyone started a social media in the Ukraine invasion page? One might be warranted. For now I guess I will summarize these two paragraphs and move the highly referenced detail to Russian information war against Ukraine. This does also include Ukrainian actions, which is about to become more prominent in the pending reorganization, if anyone is concerned about that. I will now be offline for several hours Elinruby (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby, I take it that there were no sources cited to support this statement? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually there has been some user page discussion about that and I have been working on other parts meanwhile. Somebody made a case to me that it is supported by the references that *precede* it. I can look into that tonight; I am not quite home yet and have in the corners of the day been dragging Media portrayals of the Ukraine crisis, where much of that will be going, out of past tense and 2015. Elinruby (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby, as you correctly indicate, we would need at least a reputable news source for the claim. Let me know the outcome and I will close this as resolved. Alternatively, you could close this yourself using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} (see examples above). Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I can do that, and it will probably be tonight. If a reference that supports this statement precedes this, I will add a named reference, if not edit into a true statement. I am home now and gearing up to move text. Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

on reflection I am going to copy this text over to Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis and finish verifying the references there. (There are eight in that sentence and so far they are very good but don't support cynicism about the US so far). Considering the extent to which I've been ask to condense this is too much detail considering the size of the article. I can always re-add the cynicism later if that seems like a good. My feeling is that it is probably both true and citable, if not yet obviously cited, but in an article this prominent and disputed it needs, really needs, to be specifically cited.I have copied the whole section over and now will summarize hard, in which this fragment will go until specidically cited. I have today free to sort this out. I am leaving this talk page section open for at least part of the day to give people a chance to comment. Unless somebody else wants to close it as clearly uncontroversial, shrug. Over and out. Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Part of the statement seems to be supported by the citations. They all support that social media users showed support/sympathy for Russian narratives due in (large) part to dislike/distrust of US/Western foreign policy or anti-Western/anti-US sentiment. Whether they do this more than show actual support for the invasion is more dubious, so that part can be deleted. But if it read: "social media users showed sympathy for Russian narratives due in large part to dislike or distrust of US foreign policy", it'd be valid (& I would support it being re-added to a more relevant section like "Reactions" for a WP:GLOBAL perspective). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s been moved already but I am not against Donkey Hot-day’s proposal to put it in Reactions instead (or as well), if that edit is made. I came in here to close this section but since there is a new proposal I will leave it open a while longer Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly version

I would like to propose that the main map shown in the infobox be changed to the colourblind-friendly version.

• 
  Current map
• 
  Proposed replacement

The current map (on the left above) does not offer sufficient contrast for individuals diagnosed with tritanopia.
Although tritanopia incidence rate is about 1%, this highly visible article has been viewed 5,445,185 times at the time this was written, which means that we have likely served this map to individuals diagnosed with tritanopia more than 54 000 times. Of course, this number will only go up.
Per MOS:ACCESS, accessibility is a core WMF policy, and it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project". Based on this, I think we have a clear case for action to switch to the colourblind-friendly map.

Simulations of tritanopia:
Current whole page Just the image
Proposed replacement image

Please be patient as the tool loads, it may take a few seconds to be ready. Melmann 11:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong support - No love lost for a map with new colour schemes. The proposal works perfectly for everyone, a genuinely good change. PenangLion (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support with suggestion. This replacement looks a lot better. My suggestion is that there needs to be better contrast between "troop movement arrows" and the background colors, otherwise it is hard to see. If troop movements were, for example, black that would make them a lot easier to see. Another alternative might be to "outline" (any colored troop movement arrows) in clear black lines so you can really see these movement arrows. Or alternately still, just experiment with other "arrow colors", but always strive for strong contrast. Chesapeake77 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support IMO the new one looks a lot better, since there's a larger contrast between the occupied/non-occupied territories. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Looks a lot clearer to me (average sighted?) 51.6.155.34 (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support I hate the yellow on yellow. Hard to see, if not impossible, on mobile devices.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment, yes but I would also mention that the "grey" troop movement arrows are also hard to see. Better contrast there is still needed. Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

IIRC this was discussed on Commons after the first overwrite (c:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#Voting_on_two_color_schemes), and editors decided to keep copy A. Some colourblind people commented there saying the one on the right wasn't actually easier to see. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment, I do think its a good idea to have the advances/movements of forces in different colours, so readers can tell the forces apart, maybe not have red arrows on orange for the Russians and maybe blue instead of unclear Grey for the Ukrainians. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support per MOS:ACCESS though contrast in the movement arrows should be increased. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be a better option (option 1) per discussion below - #Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Weak support The gray arrows on cream background for Ukraine are much clearer than the current version, but are hard to tell apart from the borders on the map for people with normal color vision, as is the new icon assigned to the older bombardments. The new contrast choice for the Russian troops and Russian-controlled territory is also somewhat worse than the original for viewers with protanopia or deuteranopia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong Support for WP:ACCESSIBILITY, plus as someone with a type of colourblindness that doesn't affect the colours on the current map, I find the new clearer to read. --Inops (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Object One can discern the differences in gradient in the simulation of tritanopia version. It does not affect the viewing of the image. The orange subtlely resembles the color of the ribbon of Saint George, a Russian military symbol thus it would bring to the map a layer of unwanted meaning. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I've seen better suggestions, such as a light blue and red one or a white(ish) and black one. This suggestion sure is better than the green and orange one but I am not convinced that this is the best possible version we can come out with and approving this version already could make people stop proposing alternatives. Super Ψ Dro 09:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong Oppose It gives passive colors to Ukraine while making Russian gains seem overwhelmingly dominant. The current file is accessible to 99 % of the readers and the color blind accessible version already in the file page. Viewsridge (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Very Strongly Oppose – The proposed colorblind map colors aren't intuitive, and for normal color vision people, the contrasting is just terrible in some areas (such as grey arrows on a light background). The colors are jarring and even a little confusing, as some of the colors are too close to others, while the proposed colors make it appear as if Ukraine doesn't even hold any territory. The grey colors for cities is also terrible and difficult to distinguish against the background. Not only that, but the colors don't mesh well together and don't look nice. If we implement a colorblind-friendly version, I prefer a version that is close to the current version of the map. As a matter of fact, I would strongly oppose any proposed color scheme that bears little to no resemblance to the current colors. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also Very Strongly Oppose, LightandDark2000 has described the situation well. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• There is another discussion below on some proposals to use a similar coloring scheme to the current colors that is also workable for colorblind individuals. Please also have a look at that discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: My proposal is to improve the MOS:ACCESS now with what we currently have ready, not to select 'one final map to rule them all that nobody will ever be able to change'. If this proposal was to be implemented, it would be a step towards a better accessibility, and we can take that step now. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of better.
The community has been struggling to agree on a proper colour scheme that works for everyone, and in the meanwhile colourblind users suffer. Per MOS:ACCESS, accessibility is not optional, and since there is WP:NODEADLINE our colourblind users may be left in Wikipedia census process purgatory for weeks or months. I would see no reason why we can't implement this now, and then when the discussion yields the final set of colours, implement those.
Could you attempt to justify a 'very strong oppose' in the context of our MOS:ACCESS obligations and the reality that your discussion may not yield result anytime soon? Melmann 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Greyshark09, Spesh531, Kwamikagami, Dawsongfg, RobiH, Outth, Eoiuaa, Kippenvlees1, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Fogener Haus, Physeters, Lx 121, Berrely, HurricaneEdgar, MarioJump83, Tradedia, Ermanarich, Brobt, CentreLeftRight, Wiz9999, Borysk5, Oganesson007, Nate Hooper, Rob984, Ceha, AlphaMikeOmega, WeifengYang, PutItOnAMap, TheNavigatrr, Beshogur, AntonSamuel, Paolowalter, Emk9, EkoGraf, Rr016, Tan Khaerr, Kami888, and MrPenguin20: I'd like to hear the opinions of other users who work on these maps, the map modules, or have participated in the map color discussions on Commons, as I think they should have a say in the matter as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Neither of the two. There are more color options being discussed on commons. RobiH (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, as there's already a more or less uniform design for conflict maps on Wikipedia which people recognize, at it's viewed by literally Millions. However, I agree that a change to a more colorblind-friendly version should be made, as has been suggested in another discussion below.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

weak support. I see merits for accommodation, though I think the replacement proposed is not the best. Though it would be helpful if the color scheme matches with other wikipedia war maps, for almost all other war maps, government forces are actually red, and rebel forces green. One can argue how applicable this is here, as Russian invading forces are in fact not rebels, and red is almost universally denoted across as representing Russian occupation (Liveuamap, military.net, etc.). Hence we might actually we might need other arrangements for this, one that may very well be used for precedence in mapping interstate wars (which in terms of wikipedia live mapping we don't have much historic precedence), which of course means that when we are literally establishing precedence, one that would be great to be accommodating. However, many above have pointed out the problem with the proposed alternative. Perhaps when a better alternative is proposed we should support it. WeifengYang (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose As a color-blind person I concur with @LightandDark2000:. EkoGraf (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong Support WP:ACCESSIBILITY is important for a global encyclopaedia. Kappasi (talk) Kappasi (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

support. I don't have anything particularly profound to say, other than that I think the new map looks nice and pretty. Nate Hooper (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Weak Oppose We don't really need it. The current map works fine, there's no need change it. Its an unnecessary change. CheeseInTea (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm kindly requesting for an uninvolved editor to review this discussion, and implement the proposal at Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox. Melmann 07:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• In the discussion at #Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg, there is a very strong consensus there for implementing option 1 as the preferred colourblind friendly version of the map. The consensus there would appear to make this discussion redundent? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Casualties

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.

---

Hey, just wanted to suggest that the casualty numbers get updated. They’re from Feb 25 I believe. I would try, but I’ve never edited an info box and I’m scared I’d mess it up. FinnSoThin (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The Infobox avoids casualty numbers of any kind and there is a better way to handle that.

Instead, list the estimates from the most notable sources and say, for example "per Ukraine" or "per United Nations" or "per Russia", etc... and let the reader understand that. This is much better than deciding for the reader that they shouldn't know any of the notable estimates because the process is not perefect. Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 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.

Concerned that this was such a short discussion. I also think the "outcome" is not adequate, most Wikipedia articles about war DO have casualty claims from all notable parties in their Infoboxes. Each claim is mentioned as a "claim" and not a fact. Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Of concerning note: this discussion was both started and closed (after only 2 hours and 25 minutes) on the same day (15 April) and only after 2 comments, a "conclusion" was drawn. Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The consensus here was established by this discussion at: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8#Should we continue to report casualties in the infobox, in accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I closed the discussion because your response to FinnSoThin appeared to be quite an adequate answer to the question they were posing. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Problematic sentence about casualties

The article currently contains the following sentence:

"According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, regarding Russian military losses, Ukraine's government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims."

There is no citation, which needs fixing. If there is no citation, the statement needs to be removed. If a valid citation does indeed exist, it needs to be put into context and verified (does wikipedia have a policy on statements of individual researchers?).

PerLugdunum (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Add link to text in question. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It's better to include the claims of various sides re: casualties and describe them as "claims". Otherwise then we are censoring and not allowing the reader to think for themselves.

Simply adding "per Ukraine" or "per the NATO" or "per Russia" to these numbers is far better than having an article with zero numbers.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Source/citation is already there, right after the sentence that follows the one quoted by PerLugdunum, because the citation is a reference for both sentences. As for source verification, it has already been previously discussed and editor consensus is the source is reliable and there is no reason to exclude the sentence. EkoGraf (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, the quote is almost verbatim from the source. It was my mistake to assume the reference did not cover both sentences. My second question was about whether one should have statements attributed to "a researcher" as opposed to a large body of researchers. I know too little to suggest anything concrete and will not push this further. PerLugdunum (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole discussion under the casualties is problematic. The truth will come out, whether or not certain "editors" can dissemble at the moment via weasel words about unnamed "researchers" and "analysts". Yellowmellow45 (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

As per previous editor consensus, the source is considered verifiable and the analysis is properly attributed. Also, per previous discussion, editors are welcomed and encouraged to add any other researcher opinions to show different points of view. EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is settled on reliable sources WP:RS - when an opinion (e.g. of a "researcher" or "analyst") is provided, that person should be named and identifiable, and it is preferred that references to such research or analysis comes from the source, rather than newspaper reports. Clearly, the current fog of war makes it easier for editors to flout these standards. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I just came across the second part "Analysts warned about accepting the Ukrainian...", and I have to say it looks cherry picked. The Guardian article it's referenced to is about Russian disinformation, with one sentence given over to talking about Ukrainian figures. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the other reference, which can be read here, it has the same problem. Most of the article is about the difficulty of obtaining the real figures, and although there is more on Ukrainian misinformation in it than the Guardian article. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to say I don't doubt Ukraine is pushing the higher estimate, and Russia suppressing the figures, that is what countries at war do. But there is a need for better sourcing. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. This is exactly the issue with a lot of sourcing on pages related to the invasion, so it's difficult to unpick, but it's something that more experienced editors should be aware of. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned about the sentence "According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, regarding Russian military losses, Ukraine's government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims.", which is near word for word copy from the source. It need sto be rewritten in your own words, as it's a copyright concern. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yellowmellow45:, first, for reference see previous discussion here [1]. Now, if one of your issues is that the researcher is not named we can add his name (which is stated in the cited source). Further, there is no rule prohibiting us to cite media outlets as sources for analysis if the outlets are considered reliable sources (RS), which both Fortune and the Guardian are (and which you have been removing). Pinging editors @Cinderella157:@Slatersteven: who were involved in the previous discussion to show if they have changed their opinions, as well as some others @Mr.User200:@Beshogur:@Phiarc:@Jr8825:@KD0710:@LightandDark2000: who have been involved on the various similar issues and can possibly express an alternative opinion. Also, I would ask that you do not remove the text as you did here [2][3][4] before reaching a new consensus and the discussion is closed. Finally, agree with @ActivelyDisinterested: that the Uppsala sentence needs to be reworded due to copyright and that the Guardian sentence needs more expansion regarding the Russian disinformation that is also the subject of the report. Also agree with ActivelyDisinterested, and I have already stated this many times before, more alternative/different analysis should be added to present all sides POV in a neutral manner. EkoGraf (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Changing the second sentence to begin "The Guardian reports that analysts have warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as", could be a start. We do need better sources for it to be more general. The first section shouldn't be reinstated with the current wording. Mentioning Shawn Davies by name word remove the "researcher" issue. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problematic thing regarding that sentence, the citation fit the source. But to show a neutral tone we could begging with "The Guardian reports that according to one/two/etc analysts have warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as premature/unbased/unproven not verificable, etc.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence that shouldn't be restored is the other one, referenced to fortune.com, that is nearly word for word copy from the fortune article. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly problematic with the sentence. If anything, it should be attributed to the researcher by name rather than the paper in which he was reported and might be tweaked so as not to be such a close copy. To the "Russian disinformation", pretty much everybody knows this, however; we can't expand on a simple statement if that simple statement is all we have sourced. We would need another source saying more IMHO. However (per the previous discussion) the existing sentences serve their purpose - neither the Russian nor the Ukranian claims can be considered accurate since both are (likely) inflated/deflated to serve state interests. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

In that section, the Guardian source doesn't really say what the text claims it says. At most it says that nobody really knows. Removing. Volunteer Marek 12:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I also don't think that this one guy's opinion is really WP:DUE. Especially since it really boils down to "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated to some degree" which is to be expected. Gonna replace present text with that. Volunteer Marek 12:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the current working is on the way to neutrality, but I do agree on the WP:DUE point. Having said that, there has been a massive improvement. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And further on WP:DUE, Shawn Davies of Uppsala is a research assistant without any published papers, and a quick Google reveals this is his only public comment on any topic. Something to consider. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: you say the Guardian source doesn't say what's been written in the WP text, however the Guardian source says, and I quote, "And Ukrainian officials on Monday evening estimated that more than 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed... Analysts have warned about taking that information at face value during a war where western countries want to emphasise the toll of the war on the Russian military while the Kremlin wants to downplay its losses". Thus, I would ask that you please reinstate and rewrite the sentence (if you think it doesn't fully represent what is written). As for the opinion expressed by the researcher regarding that Ukraine is engaged in a miss-information campaign for sake of moral, as both @Cinderella157: and @Mr.User200: have said, I also do not see anything problematic about including it. You inserted "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated to some degree". I think it nicely rewords the "miss-information campaign" bit, thanks, but I would expand this to "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated for sake of moral" or "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths, generally accepted by Western media, are exaggerated for sake of moral" since I see no reason to omit the purpose in his view of the Ukrainian's exaggeration or his obvious critic of the Western media. But I would settle with just the purpose of the exaggeration as stated by him (without the critic of the Western media). EkoGraf (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian article doesn't mention it, but only in passing. It's one sentence in an article about Russian misinformation. Maybe a sentence could be craft using both the sources. Something like "The West has generally accepted Ukrainian figures, but these may have been inflated for the proposed purpose of moral.[1][2]", but written with better prose.
I still feel the problem is one of needing better sources, unfortunately reliable independent Russian sources are hard to come by. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: What you just wrote actually sounds pretty good and if it was something along those lines I would support such a (merged) sentence with citation to both sources. EkoGraf (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yellowmellow45:@Volunteer Marek:, any opinions on this as a possible compromise? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sounds good. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 16:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the "may...to a degree" version is closer to the source and the "for the sake of morale" veers towards original research and possible bias. This is a current event and it's better to be cautious about imputing things that are not yet clear. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you accept "The West has generally accepted Ukrainian figures, but these may have been inflated to emphasise the toll on the Russian Military.[1][2]", which is closer to the sources. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"for the sake of morale" is not original research since its what's in the source nor is it bias since its properly attributed with RS citation (this was already reaffirmed in the previous discussion) and we leave our readers to make their own opinion. A third source can also be added, which also goes into both boosting of Ukrainian morale and Russian downplaying of its losses [5]. First, as suggested, "The West has generally accepted Ukrainian figures, but these may have been inflated to emphasize the toll on the Russian Military for the sake of of morale.[1][2][3]" Additionally, all three sources can be used as citations for Russia's downplaying of its losses. Further, the part "Ukraine was quieter on its own military fatalities." (can attribute to Davies) but an additional second source (directly from Ukraine) can also be cited as well [6]. Sentence can be reworded. Finally, the third AJ source I mentioned earlier and the Ukrainian one I just mentioned can also be used to point out both Russia's and Ukraine's admissions at one point of suffering "significant" and "considerable" losses respectively. EkoGraf (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have previously stated that I found the previous text fairly satisfactory. The attributed assertion is not an exceptional claim - ie that claims by either side should be treated skeptically. It is a fact of war that should not be ignored just because we (the West) perceive Ukraine as the good guy. The previous statement was simple and direct to this point - both sides are playing the propaganda game (ie they are managing information to their own ends). I think that this current iteration is neither as succinct nor as direct. IMHO Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Cinderella157: Yeah, agree with you, as I said before, I also did not find anything wrong with the sentence nor did I see it as an exceptional claim taking into account the proper attribution. But trying to find a middle ground taking into account the concerns of the above editors. EkoGraf (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
    • EkoGraf, I don't think the concerns are particularly strong. A [very] close paraphrase of a single sentence [?] in a greater source where the source is attributed is (IMHO) fair use and not a significant concern. I acknowledge your intentions but I don't think that the changes (beyond specifically reporting the person to which it is attributed) are necessary or an improvement. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Invasion

I don't feel that invasion is correct term for Russia's "operation". Russia is murdering and terrorising civilians, destroying homes and infrastructure, and forcefully transporting Ukrainian citizens to Russia. There are too many incidents for this to be a case of few hot-headed individuals; this is part of their plan.

Those cities that are not under Russian control are bombed ruthlessly, targeting as many casualties and/or fear as possible. Those cities that are under Russian control are terrorised in the most despicable, cruel, and inhuman ways.

It is more and more evident that the goal of this operation is to destroy Ukraine, not to invade it. This means destroying Ukrainian culture and cities, murdering huge amount of Ukrainians, and trying to scare those who are alive to become Russians.

I agree with one thing that the Russian propaganda is spitting out: this should not be called "war". Even in war there are some rules, and there can even be something humane as a reason for war.

Alas, my English skills are not strong enough to find an accurate name for this operation. Invasion sounds too neutral, and does not convey the message that Russia is trying to commit genocide. Optimally, the term would also say that Russia is committing acts of terrorism. 130.234.128.26 (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We go with what wp:RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both the IP and Slatersteven. Yes, we should go with RS. When we named this article, early on the in the war, most RS used 'invasion'. At this point, more than 50 days in, my impression is that most RS are talking about "Russia's war on Ukraine", with War having become much more common than simply Invasion. Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We have that already. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The war on Ukraine is already an article. It encompasses the topics of Crimea and the Donbas as well as the current invasion. For now, this invasion is just another (very devastating) phase of a pre-extant war. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

'Debate about genocide' article

There's a newly created article Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some editors here may be interested in:

• choosing a more accurate name (the article is mainly about a debate about whether genocide has taken/is taking place, or even more about whether well-known politicians have made the statement; it's not an overview about what genocide scholars or lawyers or other WP:RS say is genocide;
• copyediting it (quite a bit is needed).

The place to discuss is Talk:Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the place to edit is directly in the article. Boud (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

THis is not the place to discuss this it is at that page. Maybe launch an wp:afd. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg

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.

---

Moved: was at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly version

• Comment: I think a much better proposal would be to use the colors I proposed on Commons, as shown below. One option [7] for making the Ukrainian territory a lighter yellow (my personal preference, I think), and another option [8] for making the Russian territory a slightly darker shade of pink (the closest option to the current colors and my proposal). Both of them have good contrast, are distinguishable both for normal vision and colorblind readers, and are similar to the current, widely-accepted map colors. Not only that, but these colors are more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Options 1-4 as being discussed (on the Commons discussion).

Option 1

	Land	Arrow
Ukraine
Russia

Option 2

	Land	Arrow
Ukraine
Russia

The colorblind simulations are in the respective links, so please have a look at those. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The images shown to the right depict the color schemes currently being discussed and voted on on Commons. And I'd prefer the first three to the proposal in question here. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Test map with blue (0099F7) arrows

Original colorblind friendly map color

I would much rather us stick with the status quo than switch to a new color scheme that is as jarring and unappealing as the proposal in this discussion, especially as it still has contrast issues. I'd even prefer one of the two map options I listed just above to the proposal (the current map with blue arrows, and the original colorblind-friendly map), but I prefer the proposed colors that I have laid out. Also, I think we could really use a color theory professional here, as the colors in the proposal were rather poorly-chosen. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Both options look much better than the White & Orange. Both of these choices look much more visually appealing to non colorblind viewers than the White & Orange proposal. I personally think option 1 is better visually, but it appears that option 2 would be better for colorblind viewers as it has a little more contrast. Physeters^✉ 21:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Greyshark09, Spesh531, Kwamikagami, Dawsongfg, RobiHi, Outth, Eoiuaa, Kippenvlees1, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Chesapeake77, Fogener Haus, Physeters, Viewsridge, Lx 121, Berrely, HurricaneEdgar, MarioJump83, Tradedia, Ermanarich, Brobt, CentreLeftRight, Wiz9999, Borysk5, Oganesson007, Nate Hooper, Rob984, Ceha, AlphaMikeOmega, WeifengYang, PutItOnAMap, TheNavigatrr, Beshogur, AntonSamuel, Paolowalter, and Emk9: Pinging other users with an interest in this topic, and those with experiencing in working with military conflict maps. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf, Rr016, Tan Khaerr, Kami888, and MrPenguin20: Missed a few. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment it looks ok for me but gray arrows look kinda bad. Beshogur (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 is my first choice I prefer this to the other proposals as it does the best job resolving the issue of contrast which is important. Plus the background color is better in Option 1 than Option 2 (brighter, whereas Option 2 is a bit dim). Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - I think this option satisfies all objections above, assuming it is correct to say that this version is still colorblind friendly. The lower contrast does not "make Russian gains seem overwhelmingly dominant". I also agree that the original proposal created MORE difficulty viewing it for NON-colorblind people, and option 1 does not do this. I approve, in general, of the goal to increase accessibility for colorblind users, but I also agree that the original proposal was not the best option to do this. I do think the new option 1 should suffice. Fieari (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I've split this discussion because it has nothing to do with the specific proposal listed in Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly_version. That proposal is about replacing the one file with a specific different file, and this one discussed details of a commons file, a discussion which should normally be had on the file's talk page, not here. Melmann 06:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 appears to be the best across the four simulations and for unimpaired vision. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 but perhaps with light yellow arrows instead of blue. Viewsridge (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 has the best contrast for the arrows, but all of them are great improvements in presentation. If none of them were used, the original colorblind-friendly one is also an improvement by itself and could be the main one. Rauisuchian (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option visually ok, if it helps colorblind too. Beshogur (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I do not see a version I particularly like here: for 1–3, the colour of the arrows is too different to that of their background, while for 4 it is too similar. Obviously, the arrows must contrast to the background, but this is weighed against the fact that a map is more intuitive when each side is assigned a single colour. Dark-red arrows on a light-red/orange background is a good compromise for Russia, but for Ukraine, blue on yellow and grey on beige are unintuitive and unsightly. Have white (#FFFFFF) arrows been tried for Ukraine? I imagine these would work well on either yellow or beige backgrounds. In general, I think the arrows would look best as a lighter/darker shade of the colour behind them. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 or the original colorblind-friendly version. Options three and four have a really unpleasantly strong yellow, I'd strongly oppose these two.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 As a colorblind person option 1 looks best-looking to me. EkoGraf (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1, including color mark change Per EkoGraf, and I think mark colors should be changed too, not just yellow but something other than that. Cyan or blue would be good MarioJump83! 08:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• I vote for blue arrows and against yellow (or grey) arrows. Tradedia^talk 21:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Going to be a bit WP:BOLD here, but can we close the voting on here (and wherever else votes have taken place)? Option 1 is a clear winner here, at least for being the colorblind-friendly color scheme (at the very least for arrows and territorial control). Does the "Air and ground bombardments" icon need to be changed? They contrast well with both the new Ukrainian yellow control and the Russian red (which is the same as the original). If there's an agreement on the other icons, then Option 1 and the Original need to be put up to a vote. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 05:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the voting is a WP:SNOWPRO in favor, somebody should close this. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 19:29, 23 April 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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ukrainian civilians and soldiers take shelter under a bridge in Kyiv.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Kherson splitting notice

A split proposal is ongoing on the Battle of Kherson article. Feel free to participate in the discussion here. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Russian military weapons destroyed and seized by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Structure for sections based on chronological periods, as per previous talk page discussion

Hi. Based upon the beginning of a new Russian offensive in the East of Ukraine, we will move ahead soon to create a new section for the current time period, based upon viewing this as a new chronological period of the conflict. This is based upon a consensus to structure the article sections on the conflict, based on chronological periods, as per previous talk page discussion. You can click the link to view the full discussion, which has now been archived. Anyone is welcome to comment, of course. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The previous discussion spoke of the Siege of Mariupol needing to come to a conclusion before discussing options, however, the siege has not come to an end. Your link above does not link to anything, and its not clear what you mean since the siege of Mariupol is still in progress. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

hi. I revised the link, in order to point to the correct section on the archived talk page. Actually, the talk page discussion related to the start of the Russian offensive in the east of Ukraine. I do appreciate your thoughtful reply on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You have just restored that missing link. The discussion there spoke of the advantages of waiting for the siege of Mariupol to be resolved, and the forces are still continuing the siege as of this morning in the linked Wikipedia article for the siege. The main editing for the new "eastern" offensive to which you refer has moved to the new article for War in Donbas were the details of this second phase of the invasion are being dealt with, and which I linked this morning. Since Wikipedia now has the new article for the War in Donbas, then most of the questions you previously asked seem to have been redirected there for current updates. The article here currently links the War in Donbas article as a continuation of the Invasion of the Southeastern front where you can find the link. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• That Mariupol remains under siege is not an insurmountable problem and probably not a problem at all (IMHO). Looking at the article there, siege of Mariupol#Final pockets fairly closely aligns in time with the broader change in tempo of a chronological "second phase" and could easily be massaged into a new section here. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157, thanks. yes, I agree. I am also going to ping @Jr8825, and @ErnestKrause, as they provided some very helpful input in the previous talk page discussion. if you could each please reiterate or indicate your opinions on this proposal for the article, as discussed in the previsous archived discussion, I would appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Based upon the beginning of a new Russian offensive in the East of Ukraine". What new offensive? I see only a continuation of the existing offensive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  as per the comment above, some individuals are asking "what new offensive?" I think this illustrates the need to structure this aerticle to delineate the curent new phase of this conflict.

  if you would like to have some references, no problem, here they are.

  1. Russia has opened a long-anticipated new phase of the war in Ukraine, launching its eastern offensive in a bid to seize the country's industrial heartland., NBC News
  2. Russia unleashes offensive on Ukraine, ushering in new phase of war, politico
  3. Russia begins large-scale offensive in eastern Ukraine, axios
  4. Zelenskiy: Russian offensive in eastern Ukraine has begun. UK Guardian.
  5. As Russia launches a new offensive, what did it learn from the first one?, April 19, 2022. NPR.
  6. Civilians flee eastern Ukraine ahead of new Russian offensive. UK Guardian

thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• All three editors seem in agreement that the siege of Mariupol should not hinder the refactoring of the section for the Second phase of the invasion. The appropriate start date for this appears to be the day 8 April that the combined forces were put under the change os a single general for the first time in the campaign, under General Dvornikov. Starting to refactor Invasion section according to agreement of all three editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Armed activity of other states for defense/release of their citizens in Ukraine

There are sources that Belorusian and Bulgarian troops take activity for defense/release of their citizens in Ukraine. May be suitable for Foreign military involvement section. Alex Spade (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Russian military weapons destroyed and seized by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Refugees section - forced relocation

The text in the refugees section currently says:

Thousands of refugees arriving in Russia appeared to have been forcibly relocated using 'filtration centers', evoking the memory of Soviet era population transfers and prior Russian use of such centers in the Chechen War of Independence to suppress evidence of war crimes. As of 8 April, Russia evacuated approximately 121,000 Mariupol residents to Russia, with some allegedly having been sent to work there. RIA Novosti and Ukrainian officials stated that thousands were dispatched to various filtration centers in both Russian and Russian-occupied Ukrainian cities, from which people were redirected to economically depressed regions of Russia.

References

A great deal of this should be "Ukrainian accuses" rather than WP:VOICE, while other parts don't appear to be in the sources/and or are editorialising (covering war crimes?). I can't read many of the Ru and Ukr sources so cannot fix. A similar text was copied to the Refugee crisis page, but much of it removed as WP:OR while other parts were altereed to Ukr claims. Pincrete (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Pincrete, thank you for sharing your point of view. However, changing the article to "Ukrainian accuses" doesn't seem to resolve the issue and seems to violate WP:VOICE. Perhaps in place of "Ukrainian accuses" we could use "it has been reported" which takes a neutral point of view in place of using the word "accuses" which is a lot more polarizing. This issue is difficult because there are a lot of strong opinions on both sides of this issue, it is an ongoing current event and it is polarizing. However, I believe we need to take a neutral approach in our editing. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Crimea

I assume that the article describes Crimea as part of Russia. The infobox does not mention Crimea, but the lead says "the two occupied territories of Ukraine (Crimea and Donbas)". Some unification would be useful.

Some Tatars do not want to be conscripted https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3441479-crimean-tatar-leader-appeals-to-people-in-crimea-to-dodge-russian-army-draft.html

Conscription of inhabitants of occupied areas is, as far as I know, illegal. The same in occupied Eastern Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A Prelude to World War Three?

The Royal Navy nuclear powered submarine HMS Audacious sailed from Gibraltar after several days in port, during which it loaded Tomahawk missiles while berthed alongside the Z Berth in the South Mole of the dockyard. The vessel was seen heading into the Mediterranean after leaving Gibraltar. The American nuclear powered submarine USS Georgia also docked at Gibraltar two days prior to the British submarine. Its destination is unknown.

Five USAF F15Es and a tanker plane where pictured flying in formation over the Strait of Gibraltar at 20,000 feet on Wednesday 20/04/2022. The planes had just taken off from the USAF base at Moron, Spain and were believed to be heading to the Middle East. If this last detail is correct, then Middle East could include Turkey and from Turkey to Ukraine is just a short hop across the Black Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Pleae see wp:crystal, this is pure speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM 50.111.30.135 (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I am writing to report the map that shows the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The names of the cities that are written in English are transliterated from Ukrainian and are spelled correctly. However, the names of the cities that are spelled in the Cyrillic alphabet are spelled in Russian and not in Ukrainian!

Please change the spelling of those cities whose names are written in the Cyrillic alphabet from Russian to Ukrainian.

Thank you! 188.163.232.130 (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This request should be handled on Commons at Commons:File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. The map has Russian translations but not Ukrainian translations. Glrx (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

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.

---

Certain city names are in their Russian forms are opposed to Ukrainian ones. Mikolaev and Odessa, for example, should be spelled Mykolaiv and Odesa respectively. Ian Lautert da Costa (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I changed "Mikolaev" to "Mykolaiv" as the article is Mykolaiv. The Russian-based form is Nikolayev/Nikolaev, not Mikolaev. Odessa should remain unchanged because the article is Odessa. Mellk (talk) 13:35, 22 April 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.

"Byelorus"

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 am not logged in at the moment, but I am assuming that in the sentence "At the start of the invasion on 24 February, the northern front was launched out of Byelorus and targeting Kyiv", the intended word is "Belarus"? I am not familiar with geography in the region but I do not believe that Byelorus is a place. Can an editor rectify please. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I corrected it. Probably someone confused with Byelorussia/Belorussia. Mellk (talk) 13:38, 22 April 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022 (2)

Add Denis Pushilin and Leonid Pasechnik, leaders of the DPR LPR to commanders Scu ba (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Denis Pushilin has a single mention in the body of the article and Leonid Pasechnik has no mention. Addition of either is supported by the body of the article (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Elements of "proxy war"?

Hello everyone, I'd like to bring up something that I think this article lacks, and that is the issue of this being a "proxy war". I've identified some sources that seem to describe this as a proxy war in some way:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-long-holy-war-behind-putins-political-war-in-ukraine https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-arming-insurgency-ukraine-mean https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-25/nato-us-in-proxy-war-with-russia-biden-next-move-crucial/100937196

The definition of "proxy war": https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/proxy-war

"a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers..."

Clearly, with NATO/US steadfast refusal to engage directly and materiel support for Ukraine, it's a proxy on some level. On the Russian end, it's less clear--Russia has historically been considered more of the "military superpower" over China, but with their (alleged) underperformance, and with the potential of becoming economically dependent on China in the face of Western sanctions, perhaps they are the ones fighting the proxy on behalf of the superpower? This article does not mention "proxy" anywhere. Allegedly, the Moskva was sunk by Ukrainian missiles...but let's not pretend that Western-made Javelins weren't crucial to many Ukraine successes. How would this get added? Also, I can't seem to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Metalloid (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea of this being a "proxy war" is part of the Russian propaganda and represents a strong POV. Perhaps a mention of it could be made when describing Russian propaganda efforts, but certainly not claiming in Wikivoice that Russia's brutal aggression on a neighbour is a proxy war. Jeppiz (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn’t advocate for calling it that, because it isn’t one. I was wondering if it would be helpful to discuss the debate over whether this is a proxy war. Lawfare is a far cry from Russian propaganda, and they’re game for at least discussing the idea. We haven’t even sold them MIGs (alternatively, they may be paperweights) due to fears of over-involvement. Providing small arms to the underdog defending themselves against a Goliath does not suggest nefarious proxy war geopoliticking, quite the contrary. Mentioning a proxy war in the way I envision would involve mostly saying why it isn’t one, per the sources. If you omit discussing this out of fear of parroting Russian propaganda, you risk creating a “forbidden fruit”. Noble Metalloid (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Its not a proxy was, as far as I am aware no RS has called it proxy war. Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022 (3)

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.

---

Please change the caption of the animated map of the invasion under the heading "Invasion and Resistance" from "An animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 9 April" to "An animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 21 April". The animated map has been updated and the newest date is now 21 April. K1401986Talk with me 22:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The date has been updated. Viewsridge (talk) 12:17, 23 April 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.

supporting country ?

In the table of the parties to the conflict there is Belarus as a supporting country, should the countries providing material support, including military support to Ukraine, not be included ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

sign your posts with four consecutive tildas ( ~ ) 50.111.30.135 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Need to include in the right square of the article the contries that are supporting Ukraine

Need to include in the right square of the article the contries that are supporting Ukraine, like is put in all other wikipedia pages on wars and conflicts. There are lots of them that are sending weapons, instructors, food, rations, blocking russian sales, etc. All of this is publicly known, verified by press reports of both sides of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.140.133 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If you mean the list of combatants, only those parties actually using weapons/fighting are listed. This has been discussed many times already.50.111.30.135 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. We put the list of supporting countries in the "Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article and there are plenty of other precedents Please note that we clearly label "Supported by:".

I think it's time to put it here too: 1) the Western support with weapons is substantial (especially as heavy weapons are now being supplied); 2) it is notable (WP:N) and there are plenty of WP:RS about the subject. Mindaur (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I support adding them as well. Super Ψ Dro 21:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"Supported by" is included under the belligerents section of many wars. See Nigerian Civil War for a clear example. The page for the Syrian civil war also includes this information. Not including it here is strange. 86.22.31.94 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

See #Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. The consensus was that countries supplying material or diplomatic support to Ukraine did not meet the threshold to be included in the infobox as "supported by", whereas, the direct access for conduct of the invasion provided by Belarus crossed this threshold. Countries supporting Ukraine is discussed at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military involvement and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Sanctions and ramifications. There is too much detail for this to be "summarised" and consequently, its inclusion in the infobox would fail WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)