Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine

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: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022.

See also earlier RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022.

Both RfCs were closed with "no consensus". Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 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.

The background section has been cut too severely

Regarding the cuts made in this diff. Key contextual events such as the Euromaidan are missing, and the text refers to things that are no longer mentioned (e.g. "Russia's annexation of Crimea followed in March 2014", which originally came after a mention of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest). I raised my objection to making severe cuts to the background in the discussion that took place beforehand and I'm disappointed to notice that ErnestKrause went ahead regardless without raising specific proposals (edit: without specifically discussing what information should be removed; I missed your suggestion regarding the number of paragraphs you'd like to cut it down to, but was expecting a discussion about which content should/shouldn't be cut) on the talk, as I don't believe there was a consensus for such a drastic reduction. While I'm definitely open to the idea of a significant shortening, I'd like to discuss specific changes first as I think such a massive cut is a significant loss for this article, the most visited article related to the current war.

I'd like to hear more opinions on the proposed cut (the current version). @ErnestKrause: could you please urgently fix the missing references to events so the text flows properly. I'll hold off reverting per WP:BRD for now until others have had their say (in case I'm the only editor who sees things this way), although WP:FAITACCOMPLI indicates that if there isn't a consensus for such a large removal, then the correct course of action is to restore the previous text and start cuts again from there, even if this seems like more work. Jr8825 • Talk 21:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Those edits were done a week ago when it looked ok to do those edits. Could you add in a sentence for Euromaidan and another sentence for Crimea annexation if you feel they are important. The general bulking down of the article was an important issue, and when you were not adding comments to my proposal from last week, I then went ahead with the shortening of the text. The readers of the article appear to have been ok with it, and if you want to bring in the 2 sentences which you mention are missing then you should add them in. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I apologise for not noticing your changes earlier, I'd presumed you'd bring your suggested text to the talk page first and have been busy IRL so haven't been tracking article changes closely. The problem is that regardless of whether readers are paying attention, the text as it stands has some pretty serious non-sequiturs (the annexation of Crimea is mentioned, but our text reads that it occurred "following" [something], but it doesn't say what; the text jumps from 1999 (the previous para.) to March/April 2014). More broadly, I don't agree that it was necessary or positive to lose the majority of that content, which was already tightly focused on useful information for readers. Why remove the history which helps readers understand how the invasion occurred? Jr8825 • Talk 22:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, I have read both versions. I would thank ErnestKrause for what is a pretty good first iteration of reviewing the background section. However, I would agree with Jr8825 that there is a bit of a leap from the second to the third paragraphs. It appears to me that Ernest has culled or retained sentences en bloc and this is a reasonable initial strategy. However, I can see that refinement of the remaining prose might reasonably lead to further economy. See for example my edit. I suggest that a brief paragraph to fill the gap and some judicious editing would leave the section at about its present size and IMHO this would be a good outcome. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• @Cinderella157 and ErnestKrause: I've spent some time working on restoring what I think is the minimum necessary to retain an acceptably broad overview of the main events preceding the invasion. I've restored just over a third of what was cut on 6 June, and made some other cuts to duplicated cites or overly long wording. (Another example of the non-sequiturs the cuts produced: the section had an image of the Orange Revolution, but all references to it had been removed). The new section is more chronological and still significantly shorter than what we had before. If you can see places where wording can be simplified/shortened, please go ahead. In a number of places relatively important details have already been lost in favour of simplification/brevity, so I'd prefer to discuss further substantive shortening case-by-case. Your thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 12:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Jr8825 but I don't think this is an improvement. You have roughly doubled the size of the section when the improvement indicated should have no net change in size. I can easily see way too much intricate detail in this change. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The current readable prose size of the section is 4180 B (623 words). That's very reasonable for the background section of a complex event, and easily proportionate to the rest of the article (there are much flabbier sections). I don't agree the restored detail is too intricate, I believe it's all key historical context -- but if you could point out which bits you think are unimportant that might be a good way to move the discussion forward. Jr8825 • Talk 12:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 The comments from both editors are useful and if Cinderella would like to take a second look at either further trims or adaptations then it would be nice to see them. Its a little on the long side now, though Cinderella can do edits which seem reasonable. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to compose a short paragraph than to trim the fat from three. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Please see this edit. I have reverted to the version by ErnestKrause and added some text from the lead of Russo-Ukrainian War that fills the "gap" discussed above. Yes, the material I added will need some sourcing. I am not sufficiently fully across the material to do this but it shouldn't be a big ask. This edit is more consistent with the discussion to date about filling this "gap". However, as I indicated above, there is still scope for some tweaking. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't agree about the necessity or helpfulness of making more cuts to the background beyond the shortened text I previously restored, as I think the length of the section was fine. Compare the size of the background section of Invasion of Poland, for example; both are high-level articles so should prioritise historical overview rather than technical detail about each phase of the fighting (which should be summarised at a equivalent level of detail to key contextual events and then covered at sub-articles). Cutting the background section down to the bare bones is essentially an editorial decision to focus the article on these day-to-day details of the campaign rather than a broader overview, which in my opinion goes against the 10-year test, part of the WP:RECENTISM supplementary guide. Basically, I think we're going beyond helpful cuts for concision, and these content changes are heading in the wrong direction.

  I accept Cinderella157's cuts (i.e. limited re-additions) this morning were skilfully done, particularly regarding Euromaidan, but I don't think they're the right editorial decision.

  I disagree with pretty much all of the substantive removal of content, and will lay out my objections point-by-point for discussion. I'm reverting the changes for now as I'd like us to reach consensus, or least seek additional opinions, before removing this content:

  • That Ukraine applied to join NATO -- essential background information for understanding the preceding tensions.
  • That NATO refused to offer Ukraine a path to membership, but promised membership -- key to understanding the direct lead up to the invasion, particularly Ukraine's vulnerability and Putin's rhetorical demands regarding this.
  • The Orange Revolution -- a good way of thinking about this is the following: suppose the US was invaded by a country which had been seriously meddling in its politics for the previous decade. A peaceful overturn of a stolen election through popular outrage and the Supreme Court had taken place, giving power to a politician who wanted an independent path, the aggressor country's preferred candidate had engaged in electoral fraud. An attempted assassination had been made on the popular leader, possibly attributed to the aggressor country. This would obviously be seen as vital contextual background for the ensuing invasion. There's no reason to treat Ukraine's recent history any differently, the Orange Revolution is mentioned in most RS background introductions to the current invasion as a key turning point in Ukraine-Russia relations. Also, we're once again left with the picture thumbnail but no mention in the actual text.
  • Putin and his regime's opposition to, and insecurity regarding, the Orange Revolution and Ukraine and Georgia's efforts to turn politically westwards. There are two very strong cites to analyses by subject-matter experts emphasising the importance of this point (Anthony Cordesman and Gideon Rachman).
  • The previous summary of Euromaidan and Maidan Revolution. Two key events directly preceding the beginning or Russia's outright hostility towards Ukraine. The previous summary was succinct and included valuable information, such as the nature of the protests and the cause (Yanukovych's attempt to sabotage Ukraine's shift towards the EU) the brutality of the crackdown and Yanukovych's removal from power (and how this was exploited by Russia in Eastern Ukraine as a launching point for war). Simply cutting this down to "revolution" saves very little space in return for substantial loss of valuable contextual information.

  Jr8825 • Talk 12:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• There is a tendency to think that more detail is better, but for readers on congested networks an excessively large article will load slowly, if at all. We can help the reader by making editorial decisions to include just enough information, and to move excess detail into sub articles which the reader may explore if they would like more detail. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Jr8825 Its not clear if you are accepting Cinderella's comments as you have stated or if you are reverting Cinderalla. Since 2-3 editors seem to feel that the Background section is on the large side, then it would seem better if you could restore Cinderella's edit in order to allow other editors to be more receptive to your discussion here on the Talk page. Both Ciderella and Jehochman seem to understand your position; they are asking if you could merge your edits into the sibling article which would assist in the bulking down of this large article approaching 400Kb. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I can see an argument for keeping Cinderella's shortening of the Euromaidan summary as it successfully manages to cut a couple of sentences, although as I said above, my current opinion is that it's a loss for the article as the removed content is key information, and cuts can be better made elsewhere.

  I think both the Orange Revolution and Euromaidan should be mentioned. I think the pre-existing approach (a minimal explanation of what each of them are) is a good thing to have in this article given that it's the main jumping point for readers coming to the topic. If a consensus of editors believe this is too much information, then obviously I'd respect that, although I'd prefer a wider discussion to gauge this as at the moment it's just only a small pool of editors sharing our views. I think it'd be beneficial to have more input at this stage; hearing other voices might lead me to adjust my view further. I'm not sure that most editors still believe the background section is too long, especially after the changes that have happened (since the start of the initial thread on cutting the background sections, it's been reduced by roughly two-thirds). Perhaps an RfC question could be "Is the current background section too long/detailed?"

  @Jehochman: in terms of improving loading speed, reducing the background section is going to have minimal impact -- it's currently 18,894 bytes (most of which is cites), compared to 55,350 bytes for the Prelude section and 123,613 for the invasion section. An issue I raised previously (I think in the last thread) is that citations make up a big chunk of these sizes and there are likely unnecessary duplicated refs throughout which can be removed. There's also a tendency to include too much detail about military developments as they occur, because of recentism (which is understandable, but requires constant pruning and seems to be being more neglected because of the focus on the background section).

  One possible issue with the background section now is that it covers a similar amount of ground to what it did before, but in much less space. This makes it denser, and maybe harder to read? It might also give the impression of it being very detailed, whereas in reality all of the details are significant points/events which have been condensed together heavily and could easily be fleshed out further in sub-articles. Removing some details similar to Cinderella's approach could be a solution, but I think more care is needed to avoid losing bits of linking context. It's a catch-22, as removing too much information makes events harder to understand (events in the Donbas make much more sense when Euromaidan is summarised, and Russian propaganda coupled with Yanukovych's disputed removal are factored in, an explanation we currently do quite well). Jr8825 • Talk 17:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Support for Cinderella157 and Jehochman on this. Also, pinging Elinruby who did some of the re-editing on the other sections of this article. The article size is again approaching 400Kb which can be daunting to readers of the article. One suggestion might be to note that there is a great deal of duplication with the Russo-Ukrainian war article as to both of them covering a 'deep history' version of the events leading to the 2022 Russian Invasion. There is no reason for maintaining two versions of this 'deep history' going back 30-35 years, and it seems a useful endeavor to merge the two subsections of the Background section into the Russo-Ukrainian war article, possibly along with perhaps 2-3 subsections of the Prelude section as well. The read time for the article is currently 40-45 minutes which is over Wikipedia policy guidelines and this makes a large demand upon new readers who are going through the article from top-to-bottom for the first time. Suggesting here that the merge-to-sibling article measures be done to deal with the bulking down of this long article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I've started an RfC below to widen participation in this discussion. I'll add my own comments later. Jr8825 • Talk 01:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, there are big issues with this article and particularly with sections subsequent to the start of the invasion in distinguishing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and writing in an encyclopaedic style. This is an problem inherent to articles about current ongoing events where pretty much the only sources are news sources and inexperienced editors want to indiscriminately add stuff from every source that can be found. Ultimately, as phases of the war stabilise, these too can be improved. What we can address now is the background and the prelude. Arguments that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST only has weight if the other stuff here (or at Invasion of Poland) is "best practice". It isn't. All of the material relating to the background is covered in detail in subordinate articles. Our obligation here is to write a coherent, tight abstract of these events. While I am not saying that this version, in collaboration with ErnestKrause, is the best possible outcome, IMHO it comes very much closer to fulfilling our obligation than this version by Jr8825. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR - unclear what the current status is of this discussion. Have today set aside to to recuperate from a red eye on top of red eye plane trip and could see what I could condense out of the section today. I am extremely unavailable for several days starting tomorrow. I agree that the events of 2014 are critical. I also agree that some stuff should probably be moved to Russo-Ukranian War. I am willing to spend some time today on condensing the background section. Moving text to another page is slow and takes a lott of concrntration; I may or may not be able to do that today, especially if there is disagreement about what should stay or go.

Bottom line, I could spend about six hours on this today if there is agreement and if not will not be available for pretty much anything for about a week Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any urgent rush, as I've started a related RfC below to help establish what level of detail/overview we should be working towards with the background section. If you'd like to make bold changes to the current text, feel free to go ahead, although it might be helpful to note the changes in the RfC discussion too. Jr8825 • Talk 23:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

ok. A bit hesitant given the RfC but will take a look in a bit Elinruby (talk)

RfC on cuts to the background section

There are two proposed versions of the Background section of this article (version A and version B), both of which might be further refined. Which of these two versions is the better option moving forward? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

(View change as a diff here.) (See previous discussion 1, previous discussion 2.)

Previous RfC statement, retained for context: Should the previous background section ("A") be reduced in size? Is the shortened background section ("B") better or worse? Jr8825 • Talk 01:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Keep A - this covers quite a bit of essential information that I think gives a good picture of the background to the topic. I don't think it's necessary to cut it out. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer B. We do not need to repeat the long story of Ukraine in the 21st century, readers can read the details in the articles linked from the section. On the other hand I think that we have to add that hostilities of the War in Donbas were largely ceased following Minsk Treaty and Zelensky's pacifist politics. Since 2020 up to February 2022 were only a handful of civilian victims from the both side almost all are from the landmines that had been installed in the active period of the war. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason not to reduce it. So B. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

While it might be possible to shave off a few more words, I think A is already pretty succinct, so my argument against (significant) reductions is that this necessitates losing background information I consider valuable. I listed the information removed in B which I think should be kept in the previous discussion. What's your opinion on these points? Jr8825 • Talk 15:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep A, perhaps it's a little on the long side but the current invasion is one part of a very complex broader problem of Russian aggression, and it's good for readers that the background section contextualises it. Using bytes as a benchmark is foolish; a much better criterion is whether the text delivers information that's relevant to readers. If anything I'd have two other aspirations - to shorten the lede a little (in principle a lede should be a brief overview before the body of the article covers many different details), and to resolve some of the templates at the top of the background section, relying more on links in the body of the text. However, the former would be an extremely difficult task, fraught with reverts! bobrayner (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Either Keep A or restore the long-standing version, If this article was, in fact, too long, then it would have made sense to trim it. But it's well within the limits of WP:PROSE, not too long at all. One thing that I am not sure of is would readers actually visit Russo-Ukrainian War for the rest of the background?. Rousillon (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular about the older version that you prefer to A? Content-wise I think they cover most of the same ground, but A does so using less space. I think several other editors felt quite strongly that the older version took up too much room. Jr8825 • Talk 16:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep A, mainly for context. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Concerned that both miss the point. The background of the invasion is that Putin wants the USSR back. See [1]

[Putin] calls the Soviet collapse the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." Russian forces seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, and remain to this day. Putin wrote last summer that Russia and Ukraine are really one country — which they were for long periods over the centuries.

Adoring nanny (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this is already covered at least in part by the sentences on Russian imperialism at the end of the section. Perhaps more should be made of this -- suggestions welcome. Jr8825 • Talk 02:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Covered in part, sure. But it is the reason for the war and should be treated as such. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Jr8825, while it is good to garner further participation, I think that your RfC is premature.

• It assumes that there is an intractable stalemate wrt the two version. That is not my perception.
• It presumes that neither version could be improved by iterative editing.
• You yourself acknowledge that version A could be improved per this edit stating above: I can see an argument for keeping Cinderella's shortening of the Euromaidan summary as it successfully manages to cut a couple of sentences ...
• The RfC might be worded more neutrally?
• The RfC gives a binary choice. Considering the above, the phrasing and choices presented for comment, it is unlikely that a workable consensus will be arrived at. It is the inherent nature of RfCs.

You may wish to reconsider this, at least for the present. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's necessary to engage more editors as our positions on the two questions are incompatible. There have been 2 lengthy discussions. While I've expressed willingness to accept some of the above proposals, this has been out of a desire to find compromise, not because I've felt the changes are necessarily positive. Ultimately, both camps seem to think each others' preferred version is moving the article in the wrong direction, and as you feel further significant cuts are needed beyond the already reduced text linked as "A", I can't see how my concerns can be accommodated. We fundamentally disagree over whether A or B is closer to the right level of detail, so more perspectives will hopefully shed light on strengths/weaknesses of the two approaches. Although the questions are narrow in order to focus discussion, there's no need for a binary outcome if participants review the opposing options and offer feedback. Jr8825 • Talk 03:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to your suggestions regarding the RfC wording. Jr8825 • Talk 03:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Nether version is necessarily the best or ultimate version and one might be edited up, the other might be edited down. I have already indicated this passage: In February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special police resulted in the deaths of 100 protesters and 13 policemen; most of the victims were shot by police snipers, where the numbers killed is "intricate detail" it is sufficient to say that there were widespread protests and possibly, that these resulted in deaths. Also: ... candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned with TCDD dioxin ... - it is sufficient to say he was poisoned. And that is without really looking. A better proposition in phrasing the RfC is to acknowledge that both are a basis for further review and which is the preferred basis for this further review. The questions posed by the RfC are not "equal". Consequently, there is an intrinsic and subtle bias. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Per your invitation, I have added an alternative RfC statement. I understand that you hold the personal view that your version is a minimal level of detail. But I also note your willingness to accept some changes. I hope, where I write: both of which might be further refined, it is an acceptable statement of the reality of WP. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing an alternative statement. I fully agree these are frameworks for future refinement, not the finished product. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 15:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment. It looks fairly plain that if Jr8825 and Cinderella can agree on a version off-page for this edit, that it would be accepted by the active editors as adequate and not require the full thirty day RFC cycle. It seems that Cinderella is basically asking that Jr8825 trim back some of his 8Kb expansion to the article; is that possible to do? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm confident we'll be able to agree on small refinements such as the ones Cinderella suggests just above this, but as there are differing views on the bigger question of how much and what information should be included it's helpful to draw wider feedback and establish which base we should work from. Jr8825 • Talk 23:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine support tab

If Belarus is listed as a supporter of Russia, then surely the US, Sweden, Estonia etc should be listed as supporting countries of Ukraine? They're providing more help than Belarus. A bit weird? Dopeliciouss (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

And so it starts again ... Pls see #Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

HAve any attacks been launched from their soil? Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that a large portion of this information is already in the Reactions sections in the form of a geopgraphical map which highlights all the countries supporting Ukraine and opposing Russia. If this geographical map were changed into an Infobox which simply listed the supporting countries with a short nod of what the support provided consists of, then the Ukraine support information would be provided in a more useful Infobox. This information is already apparently coded into the color scheme used in this image already in the Reactions section of this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2022

Under the "Belligerents" section, provide a link to the section "Foreign Military Support". This is consist with the article "Russo-Ukranian War" 108.36.196.232 (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There is already a link to it in the Background section; I've added a second link to that article in the "Foreign Military Support" section as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Notes on background section

I have not yet looked at the alternate versions (and I suspect this will be a problem with most of the votes on the RfC) but in case this is helpful, I do have some thoughts on the section as it is as of this writing. Some of these thoughts also applied to previous versions. It is currently unclear to me whether the consensus is that the section is too long or too short.

For context, I have historically followed news events quite closely but did not pay particular attention to Ukraine until the invasion, after which I did a deep dive and have since done at least a copy-edit on pretty much all the en-Wikipedia articles on the topic. So I consider myself informed on the topic but with no deep expertise, and might be able to channel a best-case scenario for an intelligent casual reader. So here are some concerns about the background section:

• Does the average reader realize that Ukraine was once part of the USSR? We don’t quite spell out how Soviet nuclear weapons came to be in Ukraine.
• ”irredentist” is exactly the right word but probably unfamiliar to most people. Consider re-wording; might be possible to condense while doing so
• we define “Donbas” in several places
• ”In 1999, Russia signed the Charter for European Security, which "reaffirmed the inherent right of each and every participating state to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance".” I see the need for this observation but possibly the quote could be condensed
• if we are going to mention Normandy Format we should probably define it. It might be better to reword.
• by 2015 sources say that the Ukrainian separatist leaders had all been replaced by Russian citizens, and I believe this is still pretty much the case
• why was “since Ukrainian independence” added to the header? Is it needed? It’s an ambiguous phrase, since Ukraine was theoretically independent once the Soviet Union dissolved, but was then run by a succession of puppet regimes. If we mean since Euromaidan we should say that instead

In hopes some of the above is helpful Elinruby (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

These are very helpful observations. I'll see if I can come up with suggestions in the near future. I think resolving some of these will result in pushing the section size and detail up though, so if the consensus in the above RfC leans towards B (favouring a more condensed version), then adding things such as greater explanation of the Normandy Format/the point about separatist leaders being Russian citizens doesn't seem feasible.

One point I'd make though is that "run by a succession of puppet regimes" isn't an accurate characterisation of post-1991 Ukraine. Even if Kuchma and Yanukovych weakened institutions and put the country's autonomy at risk, it has had multiple free elections, and Kravchuk and Yushchenko's presidencies in particular were not oriented towards Russia. Jr8825 • Talk 20:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like it was Mzajac who changed the section title to "...since Ukrainian independence". ErnestKrause (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Mzajac knows more than I do about Eastern Europe, but this isn’t really a knowledge question. It seems like extra words to add ambiguity. I am also not adamant about this, if there is a reason why we need them. But the section starts with the dissolution of the USSR, whereas Ukrainian sources at least seem to consider that independence began with Euromaidan Elinruby (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I changed the heading from a negative definition “Post-Soviet background” to a positive one, “Background since Ukrainian independence.” It was negative in two senses: 1) defining the scope by what it once was and no longer is, rather than by what it is now. And 2) “Post-Soviet” is a biased cliché that stereotypes an extremely diverse set of states by what they no longer are. —Michael Z. 20:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah! Good answer, Mzajac. I agree with that as far as it goes. But I was under the impression that the header had merely said “Background”, which was the reason for the question. I am not sure whether I conflated this with another article where I made that edit, or somebody subsequently added “post-Soviet”, and it isn’t important enough to me to check. My suggestion is that “Background” does the job, may avoid ambiguity, whether political in nature or not, and loses two words if we are trying to lose words. Yes it is a small cut, but so are all of the cuts I have been making. So, to be clear, I am not advocating “post-Soviet”, just deleting “since independence”. Unless there is some definite need to specify the timeframe that I am not seeing. Elinruby (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Just “Background” is fine. —Michael Z. 17:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the RfC statement was revised, it makes it clear that neither version would be set in stone. It is a case of which is closer to an ultimate optimum.

I'm not seeing that any of the comments/proposals by Elinruby substantially add to the text at present (B) and some might reduce. I would only suggest that we shouldn't expend (too much) effort until the RfC is concluded. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually consider “Normandy Format gratuitous vocabulary as the section is written, since as I recall, the names of the countries are given as well. As for independence/puppet regimes, this is my point; some people might consider that Ukraine was independent at that point. Others seem to date this from Euromaidan Elinruby (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

On the point about the Normany Format, I think it might've been me who originally added the mention of it. If it was, I presumably judged that the context suggests to the reader what the Normandy Format roughly is (a group of countries involved with Minsk), and the wikilink (and link popup) suffices for those who want a proper definition. MOS:UL has this to say: "articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions or phrases [are appropriate to link] — but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link".

I like the balance between detail/concision there, although you're correct that to point out the Format isn't explicitly defined. My preference would be to leave it as-is (I'm likely biased) as I think it's nice to name-drop the Format, but I don't think mentioning the grouping is essential by any means. The main disadvantage of removing it without a rephrase is that it would no longer apparent why France and Germany's opinions on the implementation of Minsk matter. Do you have a suggestion for rephrasing and/or defining it? Perhaps you have a bolder change to the surrounding sentences in mind? Jr8825 • Talk 16:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

possibly can suggest something, will work on it. As previously noted, I am travelling this week and only available in small spurts. I cannot confirm or deny your theory about whether the average reader would intuit this as I was already familiar with the term. I am uncertain whether somebody new to the geopolitics would understand it. This isn’t something I am vehement about, just a question I am raising, and I do think you have a point about why they were involved. Elinruby (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine’s governments were absolutely not “a succession of puppet régimes,” except arguably Yanukovych’s from the day he gave in to Russian pressure to cancel signing of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement on November 21, 2013, until Ukraine’s parliament dismissed prime minister Arbuzov’s caretaker government on February 27, 2014 (less than 100 days).

“Since Ukraine’s independence” means either the day Ukraine proclaimed independence, in August 1991, the day Ukrainians ratified the declaration in a referendum or the following day when its independence was Internationally recognized, in December, or perhaps even the days of the signing of the Belovezha Accords, or the Almaty Protocol, or the day the USSR voted itself out of existence, December 25. One can argue about how much Russian influence on it there was during the years after that, but that is an opinion about politics and not the conventional meaning of the phrase “Ukrainian independence.” —Michael Z. 20:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

why do we need to specify since independence in this first place? Elinruby (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Sexual violence underrepresented here

Something should be added.Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. We could add a snippet in the lede such as... "...the war, which has been characterized by wide spread reports of war crimes and sexual violence by the Russian army,..." then more could be added to the "Legal Implications" section on the sexual violence that has occurred. As a side note I'm not sure how good a title "Legal Implications" is to a section concerning War Crimes and violations of Geneva Conventions. The word "implications" implies something different to me, such as a change in accounting standard, not necessarily killing people, but anyhow. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Whatever is written in the lead should be supported by the article body. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It already is supported under Legal Implications, that said I think it's reasonable to add more to Legal Implications about the sexual violence that has occurred as well as the war crimes in Bucha for instance all of which seem to be fairly definitive of the conflict. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If it is already mentioned, then detail should go to the subordinate page. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Xx236, What did you have in mind for adding? Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Spasatel Vasily Bekh

This is a general page, I am not sure if destruction of a tugboat deserves so much place here. Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

tend to agree. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

+1, can it be moved to a sub-article? Jr8825 • Talk 17:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

is there a subpage for naval conflicts? Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by editor Yantar. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Section on occupied territories

I think a new dedicated section dedicated to briefly summarising Russia's occupation of new territories (e.g. grain theft, protests, arrests, cutting of internet, media changes) might be warranted. See, for example, the Russian wiki's equivalent section (you can use Google Translate to get a rough idea of what's covered). What are others' thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 17:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

They are currently expanding into the Donbas; is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

no, I'm thinking predominantly of Russian policies in Kherson, Zaporizhzhia Oblasts etc. (and Mariupol) Jr8825 • Talk 02:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

There is the practical issue of trying to 'predict' which target the Russians will choose next for concentration of forces in the event that Severodonetsk is overtaken in the coming weeks; need to follow reliable sources on this. It sounds like you wish to separate out Invasion policy from Occupation policy, which sounds like separate articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Controversial topic?

Should this article be marked as "controversial" with the "controversial warming template?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)