Jump to content

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TeunSpaans (talk | contribs) at 17:59, 23 July 2022 (→NATO expansion: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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.

Russian Wikipedia

Do you think that Russian Wikipedia is subject to the state and facts cannot be taken from it? 212.164.204.35 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:rs, no wiki (in any country) is an RS, and so no we can't take "facts" from one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant information with sources. 212.164.204.35 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you're asking about whether Russian Wikipedia is subject to the media laws prohibiting coverage of the war that disagrees with the state line. My understanding is that the Russian government has threatened the Russian Wikipedia project for contravening the state line, but has not yet taken concrete action against the website itself (although there was the case of a ru.wiki editor in Belarus who was arrested for their editing work). signed, Rosguill talk 18:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Russian Wikipedia article still refers to this as an 'invasion'; which may require some adjustment in the lead section of this article which did say that the term is not allowed in Russia. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Russian Wikipedia is not 'in Russia'. Why should it be? There are millions of native speakers around the world. Xx236 (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter where the wiki is (it's on the internet). What matters is where its editors are and how much they can be deanoned or have already deanoned themselves. 198.58.158.232 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily used by the state, but regardless Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for obvious reasons. Dawsongfg (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable sourceXx236 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons"

Why is there a section on this, longer than the section e.g. on naval warfare aspects of the war? It seems completely out of proportion considering it deals with a purely speculative situation. Yakikaki (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information may seem speculative but it is RS speculation that is worth documenting in an encyclopedic manner. If you have information that would be worth adding on naval warfare then Wikipedia:Be bold. The Meta Boi (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the big issue though as long as it's not saying "Russia will use nuclear weapons on Ukraine"? But kind of agreed to merge it with another section. Dawsongfg (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Change the picture "Countries sending military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 invasion"

At the time of the Invasion, the Crimean peninsula is Russian, and cannot be painted blue! At a minimum, it should be painted as a disputed territory. HellSAS (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian POV, unrecognized even by their “ally” China.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, not only Russia, and secondly, I'm not asking you to color it in the color of Russia on the map. I ask you to mark it as a disputed territory, because now it is under the absolute control of Russia. You can even call it occupied, but it is definitely not under the control of Ukraine now. And such nuances can harm the neutrality of the article. HellSAS (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)HellSAS[reply]
To be fair that seems a valid idea, "occupied by Russia since 2014" seems valid. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a de jure map. Even if we were to change it, there'd be many things we'd have to change such as Syria, Yemen, a part of Ukraine etc. Dawsongfg (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A typo

It should be "BBC News Russian & Mediazona" instead of "BBC News Russian & Meduza". Also the link doesn't work, it should be https://zona.media/casualties (in Russian, 2022-07-15 data) or https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/11/casualties_eng (in English, 2022-07-01 data).

Also it should probably noted that they say they count only those dead who were identified (by mass media, the Russian government, or their relatives on social media). Arzet Ro (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per strong consensus. Closing early, since this is a highly visible article, and the proposal has no chance to gain consensus. No such user (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine (2022) – Reliable sources such the BBC use this title in their headings. Interstellarity (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support – I have thought this article should mention 'war' in its title, as it is about the war that ensued after the invasion rather than details of the invasion itself. I think this would be good, with the Russo-Ukrainian War article renamed to War in Ukraine (2014–2022) and become more limited in its scope. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose  The Russo-Ukrainian War has been ongoing for over eight years. That is what reliable sources have been referring to with the name and variations. The use of a disambiguation string in parenthesis in a title implies that the thing is a different thing with the same name; i.e., that one War in Ukraine ended on February 24 and another one started. That’s misleading and factually wrong. —Michael Z. 23:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Totally disagree. It has already happened that the Russo-Ukrainian War has three components: the occupation and annexation of Crimea, the war in the east of Ukraine (Donbas), and the last third component is a large-scale Russian invasion. — Uliana245 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — The argument for changing is not really spelled out. If it's just because a single SEO friendly page on BBC.com uses that term, I can find 20 other pages that use "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Would also help if it was spelled out what the nominator's issue with the current name is. | MK17b | (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — If they moved to War in Ukraine, it could confuse the reader because we already have an article Russo-Ukrainian War. HurricaneEdgar 03:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our duty to dumb things down for the reader to make them not confusing. We just present the facts in an encyclopaedic way. If the reader doesn't understand that then they shouldn't be browsing an encyclopaedia. Buttons0603 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As many above me have already said, we already have an article, the Russo-Ukrainian War, which covers the aggression between Russia and Ukraine starting in 2014 and going to the present. This article is specifically about the Russian invasion starting on February 24, and the current article title reflects this well. Renaming the article to War in Ukraine just seems pointless. Not only does it make the article's title less descriptive, but it may be confused with the aforementioned Russo-Ukrainian War article. "War in Ukraine (2022)" should only be a disambiguation redirect to this article with its current title. Physeters✉ 21:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Name is non-descript, doesn't even make clear who invading party is. Yes, invading party. That is not POV, if one country sends troops into another without the latter's consent, it is an invasion. This is elementary, and saying otherwise is in fact what is POV.--Calthinus (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as the Invasion of Iraq and Iraq War. Same thing now, the invasion is over now it looks like a long war. Maybe split things MachoCarioca (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a proposal to split the article. The subordinate subject mentioned (the war article is parent of the invasion article, in summary style) ends at a milestone: “This early stage of the war formally ended on 1 May 2003 when U.S. President George W. Bush declared the "end of major combat operations" in his Mission Accomplished speech, after which the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was established as the first of several successive transitional governments leading up to the first Iraqi parliamentary election in January 2005.” As the Russians are still trying to advanced and have not achieved strategic objectives, there is no clear-cut end to the “invasion” phase. In fact, it is a subordinate article to the parent Russo-Ukrainian War. If it did get too long, it could be split into a multiple fronts phase and a concentrate on Donbas phase that started April 18, but I think there would still be an encompassing parent article. —Michael Z. 00:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even more simply: both Russian and Western sources predict that Russian forces are still trying to take the rest of Donbas, and likely all of the oblasts along Ukraine’s Black Sea coast if not come back to assault Kyiv again as well. So the invasion remains in progress. —Michael Z. 15:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is the invasion over? Was there a formal declaration made by at least one leader that it was over? If so, when and by whom? Otherwise the invasion will be over when either Ukraine capitulates or pushes the front back to Russian borders. 198.58.158.232 (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose 2022 invasion is just a part of the war started in 2014. Calling both of them "war" will cause a confusion. Leo0502 (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 18 July 2022

For countries who support Russia, add North Korea and Iran as both have said the support the invasion and are willing to provide aid 166.181.81.169 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I'm assuming this is for the support section in the infobox? The amount of support they have provided is not sufficient for inclusion in the infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We all know Iran is providing drones, but where's the source for North Korea? All I find is "rebuilding Ukraine". Dawsongfg (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents section needs updating

It is fair to add the EU and NATO countries that support Ukraine with weapons, when Belarus is included in the belligerents list as supportive. 2A00:A200:0:813:56E:D75A:58E0:768F (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out (countless times) no attacks have been launched from NATO soil, so they are not analogous. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to an extent.
Belarus is listed as a belligerent because Belarus allows Russian forces to launch their missiles from Belarussian territory and Russian forces attacked Ukraine through Belarus. The same could not be said for NATO and EU countries.
NATO and EU countries have only provided material and intelligence support. Therefore I feel like they could be added as "Arms suppliers". But nothing more. 94.16.40.154 (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them provided weapons and components to the Russian Federation too, so I don’t think that criterion for inclusion on the list will yield the result you desire. —Michael Z. 17:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Michael, I would oppose. Some companies in GER, SLO, ITA and FRA have supplied parts for weapon systems to RF. How would you list those? This would be NPOV. A09090091 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Belarus is under Russian belligerent then surely it’s only fair to list all of the countries supporting Ukraine with arms, training and intelligence? 82.47.195.126 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Belarusian territory is used for direct attacks into Ukrainian territory. This makes Belarus guilty of the crime of international aggression according to the UN’s definition.
If Ukraine launches missiles from Estonia into Russia, or moves forces across the border from Latvia into Russia, then we can consider adding one of these countries to the belligerents box.
Provision of arms, training, and intelligence happens between states all the time in peacetime, and doesn’t create a state of war, so it doesn’t make a state a belligerent when there’s a war among other states. Israel and France have provided weapons and components to Russia since the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and Germany set up training centres and trained Russian troops before and possibly at the beginning of the war, but none of these states ought to be listed as supporting Russia against Ukraine. —Michael Z. 02:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone looked at the option of changing the geographical maps in the section on 'Foreign military sales and aid' into Infobox format for that section. Doing this would make this discussion about belligerents and supporters much clearer. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Grammer, missing sources and politics.

The entire passage of: effects on ukrainian scociety[sic], seems to be written to push a political agenda. The information given by the sources is not checked and taken out of context 2A02:8108:97C0:1DC0:2D0C:7933:671C:3BF8 (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples of this context? Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal to say "war" in Russia

ErnestKrause, since you were using the nomenclature of Russian Wikipedia to argue that saying war is not illegal in Russia, see this Reuter's article [1]. Russian Wikimedia is being fined in Russia for "propaganda," and Reuters says as of yesterday Russia does not call what is happening a "war" or an "invasion", criminalising the use of either word.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ermenrich Your citation from Reuters is better than the NPR one currently in use, and I think I would support you to replace the NPR cite with your Reuters citation in the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian Wikipedia is international, it is not Russian. Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Second phase – Dnipro–Zaporizhzhia front"

I do not know the subject, but Dnipro is probably not a front city now. Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents section for Ukraine

Belligerent section for Ukraine shows blank which is total bullshit as if no country supports it when the whole Western world led by US and UK supplies it with high modern weaponry and sanctions against Russia 197.186.5.116 (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Ukraine is not quite the same as actively participating in warfare, as the term 'belligerent" would imply. Kleuske (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Supported by section. Dawsongfg (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
belligerent
/bəˈlɪdʒ(ə)r(ə)nt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.
Niehter the UK or US are engaged in warfare (as defined in international law) they are supplying arms to a combatant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ Q2 at the top of this page. —Michael Z. 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology section

Can we add the “Terminology” section to the article? The terms used in Ukraine are “ Russian invasion of Ukraine”, “ resistance against full-scale Russian aggression”, etc while Russia uses the term “special military operation”, etc.. Neutral terms are “Russo-Ukrainian war”, “Russo-Ukrainian conflict”, “War in Ukraine”… -76.68.77.13 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

most of those are not names, they are descriptions. I am dubious that this would really add anything of value. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a false balance. Russian invasion of Ukraine is objectively accurate and neutral. —Michael Z. 17:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any neutrality problems with "Russian invasion of Ukraine" and "resistance against full-scale Russian aggression". Super Ψ Dro 08:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian shelling port of Odessa after 1 day of deal with Turkey and UN

https://amp.france24.com/en/europe/20220722-live-ukraine-ports-to-reopen-after-grain-export-deal-with-russia-says-turkey

https://www.euronews.com/amp/2022/07/23/russian-missile-strikes-in-ukrainian-port-hours-after-grain-deal-claims-odesa-mp https://www.ukrinform.net/amp/rubric-ato/3535226-russian-missiles-hit-odesa-port.html Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-pledges-more-military-aid-ukraine-peace-seems-far-off-2022-07-22/ Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The American envoy to Kiev has criticized this action. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

srbin.info as a source?

The website seems to be heavily positively biased towards russia. A lot of its articles cannot be verified through prominent news outlets. It also seems to heavily rely on sputnik as a source, which is a wikipedia deprecated source.

Your input would be appreciated. Eddmanx (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any biased cites in use, then it is useful to present a citation which is opposed to it. That way other editors can determine if one is more reliable than the other. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NATO expansion

The text says "Several African leaders said the western expansion of NATO contributed to the war" I suppose this should be eastern expension?

Teun Spaans (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1099995961"