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 Tracland (talk | contribs) at 19:53, 14 March 2023 (→‎Discussion 2: Reply). 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 RfC: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#RfC on Western support to Ukraine, closed 30 December 2022.

See also earlier RfCs: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022; and, Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022. All RfCs were closed with "no consensus". In the most recent RfC, the closer made the following statement:

Also, can we not do this again in a couple months? There is WP:NODEADLINE, and there is sure to be plenty of academic studies and expert writings that will provide excellent context and sourcing for what, exactly, should be listed in that infobox parameter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:13, 30 December 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.

RFC on Syria in infoboxes

After two weeks there appears to be no support for this request and six back-to-back opposes which is WP:SNOW for indicating no support. There is a recent book length study on "Putin in Syria" which may contain data of interest to the Putin article, however, it does not appear to warrant any interest here on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should "Syria" be included as a belligerent in infoboxes of pages relating to the 2022-23 war where Syrian mercenaries have participated? (see earlier thread) HappyWith (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this asking specifically "Syria" or "Syrian mercenaries" too? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically "Syria", I'm basically referring to the presentation in the infoboxes of Battle of Donbas (2022) and Southern Ukraine campaign. HappyWith (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently nothing in the Syria article at Wikipedia which even mentions Russia, Putin, or Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not need to be reciprocal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a measure of importance though; if its not at all mentioned in the Syria article then it leads to questions about its importance elsewhere. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is something to keep in mind and factor in but not the be all and end all. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No  The reports are vague as to the nature of involvement by Syrians, but they appear to be mercenaries recruited by Wagner and/or other Russian outfits. Apparently Syria allows them to advertise for recruiting, but that seems to be the sum of involvement by the Syrian state. Even the one SOHR article at first says that 5 fighters of the Syrian 25th Div. were killed, kinda-almost implying that a Syrian unit is in Ukraine, but then refers to them or other Syrians as mercenaries. The Syrian state is not a belligerent. If it is encouraging or even sending a few fighters to fight under the Russian flag or in Russian PMCs, that still doesn’t make it a belligerent. Ukraine and Syria may have a bad relationship, but they are not at war, and shouldn’t be marked as opposing belligerents in any infobox, because that would be misleading.
(I earlier argued that Iran should be included among belligerents because Iranian soldiers are officially but covertly involved in operating drone weapons. I am no longer confident that it should, and Syria is way below the threshold of military involvement.)  —Michael Z. 23:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No - As many of other editors have noted their level of participation does not rise to the level of belligerent. BogLogs (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No The presence of Syrians is poorly documented, somewhat attributable to a single source (the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights), and to the best of my knowledge, there's no real indication of official (narrowly defined ;) Syrian government support.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. No countries should be named as belligerents based on the participation of mercenaries.
Sennalen (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave it out (invited by the bot). I'd also leave out the 2 "entities" that exist only in the Russian's imagination that are currently listed out. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally agree that based on what we know at this point DLNR’s 1st and 2nd Army Corps definitely belong under “Units,” and their puppet governments do not belong under “Belligerents.”)  —Michael Z. 23:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No The presence of Syrian mercenaries does not mark the nation of Syria as a belligerent to be placed in the infobox nor should we mark these mercenaries with the Syrian flag under units. Both actions would misrepresent Syria's involvement. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I have had a look around and I can't find anything that would support Syrian state military involvement in the conflict. THIS (although written in the relatively early days of the most recent conflict) seems like a good summation. To say that Syria wants to support Russia (Putin) is one thing. To include Syria as a belligerent would need well sourced information that organised Syrian Government military had been actively (even in support) deployed in the area of conflict and sufficient to meet the definition of Belligerent
waging war

specifically : belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Supplying arms or mercenaries does not make you a belligerent. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2023 (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.

Requested move 26 February 2023

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: Consensus to move. There's a consensus that the new title better reflects the content of the article. The opposition mainly stemmed from a desire to make this article focused on the initial 2022 invasion and split or merge the article in some fashion; there's no prejudice to towards renaming the article back if something like that happens. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) – Reopening this discussion. So, as far as I'm aware, there have been 4 major move discussions on this page:

Personally, I'm not entirely sure which title is best for this page, but I'm proposing Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), (instead of "... 2022-2023 ...") due to it's preference amongst editors participating in the 31 December 2022 move discussion who supported changing the time descriptor, and the fact it makes it look like the conflict has already or will definitely end in 2023.

  • I support the brackets in the title Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) because it's cleaner and more descriptive. As English readers read left-to-right, the most important information ("Russian invasion of Ukraine") is seen first, and then the time descriptor, is seen very slightly later. 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine makes it look like "2022-2023" is more important than "Russian invasion of Ukraine".
  • I somewhat understand the argument that an "invasion" is the first stage of the conflict, so to some extent, the invasion is over and a more conventional interstate war is ongoing, therefore Escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present), or similar, could be used, but this would be extremely difficult to gain consensus on. On the other hand, many say the word "invasion" should be used in the title, as it's the most commonly used name (per WP:COMNAME).
  • Further to the above point, it's also been proposed (see Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 9#Post-invasion phase) to limit the scope of the article to simply the initial phase of the conflict, and cover the rest on the page Russo-Ukrainian War. I understand this proposal, but it could be confusing for casual readers.

Please keep this discussion civil (WP:HTBC) 👍.

Thank you, and Слава Україні! --- Tbf69 P • T 16:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Support (2022-present) It would make sense for now. In the long run, I'd suggest splitting the article in two: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to describe the initial phase of the ongoing war (24 February until the retreat from Kyiv Oblast) and Russo-Ukrainian War to describe the overall conflict that started on 24 February 2022. The article that is currently under the name Russo-Ukrainian War should then be renamed *Russo-Ukrainian conflict, since most of its duration a Trasnistria-like border conflict with separatist militia groups aided by Russia took place, with the years 2019–2021 being relatively peaceful, and the actual war taking place around 2014–2015, thus making a reference to it being WP:CONSISTENT with Russo-Georgian War, that described a short direct militrary confrontation between two countries, make pretty much no sense. But, as was mentioned before, it would be extremely complicated to reach consensus on all three changes. CapLiber (talk) 18:56 26 Feburary 2023 (UTC)
I like your idea, perhaps Ukraine conflict for the overall conflict, Russo-Ukrainian war for the post 24 February conflict and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for the phase from the 24 February to the retreat from Kyiv Oblast. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That will not happen because it’s all wrong. There is no difference in meaning between war and conflict in these contexts. Courts have found that the militias were controlled by Russia and an international war started by mid May 2014. There was no change in 2019. More people were killed and wounded in Ukraine in what you call the “relatively peaceful” period of static warfare than in 2014–15.  —Michael Z. 14:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm proposing the much simpler move to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), which is easier to get consensus for. --- Tbf69 P • T 14:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Transnistria conflict is not the same as Transnistria War. Both topics are treated separately in sources. Having an article such as Russo-Ukrainian conflict encompassing the invasion of Crimea, the Donbas War and the 2022 escalation sounds reasonable to me. Though having a split in the Russian retreat from northern Ukraine seems arbitrary to me and I am opposed to it. Super Ψ Dro 15:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite in favour of the split to reduce the scope of this article to be just the initial invasion (as suggested). In which case I agree the title remains appropriate. But, absent consensus to split the article (which is a separate debate), the current article covers all events from Feb 22 to date, meaning it does not only cover 2022, as the title suggests. Tracland (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tracland That's exactly my position. --- Tbf69 P • T 16:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And one which I happen to agree with you on Tracland (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With the current title, it's technically wrong to add any development after January 1st. We'll change it eventually in any case, might as well do it now and stop rerunning this discussion every other week. Jeppiz (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I am saying. If the current title is inappropriate and a move is required, we should also move several other related articles such as that one. But trying to integrate these parentheses will give pretty awkward results into some of them. A more natural proposal is required. Super Ψ Dro 23:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the brackets are confusing in the name of such an article but I don't see why that article shouldn't simply be "Women in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" Tracland (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are parentheses here needed at all? We could just move it to Russian invasion of Ukraine if there was no risk of ambiguity. Super Ψ Dro 13:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally and for the reasons you and other participants have given, that would be my preference (I.e. no date disambiguation). However this has been debated and rejected so following that seeking the 'next best thing'. In my view including '2022 - present' is preferable to '2022' given what the article actually covers but my overriding preference would be to remove dates (but this has been rejected). Tracland (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRITERIA, the strongest policy based arguments exist for Russian invasion of Ukraine over a disambiguated title. It ticks all of the boxes and disambiguation should only be used when there is an actual title conflict. The underlying premise of the RM that Russian invasion of Ukraine should therefore target Invasions of Ukraine was a perceived ambiguity with other invasions of Ukraine. The RfD that followed belied the strength of that argument, keeping the redirect to here. IMO, there are conflicting outcomes that leave the matter unresolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the initiator of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" RM, I of course think that's the best title, but I'm not opposed to suggestion in this RM per my !vote above. DecafPotato (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine is still a reasonable option. It does not remove dates, nor add parentheses, nor keep 2022 only. Super Ψ Dro 14:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agreement with Slatersteven and Michael that this new name change request is likely poorly formulated. Leaving the title as having an unspecified and open invasion period seems like the most unlikely version to be contemplated. Its an invasion that took place in 2022. Its not going to go on indefinitely. Leaving the title with an unspecified end date also seems to imply another name change when the invasion is pronounced as 'ended' by someone. That's a poor approach to naming Wikipedia articles. Even the Normandy invasion was no longer part of WWII dialogue format once the Battle of the Bulge took place. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article ought not to be renamed at this time with an indeterminate name with an unspecified time parameter. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Support CapLiber’s idea Well, you already know it. TankDude2000 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC) (comment by non EC user struck out)[reply]

  • Support (2022-present) because sure, there are several other titles that might work, but this at least solves the issue of the fact that the invasion continues and yet it still says 2022. Looking forward to the RM where we have to decide what counts as it ending/when it ended... Hentheden (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer (2022-present). Ultimately, I agree with @Cinderella157's point about how this should be named "Russian invasion of Ukraine" since said page already redirects here and had been challenged before, meaning you can't weasel out with "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" if consensus exists that said page should redirect to this article. Crusader1096 (message) 00:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support CapLiber’s idea Others have brought up the 2003 invasion of Iraq page as a similar scenario, I would comment an even closer fitting match, Second Sino-Japanese War. It includes the invasion of Manchuria/Defense of the Great Wall as "Prelude" and dates the war to the full scale invasion, pretty much bang on for what CapLiber is proposing here with Crimea and the Donbas.WanukeX (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WanukeX I agree that makes sense, but please support the original RM proposal, to avoid a no consensus result of this discussion. A split needs a separate discussion. --- Tbf69 P • T 13:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support CapLiber's idea ONLY. It would settle more than just one issue and makes the most sense. Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nythar I agree that makes sense, but please support the original RM proposal, to avoid a no consensus result of this discussion. A split needs a separate discussion. --- Tbf69 P • T 13:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users here voting only for CapLiber's proposal should be aware they're only heading this discussion to a "no consensus" result. A split should not come out of a RM. A separate discussion should be started for that. Super Ψ Dro 13:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed 100%. HappyWith (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. That needs to be a separate discussion. Tracland (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to point out that I supported the (2022-present) variant within this discussion. If my other idea is to be put to discussion, a RM proposal on Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict should be made, to then, if successful, transfer this article to Russo-Ukrainian War and split 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article from it. CapLiber (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Slatersteven. And yes, this invasion is a part of the bigger war started by Russia in 2014. As about the proposals by CapLiber, I think they are irrelevant. Sure, one can create sub-pages or rename other pages, but this does not affect renaming this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By which bit of Slatersteven are you seeking to agree (or all of it). It appears 2 main points are made in their comment being
    1) the Invasion was in 2022 (followed by a supporting argument referencing the Normandy invasion) , and
    2) This is part of the wider war, not a new one (and the inference that this change could result in the article implying otherwise)
    I'd infer from your comment that it's the former (which I think then heavily linked to the actual context of the article and the potential split proposal) but thought it would be useful to check. Tracland (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The proposed title seems clearer and cleaner. I think keeping Russo-Ukrainian War for the overall conflict since 2014 is fine as well. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: the invasion is still ongoing. --Furawi (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Both titles work perfectly fine in my view, but this one is *slightly* more sharply focused. TheSavageNorwegian 15:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons outlined by Slatersteven and My very best wishes. This article should simply cover the invasion which only occurred during 2022 instead of constantly expanding into a wider war article. Yeoutie (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the comment and your view that the article should only cover the 2022 invasion but that is not what the article actually covers. As it stands the article covers everything from Feb-22 to date. You and others have raised this point which is effectively a proposal to split the existing article (and then retain the existing title which, as a consequence, would then be accurate). This needs a separate consensus on a split which needs to be discussed separately and no-one (including me) seems willing to instigate this. As it stands the question in this discussion is whether the title is appropriate for the content as it stands which covers events from Feb-22 to date. Tracland (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed but support merge to Russo-Ukrainian War Saying the invasion started in 2022 is (intentionally or as useful idiots) to embrace Russian propaganda in favor of Ukraine abandoning its claims to Crimea where the invasion actually began on Feb 20, 2014. I don't mind having an article about Russia's "renewed push" or "Battle of 2022" or something, but to claim - obviously and manifestly in defiance of RS supported historic fact - that the "invasion" started in 2022 is to rewrite actual recorded history, in favor of Russian propaganda. I admit that a lot of western media fell for this bit of "framing the question", and that was a huge win for the Russian psyops people. But we know they did that now, and we don't have to give their fiction any more oxygen than western media has already (idiotically) provided to Russian efforts to win "hearts and minds" over their forceful seizure of Ukrainian lands on the Crimean Peninsula. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're arguments don't make sense. This article is not saying that Russian military activity in Ukraine started in 2022, it is regarding the renewed tensions and escalation beginning in 2022. As flawed is the current title, it doesn't even come close to insinuating that the invasion of Ukraine started in 2022. 2022 is in there because that was when a new offensive invasion began after a several year period of relative peace. Additionally, if this is your issue, I don't understand what the point is of having an article about the renewed conflict given your opposition to the title. Finally, to claim that this is rewriting WP:RS historic fact is frankly nonsense, given that every RS and country (including Ukraine) refers to this as a new invasion, or at least an escalatory/new one. There's no point in half-assing the title due to baseless technicalities. Besides, there's already a section regarding the new invasion on Russo-Ukranian War. Crusader1096 (message) 21:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this and any single possible variation of this proposal. Super Ψ Dro 22:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I agreed with the premise of this (which I don't), I can't see any conceivable way to merge these articles given the respective size of the articles.
In addition, no-one is saying that the events since Feb-22 are not part of a larger war / series of events. However, clearly the events since Feb-22 are sufficiently notable for an independent lead article covering this period (or multiple such articles, as has been proposed in this discussion). Tracland (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The terminology of invasions is clear - "invasion of Crimea" for when Russia had a goal of occupying and annexing Crimea (not the whole of Ukraine); "invasion of Ukraine" for when it tried to occupy the whole country to either also annex or put a puppet regime in power. If your frame is correct, then what was stopping Russia from launching an invasion of central Ukraine for 8 years? Did Russia had to sign a Minsk agreement and let the War in Donbas freeze, giving Ukrainian army time for rearmament and training with NATO armies, to then launch a new "battle" in 2022 in an "ongoing war"? Using this logic, we must also change the Russo-Georgian War start date to early 1990s, when the first military clash between the Georgians and the Ossetians/Abkhazians happened, or move World War 2 start date to the occupation of Czechoslovakia or Anschluss. CapLiber (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant to this current discussion. Start a merge proposal as a separate discussion on the talk page if you want to continue this proposal. HappyWith (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add that Russian officials do declare that the Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014. This continues to be mentioned nowadays, including in justifying what the country is doing. There have been an enormous number of statements about the "8 years of war" etc. Regarding the discussion - Support per nom. --Ur frnd (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons already mentioned by Slatersteven. While I understand the logical argument for the rename as the war continues, the size of the current article's prose is already so vast (after multiple spin-offs) that we may end up with distinct articles for 2022 in the war, 2023 in the war, and hopefully not etc... Moreover, the 2022 invasion is already commonly recognized use as a common name for the phase of the war and is likely to remain the focal point of the article, rather than serving as a general overview of the conflict. It seems that it would be more practical to keep the current article name as such. Respublik (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is "2022 invasion" a common name? I've only seen it on Wikipedia. HappyWith (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per searches it's used quite commonly [1]. My objection is not solely or even primarily based on the common name argument, though. Respublik (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[2] per search trends. Respublik (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changing the title of the article is unnecessary and potentially misleading. The invasion occurred in 2022, and the original title accurately reflects the specific time frame of the invasion. The proposed title is too broad and could potentially lead to confusion for readers. The original title clearly and accurately identifies the year in which the invasion occurred, which is essential information for understanding the context of the conflict. — Apostolica 19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the articles on the invasion itself and the ongoing war should be split. CapLiber (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This statement would be correct if the coverage of the article was the initial 2022 invasion. However the actual content covers all activity from Feb-22 to date and therefore implying the article only covers the 2022 invasion is itself misleading.
    If the article is split such that it only covers the 2022 invasion then I'd agree with you. But this needs a separate consensus. Tracland (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose The current title refers to an invasion. Note the definition of invasion always includes the act of entering.
"an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army."
"the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease."
"entrance as if to take possession or overrun"
That only occurs when it happens, which was in 2022. The aftermath of the entering is another issue. It could be repelled lasting a day. It could start a war, lasting years. But the entering is the invasion, not the subsequent actions. (which points back to the separate discussion around the scope of the article)  • Bobsd •  (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But 'invasion' can also mean (or the definition can be expanded to include):
'an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country' (Cambridge Dictionary)
The Russian armed forces are still trying to take control of parts of or the whole of Ukraine; so one could say that the occasion is ongoing.
'the act of invading something: such as the act of entering a place in an attempt to take control of it' (Britannica Dictionary)
Again, the Russian armed forces have entered and are still in Ukraine, attempting to take control of it. Thus, one could say that the occasion of entering a place in attempting to take control of it is continuing. Thus Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) makes sense as a title for this article.
Compusolus (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that given the current content of this article, Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) makes sense. But then what is the purpose of Russo-Ukrainian War. Isn't that the place to cover the past and ongoing conflict? I respectfully think we have way too much uncoordinated duplication of information and multiple articles. I personally find it confusing to figure out where to add new information, because there is no predefined editorial guidelines for the development of the entire subject matter. But I'm OT here :) see 2.5 Full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–2023)? see Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine  • Bobsd •  (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't disagree with you there. I think a wider discussion needs to be had on this and how articles are split. This will take some time to agree. In the meantime I still think it would be useful to fix this title to match the current content (even if it's only a short term fix). Tracland (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article Title define the scope of the article? Or does the article grow whimsically (without regard to other articles covering the same subject) and then the title is constantly changed to fit. That conundrum is the reason that we have good arguments on either side ... Title and Scope are related. Can't really decide on one without addressing the other. It's the lack of a set of requirements that we are dealing with with IMO.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My view on this would be that the title should reflect the content of an article and if the article naturally grows then the title should be updated to reflect. It's the overall content that should reflect a specific topic and the title should then reflect the topic. Obviously there is still a question as to whether this article is one or multiple 'topics' (to use common wording to my previous statement) but that needs a separate discussion and we can always change the title again if a split is agreed in due course. Tracland (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, and I will go look through the existing guidance on how/when/where this overall discussion occurs. Thank you.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We only choose an article title within the narrow constraints set by WP:AT in accordance with [good quality] sources. WP:NEWSORG sources are reliable within constraints. Sources also define the scope to be applied to an article title - the title is not narrowly construed by the title used but by how it is construed by sources. In an article, the scope, as determined by sources, is made explicit in the lead. In consequence, the lead explains the scope of the article. In this case, the year in the title is unnecessary disambiguation per policy. When disambiguation is necessary, we are only WP:PRECISE to the extent required - WP:CONCISE has precedence. Giving the start date (year) of an event is sufficient to identify an event and disambiguate it, further precision is unnecessary. The lead tells us it is ongoing. The premise that a year, let alone a year range is necessary in the title is not supported by WP:AT, the prevailing policy. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I said it in an other comment that I wanted something similar to this. Overall I agree. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2023 (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.

Post-move discussion

This post-move discussion has been replaced by another move request for this article which has already been started on this Talk page. All further comments should be placed in the new move request section which has already been started below on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 understand I'm late to the party, but this new title is ridiculous. Parentheses in article titles are used only for disambiguation, but there is no other article called Russian invasion of Ukraine. Myanmar civil war (2021–present) is titled as such because Myanmar civil war redirects to Internal conflict in Myanmar; Iraqi conflict (2003–present) is titled incorrectly for the same reason as this article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are also plenty of other Russian invasions of Ukraine. Crusader1096 (message) 17:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are titled Russian invasion of Ukraine. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, but it could be argued that events like the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea and Donbas could fit that role. Crusader1096 (message) 18:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea and Donbas should be moved to 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Crimea and Donbas are parts of Ukraine, right? 145.2.224.102 (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on what that article (which I see was just created) should be titled, but unless there is a second article with the title "Russian invasion of Ukraine", it doesn't make sense to have a parenthetical disambiguation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be one of those occasions where the consensus is simply wrong. Yes, the article includes events from 2023, but that means that this is not only about the invasion, which happened in 2022, so any title should not include the word "invasion". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the balance of !votes and arguments is close enough that the close could be challenged and potentially overturned to no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 19:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm open to a move review, or a new RM if a move review isn't appropriate. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if this RM is overturned, these moves need to be reverted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've alerted the closer of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has already been closed with a reasonably clear consensus. If editors want a change the logical step would be to open a new discussion but after all the discussions on the matter, and with such a recent conclusion to this one, I'm not sure how much of an appetite there is for that. BogLogs (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an untenable assessment. The !vote balance is 30-14 in favour of the move (I'm not sure whether to count Cinderella's !vote as support or oppose, and I've ignored struck !votes). That's not close, it's a supermajority for the move (2:1). The arguments over article scope aren't germane to the requested move, and they make up a fair portion of the opposing argument, which further strengthens the already extant supermajority for the move. Alteration to article scope needs a separate discussion. The close as-is accurately reflects consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I think I agree--there's some circumstantial considerations that could have been taken into account to motivate a no consensus close, but the existing close is defensible and is unlikely to get overturned. Moreover, we're not going to settle on a long-term encyclopedic title here until the war is over (or at least until it clearly moves into a new "phase" that closes this chapter of the war decisively), so getting into a long bureaucratic discussion is a waste of time for a page that will inevitably be retitled in the future anyway. signed, Rosguill talk 16:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's, of course, very true. It's an issue that plagues articles on on-going events. We don't know what the article will be until the dust settles. In the title, in the content, in the off-shoot articles. These all remain opaque. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But does really no one share my concern that the current title is using parentheses for "disambiguation" when there is in fact nothing to disambiguate from? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is disambiguating from the other Russian invasions of Ukraine, which are documented at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine. This is clearly the primary topic for the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine", and while almost always that would mean it would be better at a non-disambiguated title, this is not a usual circumstance. We're allowed to make exceptions to usual titling guidelines for special cases like this. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I really don't see how this is "not a usual circumstance". InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article on an ongoing military conflict. That's certainly not usual.
I agree with others who have raised scope issues here; what is considered "the invasion" vs "the war" isn't exactly clear. However, that's hard to resolve during the war. Hence, it's an unusual circumstance. Once the war is over it'll be far more clear what this and other relevant articles should be titled, and what they should contain. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does it being an ongoing conflict mean we alter our titling decisions?
Also, what’s the invasion vs the war is very clear, and is very consistent across WP:RS. The invasion started on 24 Feb, and the war started in 2014. These are all well-defined scopes. HappyWith (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained this. You can disagree, that's fine. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responding as I was messaged and asked to reconsider my close: I can't overturn the close for an argument that was raised after the discussion (nor is this case where the support arguments should be discarded for clearly contravening policy/guideline). Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Galobtter, for the record, there was a case made in the discussion that unnecessary precision (a year or year range) clearly contravened policy. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting another question now that the article has been moved (and why I think this move creates more problems than solutions): Should every article with '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine' be moved now for consistency? Ex. Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present) and Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4 to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present): phase 4. In my opinion these new titles don't make much sense and are less clear on their content but now that the move has occurred I don't see why they would stay in their current state. Yeoutie (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeoutie, WP articles stand alone. While article titles may consider WP:CONSISTENT as one of the criteria for a title, there is no mandate to apply the titling format here to all related articles - ie they can be assessed individually. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects already are in action, so renaming of existing links is unnecessary. I just put in one as a test case to demonstrate that the Foundation is on it (good job, WMF). -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is on it it's not the WMF. It's not their job to create content, including redirects, or rename articles, and they don't. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that there is a CfD request for several invasion-related categories to be renamed, and Compusolus made a series of article moves yesterday. Should those pages be moved back? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue I continuously raised on past RMs. If this article was moved, we would need to deal with tons of others to which the proposed title might not apply as appropriately. It went largely ignored and now someone will have to deal with this. Though I'd recommend not putting much effort, as the current title will inevitably require another move once the war ends. Super Ψ Dro 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If not a move review, what about a new RM? I think I can make a case for just Russian invasion of Ukraine on the grounds of WP:CONCISE, WP:PRIMARY, and of course WP:DAB. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make a case for including the word "invasion" in the title? The article contains loads of content about what has happened after the invasion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a better suggestion on how to title this article? Honestly, I'd be okay with anything that doesn't incorrectly use parentheses to disambiguate between nothng. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be called the Russia-Ukraine war, which is what most reliable sources call it. All the issues we have with naming, including the misuse of the word invasion, come down to avoiding the obvious name. Opposition to this often hinges around the assertion that the war started in 2014, but reliable sources nonetheless persist in treating the past year as the war, as a quick search for Russia Ukraine war finds. his initial invasion plan has clearly failed, but Russia's war is far from over, As the Russia-Ukraine war enters its 378th day, A year of bitter and bloody war in Ukraine, Russia's war on Ukraine, one year on, Ukraine war live coverage, Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, its war against Ukraine, Russia's war in Ukraine It has been over a year, Lessons from a year of war in Ukraine, etc. CMD (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have one article titled Russo-Ukrainian War and another titled Russia–Ukraine War. If both articles are to be called "Russo-Ukranian War", then one should be titled Russo-Ukrainian War (2014–2022) and the other Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Implying there are two distinct wars with identical names, and parenthetical disambiguation is being used to differentiate the articles about them. That’s not gonna fly.  —Michael Z. 16:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not two different wars, two different stages of the same war. How about colons instead of parentheses? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that constitutes changing the scope of the other article, and is to be discussed there. Don’t forget there is already an article War in Donbas about the land war in eastern Ukraine up to February 2022, and separate articles about the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and Russian occupation of Crimea covering 2014 to the present.  —Michael Z. 17:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps that article should be split. Here's what I'm thinking: Russo-Ukrainian War should be trimmed to become a general overview of the war; Russo-Ukrainian War: 2014–2022 should be created as a spin-out of that article; Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) should be renamed Russo-Ukrainian War: 2022–present; and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should be turned into a spin-out of this article solely covering the invasion in February 2022. This would, however, create issues for the many articles that have "invasion" in their titles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make a case that the invasion ended? What day was that?  —Michael Z. 15:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The invasion ended on the day when Russian forces stopped advancing and taking more Ukrainian territory. Everything that has happened since then is a war and occupation, not an invasion. Doesn't anyone on the English Wikipedia know basic English? Any title including the word "invasion" above content about things that happened a long time after the invasion is simply ridiculous. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which day was that, tomorrow? It hasn’t happened. Two days ago: “Russia’s Wagner Group claims eastern Bakhmut as NATO warns Ukrainian city could fall within days.” Yesterday: “Russian forces likely advanced northwest of Bakhmut amid a likely increased tempo of Russian offensive operations in the area.”[3]  —Michael Z. 16:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac, Ancheta Wis, and Rosguill: This name change actually seems to be going quite poorly rather than smoothly: the daily page counts indicate that the recent name change has driven Wikipedia readers away from the article by the thousands. The daily page counts were about 50K per day, and have been driven down to under 25K per day as a result of the article name change. That seems fairly poor for the article. Could there be at least a temporary return to the old title over this week-end in order to allow editors to sort things out. Using standard Wikipedia name change procedures has driven away over half (thousands and thousands) of readers of this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the three of us were pinged--this seems to be a general concern that can motivate further move discussions, but there isn't an automatic backstop that we must reverse a move because of a shift in traffic (and it could be argued that the shift in traffic may even be a good sign if it means that people looking for other articles, e.g. Russo-Ukrainian War, find them more promptly). signed, Rosguill talk 18:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing it's because you three are admins. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a completely erroneous summation. The article is receiving the same amount of attention per day, it's just that half of it is going via the redirect from the old article title at present. See here. That's because the name change is only a few days old. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects from the former names seem to work. Traffic ought to even out, eventually. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just touched the infobox to be able to see the #Foreign involvement section. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop asking for exact days. Of course the fog of war precludes that. But what is known by most sources as the invasion seems to coincide with what our article calls the "first phase", which we are told ended in early April 2022. Anything that lasts over a year can't possibly be a single invasion. As an analogy, the Nazi and Soviet invasion of Poland took place in 1939, but the war and occupation lasted much longer. And you seem to take the Wagner Group's claims at face value. I don't think that we should rely on what they say. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And look at the animated map of the second phase in this article. It clearly shows that an invasion was not still taking place. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All it clearly shows is that Russia’s doing poorly at fulfilling the same goals.  —Michael Z. 18:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Russia's leadership would like to have continued the invasion to encompass all of Ukraine, but it was stopped. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn’t stopped. It continues trying to fulfil its same goals. Many sources support this. I’m repeating myself now, so I think I’ll decline to continue this conversation.  —Michael Z. 19:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's your own personal interpretation of the word "invasion". It can as easily be interpreted the other way, that the invasion is still ongoing, as Russians are still within Ukraine. The invasion ended on the day when Russian forces stopped advancing and taking more Ukrainian territory such a day has not arrived. This definition is not valid. Super Ψ Dro 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The invasion of Poland in 1939 ended with the full occupation of the country. As far as I know Ukraine has not been fully occupied and Russia has not been driven back to its original borders so this is still an ongoing invasion. BogLogs (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those of you who oppose having "invasion" in the title: how would you like this article be titled? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This thread started with an OP about unnecessary disambiguation in the present AT but has digressed to a discussion about splitting the article. The argument to split is firstly based on an assertion that the invasion occurred in 2022 and that what has occurred since (ie in 2023) is no longer an invasion. An argument to split is based on a narrow interpretation of the definition of invasion being an immediate act of entering another country. Other views are that the definitions of invasion are more broadly construed and include [attempting] to take control. The 2022 invasion is part of a war, commencing in 2014. Some sources describe current events as a war. WP:AT tells us that we almost always rely on sources to tell us how to title an article. How an event is titled and how an event might be described in sources are not the same thing. The former is use in a title, while the latter is taken from prose. We should be looking to titles to tell us how an article should be titled - in good quality reliable sources. Unfortunately, it might be too soon for this to be evident. But Wiki follows, it does not lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is not a strong desire to split the article(s), I am still for moving this page to Russian invasion of Ukraine or back to the original 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for Russian invasion of Ukraine too. I actually took a look at the disambiguation page Russian invasion of Ukraine (disambiguation), and there's nothing there that actually conflicts with the title. There's no reason to disambiguate the title at all using a date, as far as I can tell. This simple title would also resolve the sub-article naming issues with the parentheses.
I think if the RM-requesting user can provide a good case and explain the lack of need for disambiguation, this could happen. HappyWith (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that that page was created two days after my initial post. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2023 (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.

Section on Phase 3 on invasion links to a subordinate sibling article about Phase 4, however, there is no Phase 4 section in this article: Is this an issue or not an issue for the main article?

The following subordinate sibling article is linked in the main article however the main article does not recognize or discuss a Phase 4 of the invasion at all. Is this an issue or not an issue for the main article, or, is the subordinate sibling article erroneous and anecdotal here: Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do not use absolute phase numbers. We should stop using this novel nomenclature someone found in a single source as it is borderline FRINGE, and will continue to be problematic.  —Michael Z. 20:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly certain that 'second phase' was predominant in both the domestic press and the international press after Russia was repulsed from Kyiv. Once the second phase became common verbiage in the international press, it was natural for them to also start making back references to the 'first phase' which came before the second phase, even though it was only called that after the second phase was introduced in the press after Russia was repulsed from Kyiv. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really remember that. Can you link the sources that said “second phase”? HappyWith (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 3 references of the dozens in the international press to get things started: [4], [5], and [6]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera numbered phases in its six-month summary of the war at Psaropoulos, John (24 August 2022). "Timeline: Six months of Russia's war in Ukraine". John Sauter (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks like it is heading directly towards a "Phase 4" designation and section within the next month or two, for lack of participation of editors in this discussion. If no one has a follow-up opinion, then the direction is towards starting a "Phase 4" section in this 2022 Russian invasion article within the next month of two. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those "phases" are wildly different from the ones that we use. While there is use by reliable sources of "phases" to describe the invasion, there isn't RS consensus on where those phases start and end, and such consensus will only emerge (if ever) long after the invasion has concluded. DecafPotato (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2023
While we might title sections within an article with considerable licence, titling articles is quite another thing. Describing and naming of phases is a matter for reliable sources and more specifically good quality sources - which WP:NEWSORG are not. We don't lead but follow the sources and there needs to be a consensus in the sources to apply a particular title. Such a consensus can only follow the events. We don't have crystal balls. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much choice here since sysops (Vanamonde) has already decided on retaining a Wikipedia article for the Timeline of Phase 4. Also, Michael and Steven have both opted to oppose the renaming of that 'Phase 4' timeline during a recent discussion on that Talk page. It appears that without further discussion, then this main article will need to go in the direction of naming new sections in accordance with sysops decisions for retaining the 'Phase 4' Timeline article here in this main article sometime during the next month or two. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mention the renaming discussion, but that doesn’t support your argument at all when I actually look at the discussion; Michael, as far as I can tell, said he’s against the phase terminology in general in the discussion, and Steven just opposed it per WP:FORK. Similarly, that sysop’s closing statement was certainly not what you’re describing, as they mainly talked about how in that specific AFD, the arguments on both sides were messy and that “original research concerns about the title had not been resolved”, concluding that the content should be kept, but leaving it to later disussion as to what title or article it should be under. That is not a “decision to retain the article” in its current state and title by any means. HappyWith (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: You can link the Phase 4 Timeline article directly to see that sysops (Vanamonde) has endorsed it and kept it to this current day. I'm not sure what you mean here in your comments. Both Michael and Steven have opposed removing references to Phase 4 as well in those Talk page discussions. Unless there is a reasonable discussion among editors here soon, then the 'Phase 4' discussion will likely prevail in this main article here within the next month or two, given the opposition to removing it. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD closure (by @Vanamonde93) said, ... And there are genuine original research concerns with the title that have not been rebutted. The title, and the need for a standalone page, could benefit from further discussion but given that this is already a hot mess, and that AfD isn't really the venue for discussing a merger or a retitling. And sysops have no additional weight in content disputes than any other editor. DecafPotato (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was the first part of the comments where Vanamonde ended up endorsing keeping Phase 4 in the title; this was followed by the second part of the related comments where Steven and Michael both opposed the removal of the name 'Phase 4' from the Timelines. At present, it appears that by the end of this month, March, and the end of April, that this main article will be fully recognizing 'Phase 4' is the absence of any related discussion about it on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the section where Vanamonde "endorsed keeping Phase 4 in the title", because I'm looking at the closing remarks right now, and I don't see anything of the sort in there. It wouldn't matter anyway, because, as DecafPotato says, sysops have no additional weight in content dispute, but I think you're misinterpreting the results of that discussion. I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth, but Michael said on the talk page, and I quote, The vast majority of sources do not recognize any “phase 3.” A better title would be Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (September to November 2022), using a terminology that’s widely used, intrinsically meaningful, familiar to all, and easily adjusted if necessary, and later clarified that the phase terminology doesn’t meet the WP:CRITERIA. I have no idea what phase 3 is. Slatersteven didn't support the phase terminology in that discussion either, only opposing the move because of WP:FORK. HappyWith (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you have not achieved consensus to insert the phase 4 into this article. You say that because of the absence of any related discussion about it on this Talk page, this article will soon include that terminology, but that's not how the process works. The discussion slowing down is not a substitute for consensus, especially since, with my rough count, most editors in this discussion are against this proposal. HappyWith (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole business with "phases" is in need of a centralized, well-formed RFC to establish a clear, well-sourced format for organizing the war's progression that editors can agree on, because it seems like no one likes this current situation. HappyWith (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer if we could show the map in the body in the article and have the Infobox with a gallery of photos of the conflict. What's everyone's thoughts? Aaron106 (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to have quite a few images. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the infobox. Aaron106 (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No thats on like 200 pages and the map is needed on those @Aaron106 Starship 24 (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding NATO as supporting Ukraine

It’s undeniable that NATO is supporting Ukraine, so why not put NATO as supporting Ukraine while putting Belarus as supporting Russia? 142.197.242.221 (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered many many times, please read the FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is something like the 5th time I've seen this. I really wish people read the quick FAQ before asking this. @142.197.242.221 Starship 24 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine is not a member of NATO; that would be scope creep. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NATO is supporting Ukraine. It would be scope creep if we talked about relations in other matter. In NATO response to the invasion, well the invasion is the topic and response is a major section. Also, it does proabbly have its own article. @Ancheta Wis Starship 24 (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope your response doesn't imply that you support the suggestion of 142.197.242.221 . I don't think you mean to add support for adding another 2 co-belligerents to the respective sides of the infobox. Right? -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well either put NATO as supporting Ukraine or take Belarus off the infobox. 142.197.242.221 (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About 70 sovereign states are materially supporting Ukraine, but not involved in the conflict. At least one NATO member (Hungary) is not. But none of them is a criminal aggressor due to their provision of territory for the crime of aggression like Belarus.  —Michael Z. 07:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Belarus is not yet a co-belligerent; Belarus has previously exercised with Russian troops
in Zapad 2021. Maybe we might AGF for now? -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russia invaded Ukraine from Belarus and sent missiles from Belarus. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont support it, however for this to be somewhat talked about in the article is reasonable. @Ancheta Wis Starship 24 (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NO change can be made without wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

with you . Perhaps Belarus might not be placed in the infobox, right now? (This means seeking consensus in the infobox, to drop the supporters line; keep only the belligerents with boots on the ground.) -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus seems to be rather strong that what Belarus did/does is very different from sending supplies, I don't think it should be removed. TylerBurden (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then add Iran. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the limit. Should North Korea be added? Syria? Is just sending materials enough to warrant being in (in which case we should add NATO). This needs to be discussed in a non-demanding way (Add iran, either add NATO or take Belarus out, etc.). There is no one right obvious opinion. @Ancheta Wis@DinoSoupCanada Starship 24 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has gotten of the topic of this discussion. Please start a new topic @Ancheta Wis @TylerBurden @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The invasion has long ended

The invasion has long since ended, it should also be entered as such, and only refer to the Russo-Ukrainian War, see example 2003 invasion of Iraq. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it has, but the title and content of this page seem to be controlled by a group of people who, for a reason I cannot fathom, seem to think that "invasion" means "war and occupation". I have given up arguing with them above. Maybe you can knock some sense into them? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mongol invasion of Europe is called an invasion and lasted years. @Uwdwadafsainainawinfi@Phil Bridger Starship 24 (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there was more than one, Germany, Hungary, Poland? Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russia launched 4 offensives Ukraine 2 @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, offensives in one nation, not invasions of separate ones. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See spillover the war. @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Within the bounds of the Iraq invasion, the government of Iraq was toppled after 29 days and that's what ended the invasion so early. This invasion is an entirely different situation where an incursion has happened but there hasn't really been a conclusion yet. Basically what I'm saying is that until the conflict is fought to a definite standstill, Ukraine pushes Russia out of Ukraine, a treaty is signed, or Russia occupies Ukraine, "invasion" is still an accurate title. Nice argument (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been previous discussions here about transitioning this article to an "Annexations" article since the frontline appears not to have moved for about 3 months now. Other editors like Michael, have stated that it does not rule out Russia to renew its incursions further into Ukraine on either a larger or a smaller scale. Michael seems to say its the one of the other, and we can't say which without reliable sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starship 24, by saying that Russia launched four offensives you seem to be agreeing that this is not just a single invasion, although the current title claims that it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formating to conventional tabs after outdent. The invasion article starting by recognizing that it was an invasion with four separate fronts launched from different locations. They are each identified at the start of the invasion section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven said that the Mongol invasion doesnt count as there were multiple offensives. I am saying this war has multiple offensives as well. @ErnestKrause@Phil Bridger Starship 24 (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I said multiple invasions of different countries. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russia has attacked multipled coutnries (Georgia, Poland, Moldova, etc.) @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this timeline/offensive. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is trying to imply that one missile missing its target and landing in another country constitutes an invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I am stating that this war has happened in more than one country. Russia didn't invade Poland, there was a spillover there @HammerFilmFan@Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So then this should be called Russia's invasion of Europe, as more than ONE country is involved. This is why your invoking of the Mongol invasion of Europe makes no sense. It is not analogous to the invasion of one country, no matter how many overshots there are, only Ukraine has been invaded. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a couple of errant missiles is not 'spillover' HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See spillover of the war @HammerFilmFan@Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There was less damage done by those missiles than a single week of car wrecks in Poland. Total non-issue. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of thousands

At this point, I think we are allowed to say that the war has caused, "HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of deaths", not, "tens of thousands" as the article says. Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it, source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's been over 150 thousand deaths on the Russian side, so taking into account the Ukrainian millitary + civillian losses it's easily 200-300 thousans Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has there, Source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TNYT states 200K for Russians here: [7]. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The number of Russian troops killed and wounded in Ukraine is approaching 200,000, ", not killed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Person who started this thread is not responding, though it might be worth making a review of the Casualties and Deaths table in the article. I'm thinking that it could be improved since some of the references are quite old, and some of the estimates used conflict by over a factor of ten; that's not so good. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. @ErnestKrause Starship 24 (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am sorry, I was busy.
I know did not provide the source, BUT every single piece of information you can obtain suggests the death count is in ghe hundreds of thousands. Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a matter of internal consistency. Our well-sourced casualties tables indicate ~45,000 confirmed deaths, and up to ~240,000 estimated deaths (deaths only) using the higher death estimates. If we're going by confirmed loss of life, then we retain tens of thousands, else if we go by speculative loss of life, then it'd be hundreds of thousands. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section trims

The lead section appears to be getting clunky, dated and long-winded; I'm suggesting that it is improved by removing the second paragraph which summarizes, somewhat gratuitously, the Background section which appears 2 inches below it on the screen. Suggesting here that the article lead section looks better without reduplicating a summary of the Background section as the second paragraph of the lead section since any editor can just look down two inches lower on the screen to read the Background section. Starship is opposed and is starting to revert this on the main page. Other editors comments for support/oppose if possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should summarize the whole article, regardless of where the content summarized is located. DecafPotato (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per WP:LEAD, it is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. A good lead should be focused and succinct. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section is a summary of the article as a whole, it is does not cover all of the article as much as covering the main points. That seems to be Cinderella's point here and I'm agreeing. The second paragraph of the lead section seems to present a gratuitous summary of the Background section which any reader can look at by looking down two inches on the screen to the Background section which is right there. The second paragraph of the lead section should be deleted as unnecessary to this article about the invasion which is the main topic. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ICC

https://amp.theguardian.com/law/2023/mar/13/icc-to-issue-first-arrest-warrants-linked-to-russias-invasion-of-ukraine Elinruby (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legal aspects of the invasion are being covered on other Wikipedia sibling articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 March 2023

Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) → Russian invasion of Ukraine – Starting this new RM per the discussion above. This article was moved from its longstanding title of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to the current name a week ago, following this RM, on the grounds that the invasion remains ongoing. However, this new title is problematic: it uses parentheses to indicate the years of the conflict, (2022–present), but there are no other articles titled Russian invasion of Ukraine to disambiguate from. As you (should) know, parentheses in article titles are used solely for disambiguation purposes on Wikipedia, but here there is nothing to disambiguate this article from. When I brought this up a few days ago, some argued that there have been other Russian invasions of Ukraine as well, and the DAB page Russian invasion of Ukraine (disambiguation) was subsequently created. However, not only is there still no other article titled Russian invasion of Ukraine, but even if there was, this article is unequivocally still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As there was disagreement above as to whether the developments in Ukraine post-2022 are still considered to be part of the "invasion", I propose moving this article to simply Russian invasion of Ukraine, per WP:CONCISE and the misuse of parentheses for pseudo-disambiguation.

There is also a second question, concerning the 128 other articles, drafts, templates, and categories (the search results page includes 14 redirects and the main article) that have Russian invasion of Ukraine in the title. Regardless of the outcome of this RM, should those pages be moved to Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, or Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)? Note that due to the number of affected pages, I won't be adding them to this RM nomination template, but if someone else wishes to do so, they may. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Proposal

The number of move requests for this page is out of control. Propose a one year moratorium on move requests.  // Timothy :: talk  10:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  10:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this particular horse has already bolted, I would otherwise support a moratorium. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure that works for an article which is dated in its parenthetical portion; if the invasion ends anytime this year, then the title needs to be updated at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – No. As an ongoing event, things are bound to change at any given time. If there is to be a moratorium, it shouldn't be one year long. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support the current title and the moratorium. An argument for a moratorium of less than 1 year makes sense only if it is likely that a culminating point were to be reached before then. For example if one side were to collapse this year, as their materiel or troops were to become exhausted, and they were to be defeated (then 'present' in the current article title would turn into an actual date in the current title).
    But consider the prospect that the belligerents might continue in this way for decades, given that supporters are providing additional materiel and training. Don't forget that the supporters are learning about combat capabilities for themselves, and that their timescales reach into the 2040s, and beyond, for themselves. The supporters are actually conserving their cash and their own troops.
    -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I don't agree that constant page moves are a good thing I fundamentally oppose this suggestion. Page titling needs to be agreed by consensus and unfortunately this may take several discussions to get right. But surely that's better than having some arbitrary moratorium which could result in the wrong page name being retained without the ability to discuss the position. Tracland (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Have not already had a page move? Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1144640244"