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 165.234.101.99 (talk) at 13:25, 6 April 2023 (→‎Source for "Serbia imposed sanctions"?: 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.

Phase terminology in this article

Is there any actual reason why we need "Phase x" in each subheader in the article? There are dates and names for each of them already there. Couldn't we change "Second phase: South-Eastern front (8 April – 5 September)" to "South-Eastern front (8 April – 5 September)", etc? HappyWith (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently being discussed in one of the threads above this one? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s not really anything relating to my specific question, no. HappyWith (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an on-going discussion and critique within Wikipedia regarding which reliable source to use in the various Timeline articles which document this invasion, currently in the phase x to phase (x+1) notation; have you reviewed these. Most attention, though without consensus as yet, has gone to the NYRB article from January which discussed the invasion as having four chapters; have you read these Wikipedia discussions? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my position is that they’re original research and should be removed. My question in this discussion is, why do we need the ordinal numerals in this article? Wouldn’t it resolve a lot of the conflicts if we just grouped events by the descriptions and dates, and threw out the contentious ordinals? HappyWith (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The terminology originated in the international press when Russia retreated from Kyiv and the international press started widely using the terminology of the Second Phase as having started. This was accepted by virtually all nations in the international press as the start of the Second Phase of the Russian invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that’s true that they all called it the second stage, phase, etc, but I’m not convinced that the terminology has been consistently used for the subsequent stages of the war. My question is, why do we need to use the terminology on this page as the names of subsections? If we got rid of the numbers, it would make it much easier to create a subsection for the “fourth stage” with the stalemate and Bakhmut front, since we wouldn’t need to argue endlessly over whether it was the “fourth phase” or not - we could just call it “Second stalemate and Bakhmut push” with the date range in parentheses. HappyWith (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2023

Russia is putting in a vast effort to fully subdue Bahkmut at this time, it is difficult to see them backing off on this issue. It seems to be reaching a "Mariupol" level of attention from the Russian invasion force. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, though I don't see how it relates to what I was asking. HappyWith (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While sources did refer to a "new phase" for the retreat from Kyiv, we have adopted this terminology when it is not otherwise supported by good quality sources for other sections that follow. The use of "Phase x" implies authority in naming, which isn't the case - it is largely arbitrary and constructed by our editors. I agree with HappyWith, that we should name sections descriptively or by date. We should avoid implying definitive divisions. Wiki follows; it does not lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. No one has given reasons to keep the numbers in this page, so I'm going to remove them now as best as I can. HappyWith (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The international press has made dozens upon dozens of references to the 'second phase' of the invasion after the Russian retreat from Kyiv; there is no getting around that. Regarding the "Phase 4" discussion, then there is still the issue of the Wikipedia sibling Timeline articles which have incorporated 'Phase 4' into their titles and which are already linked with this main article. You must have seen these items in this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are only justifying labeling phase 1 and 2 here. Everything else is original research. HappyWith (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not how consensus was established on this Talk page several months ago, when you were not that active here on this Talk page. At that time, when "Phase two" was being used by vast portions of the international press, it was felt by the prevailing Wikipedia editors here that when the Ukraine counter-offensives took place, that a new section called "Phase 3" was called for in the Invasion article. At the time, and for months after it was named, this seemed to be perfectly reasonable and not criticized since it followed Phase 2, which was predominantly recognized and used throught the international press at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But what was the reasoning for that? What reliable sources supported this terminology? Just because some editors decided to keep it in at the time doesn’t mean it can’t be challenged now. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, especially when there seems to have been no solid policy justification for the original consensus. HappyWith (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to not want to accept that the international press overwhelmingly adopted the language of the 'Second Phase' of the invasion after Russia retreated from Kyiv. Once you can endorse to me that you understand that this was the standard terminology used in the international press, then your questions might make no sense. It is almost as if you a pretending that the international press did not use the phrase "Second Phase" after the Russian retreat from Kyiv in dozens upon dozens of articles at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the "second phase" terminology didn't exist. I think I was pretty clear there. HappyWith (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you fully accept that "second phase" terminology is established then it seems you must also understand how the international press started simultaneously referring to the first phase as coming before the 'second phase'. For example, see the January article on the Russian invasion in NYBR. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. HappyWith (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORG is not a good source for "critical analysis" of the invasion. While we might refer to the counter-offensive as being described as a second phase, it is arguably much more valid and useful to use counter-offensive as a section heading. The key point though, is that this phase labeling does not ipso fact extend to subsequent temporal divisions. That, I would see, to be the main point being made against phase labeling. Nit-picking over "phase 2" ignores the broader issue - labeling subsequent temporal divisions. I would agree (per my above) that a descriptive labelling of sections is preferable to the phase-numeric labeling. Phase-numeric labelling only conveys temporal order which is otherwise apparent from the TOC and from the structure of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You put it better than I did. HappyWith (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that solves the issue of all of the Timeline articles for the Russian invasion currently stating the "Phase x" language which the main article here is linking. I mean, even if I accept your position for now, then how do you address all of those Timeline sibling articles which use 'Phase x' in their titles? Your approach seem incomplete and partial. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could just title them by their date spans, no? That's how Timeline of the war in Donbas and Timeline of the Syrian civil war do it (specifically in the Syria one, you have titles like "Timeline of the Syrian civil war (May–August 2012)"). HappyWith (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main issues are the Wikipedia articles with titles like "Timeline of Phase 3 of Invasion" and "Timeline of Phase 4 of Invasion", etc. Those articles are already linked into this main article of the Invasion. They appear inconsistent with the section titles recently edited into this main article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't we just change those article titles to match with the section titles, like I said in my previous message? HappyWith (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not sure that you would be able to do that, even if Cinderella were to help you; I mean its 4 timeline articles for the Invasion with separate Talk pages, which is not easy to try even if with both of you together. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't it be possible? Couldn't we just make an RFC here or on the main timeline talk page - where all timeline talk is centralized anyway - and leave notices anywhere else it would be needed? HappyWith (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finland and Sweden joining NATO as a result

Finland and Sweden have applied for NATO membership following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War ([1][2][3][4]). Finland just became a member and Sweden is expected to progress soon ([5]).

Finland and Sweden joining (or applying for) NATO is a direct consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (aforementioned WP:RS explain that path). This is an important cause-consequence relation from the historic point of view. I propose to include this into the "Results" of the infobox. While the war itself is ongoing, there are already major (historic) consequences of it. This is also consistent with the infobox on other wars i.e. major conflicts often have implications, with the due WP:WEIGHT, beyond the conflicting parties. -- Mindaur (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a grand total of one insignificant mention of this information in the entire article. If it is not significant enough for a) a detailed mention in the body and b) a mention in the lede then it has no business being mentioned in the infobox. Further, the infobox documentation explicitly state that the 'results' parameter should be used to state either 'x victory' or 'inconclusive'. In cases where this is inadequate, a note should be left in the parameter directed readers to the appropriate section where the outcome is discussed in detail. However, in this case, the conflict is on-going, so the 'results' parameter is not even used. Some vague (or even explicit) reference to the content of other articles is not adequate reason in itself to disregard the infobox's or its parameter's purpose(s). The only actionable element of this request is to update the article to note that Finland is now a member as that information is not presently contained within the article (Addendum: which I see Ernest Krause has already done). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, one line is all we need. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Things have been developing since the start of the invasion. The fact that it is not mentioned in the article right now doesn't mean it doesn't have due WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS on this. There are plenty of WP:RSes, suggesting it's W:N and significant. As for the infobox "Result" being one line, then that's not the case with the infobox of pretty much every other war: World War I, World War II, Yom Kippur War, Iran–Iraq War, War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and so on. We certainly don't have a consensus on this. -- Mindaur (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not fit for the results section of the infobox, but it can definetely be expanded beyond a hastily added ″insignificant mention″. TylerBurden (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source for "Serbia imposed sanctions"?

Under the section "Reactions", an image shows that Serbia has imposed sanctions, but the given sources don't say that. At least I didn't find it. Can we make it more clear where the information comes from? Or, conclude that it is, perhaps, an error? Donaastor (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point being that Serbia is leaning towards Russian sympathies? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point being have they imposed sanctions as [[6]] says they have not yet. Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, the Serbian states several times it has to imposed sanctions. I suggest we remove this part of the article. 165.234.101.99 (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sections "Kyiv and northern front" and "North-eastern front"?

There doesn't seem to be much reason for treating initial attacks at Chernihiv and Sumy as a separate front, as the Russian forces which did achieved breakthrough there, then proceeded to advance towards Kyiv from eastern side. So I would suggest merging "Kyiv and northern front" and "North-eastern front" sections into single "Northern front" section.--Staberinde (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1148488158"