Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 41.116.40.211 (talk) at 13:23, 28 May 2023 (→‎Add The US and NATO to the Belligerents on the Ukraine side.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Independent Ukraine, a loaded term

Since people do not tend to talk about an 'Independent' France, Germany or USA, why are is this word being used in relation to the Ukraine? If the article is to be considered natural, should it not avoid questionable or loaded terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.120 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only used in the background section to contrast the newly independent Ukraine with the previous period, so I don't see much of an issue here. Alaexis¿question? 19:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but it still reflects a bias, because no one ever refers to “independent Russia” after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The contrasting usage falsely implies that the Soviet Union became Russia, while other republics had been its chattel.  —Michael Z. 22:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems biased on your part to skip the entire history of forced Russification suffered by the republics of the USSR, where Russia played a central and controlling role towards the other republics. 189.219.230.116 (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

change A. Zakharchenko
(2014–2018) to A. Zakharchenko †
(2014–2018) Sergey Aksyonov (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn’t killed in action. He was assassinated.  —Michael Z. 02:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Maidan Revolution image

Despite the war starting on the 20th of February, 2 days before the ousting of Yanukovych, the Revolution wasn’t part of the war. We should remove that image. TankDude2000 (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The image doesn’t picture part of the war and it wasn’t even shot during the war.
Replace it with an image of Girkin’s Russian irregulars storming government buildings in Sloviansk, which was the actual start of the war in Donbas.  —Michael Z. 15:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. HappyWith (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and  Done by user Asarlaí. HappyWith (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2023

it is also proved that Russian troops carried out the looting of world cultural property

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/01/14/these-are-some-of-the-most-famous-ukrainian-works-of-art-looted-by-russia/?sh=323dfd989b77 Dmytro1888UAZOV1888 (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Iran to Belligerents on Russian side

Based on the amount of drone, microchips and body armour that have been donated from Iran to Russia, and even the fact that they have sent actual troops to help with drone operation. I think it would be justified to add Iran to the "Supported by" section in the belligerents on the russian side

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/iran-sent-troops-ukraine-help-russia-use-iranian-made-drones-biden-adm-rcna53277#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20has%20evidence%20that,Biden%20administration%20officials%20said%20Thursday. Source for Iranian troops sent to the war Hholdenday (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Belarus is a belligerent because it was used as a staging ground for the invasion. Arms suppliers and technical support do not qualify as belligerents. If they did, there would be dozens of countries to add. Mr rnddude (talk)
Do we need to add Iran to the FQ about belligerent? Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian personnel deploying in theater to assist with technology transfer doesn't even qualify as "supported by" according to consensus. Consider that British and possibly other personnel also have deployed in theater for similar purposes. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh but if Iran, a country which is yet to be proven to be involved in this war, is added to that list, then so should the US, the rest of NATO and any other country that has sent heavy military Aid and equipment to Ukraine 41.116.40.211 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as no one has agreed to it this is irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TTF Gas price chart should be updated.

The prices have recovered to pre-war levels. 90.156.66.120 (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

Add Iran as supporter of Russia in belligerents section. There are already 5 sources in the "international relations" section confirming this. Hholdenday (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being discussed above, and the answer has not changed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Being discussed above. Also, read the FAQ. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait where is the FAQ? I swear there was one... ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

WP:DENY, sockpuppet of a well-known disruptive user in this topic area — Czello (music) 07:26, 11 May 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.


There are still debates on whether the invasion of Crimea (the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War) started on February 20 or 23, so I guess that we should replace February 20 with February 20/23. WikiManUser21 (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — Czello (music) 17:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: Marking as answered. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:39, 10 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

correct the start of the Russian and Ukrainian war, separating Crimea annexation as it misleads making people think the war started back in 2014. 84.65.90.61 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It did, per RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russia-NATO edits

Hi RadioactiveBoulevardier, could you explain the issues you have with this edit?

  • In his speech justifying the invasion of Ukraine, Putin falsely claimed that NATO military infrastructure was being built up inside Ukraine and was a threat to Russia. - This is in line with the sources and is surely an important thing to mention, as it was one of Putin's main excuses for invading.
  • Lavrov's claim that NATO started a proxy war against Russia had been left with no rebuttal, so I added one: NATO says it is not at war with Russia; its official policy is that it does not seek confrontation with Russia, but rather its members support Ukraine in "its right to self-defense, as enshrined in the UN Charter". If one party is accusing another of starting a war, I think it's important to mention what the other party has to say about that. My wording closely follows what the source says.
  • Russian leaders described this expansion as a violation of Western powers' informal assurances that NATO would not expand eastward → Putin claimed Western powers broke promises that NATO would not let any Eastern European countries join - This is more in line with the sources. Also "NATO expansion" is a term used in Russian propaganda to imply military expansion/conquest. The more neutral term is enlargement.

Thanks. – Asarlaí (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
I was about to go to bed when I saw this notification, so I’ll give you the quick(er) version.
I don’t have an issue with every single change in that edit, but there were a large number of changes, and some of them seemed…imperfect. Two or three rewordings I remember being slightly concerned by.
Also worth pointing out, this is a C-class article as of this writing. There are a lot of issues running the gamut from the usual technical issues to the broad and subjective questions of layout.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RadioactiveBoulevardier, when you have time, let me know which changes you have concerns about. Thanks. – Asarlaí (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has just become leftist propaganda

WP:SOAP. — Czello (music) 09:40, 22 May 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.


"Ukrainian forces have also been accused of committing various war crimes, including mistreatment of detainees, though on a much smaller scale than Russian forces." ? 151.36.12.52 (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? What is wrong with this? Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a breath of fresh air, usually driveby IPs are claiming that this article is right-wing propaganda. signed, Rosguill talk 15:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cited with notorious commie outfits AP and OHCHR.  —Michael Z. 00:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Intense discussion. For everyone who knows. And who organized the transpost, buses.
For +/- 5,000,000 refugees from Ukraine ? President of Ukraine? Ministry of Ukraine  ?
Organized refugee ( and accommodation ) in the European Union , USA and Canada . For ... 50,000,000 .
Claims from the Ukrainians would have decreased. :)91.183.159.198 (talk) 09:39, 22 May 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.

Notorious anti-Russian Media Outfits

Bizarre conspiracy theories, not constructive. — Czello (music) 18:52, 21 May 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.


Due to the lack of independent reporters on the ground - or first-hand reports from the battlefield - perhaps Wikipedia could/should question some of the more notorious Washington-backed media outfits and much of their wilder/more outrageous claims of anti-Russian human rights abuses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.24 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that US media is not state-controlled? Or that we do not solely rely on US media? Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But do you not people understand that, while US media might not be DIRECTLY state controlled - it does tend the follow the Govt/corporate line? Given that this line in strongly anti-Russian, is it little suprise that nation/corporate media outlets tend to reflect this line in their 'reporting'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.24 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? Evidence? And (again) we do not only use US media. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But does not that miss the point that, here in the UK, most media outlets take their lead from the US corporate media and Govt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.24 (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? No it does not miss the point, its that you do not have one that is valid. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, any sources for the wild conspiracy theory and allegations? We can read RT but it's not a reliable source. How about Al Jazeera? Andre🚐 17:55, 21 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

Change "the Euromaidan protests" to "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests" [1] Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon 1 source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobin is approved on the Wikipedia list of reliable sources. Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is still only one source, and read its wp:rsp entry to see why this edit can't be down. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says it is reliable and that it is sometimes biased, but bias is not a problem if it is reliable. Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also says " Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.", or (as I said above) this is just one source saying this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But if it is reliable, then it is factual, and we should report facts. Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the label to something so contentious based on one source is WP:UNDUE. — Czello (music) 14:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is conflation. Jacobin was determined to be avowedly partisan with a focus on political commentary and opinion rather than on news report[ing] in this discussion. Hence, the warning on WP:RSP to consider both NPOV and due weight when using the source. This is even more a concern when considering applying contentious labels which should be avoided without a wide consensus between sources and even then be applied with in-text attribution, rather than in wikivoice. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that says that it has "a reputation for fact-checking", and this is about facts. I opened a discussion on the source discussion forum about this. Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also says Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'. Including a contentious statement based on a partisan source is not due weight. — Czello (music) 14:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source says it, it cannot be "contentious". Jacobin "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If a reliable source says it, it cannot be "contentious"." just not true. On wikipedia all contentious content has to have been published in a reliable source by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not like Fox News. The bias there is a form of hate and leads to fake news. Jacobin's bias does not make it tell lies. Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be contentious when it's a very radical label not given by the majority of sources, and instead only comes from a source known for being partisan (one whose statements should normally be attributed). — Czello (music) 14:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just Jacobin that says this. [2] "the far right Svoboda party was the most active collective agent in conventional and confrontational Maidan protest events, while the Right Sector was the most active collective agent in violent protest events". Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you get from that to "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests"? Because what you just quoted is very different from the text you're trying to use it to support. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back [3] "A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War", "There’s no doubt US officials backed and exploited Euromaidan for their own ends", "The same far right that had led the charge in toppling Yanukovych, including Parubiy, found themselves with plum roles in the interim government that followed". Chances last a finite time (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our sourcing standards exclude titles. The NBC piece appears to be largely opinion/analysis and to be marked as such. You've still got the problem that far-right led =/= far right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I should write "far-right led, U.S.-backed protests" instead? Chances last a finite time (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Branko Marcetic is an outspoken partisan political editorialist, not a reporter in Ukraine nor an expert on recent Ukrainian history. He didn’t consult any fact-checkers when he wrote that Ukrainian Nazis toppled Yanukovych (in fact it was the Verkhovna Rada, where Yanukovych’s own party members held the controlling votes). This is pure POV pushing.  —Michael Z. 19:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac You say that "He didn’t consult any fact-checkers when he wrote that Ukrainian Nazis toppled Yanukovych", but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine) says "Jacobin meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". I opened a discussion at the reliable source forum Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea, but I do not understand why you make this claim. Chances last a finite time (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s an editorial. What you tout as Marcetic’s “facts” are contradicted by numerous more reliable and more recent sources used in articles on related subjects.  —Michael Z. 20:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea "Yet for most Western observers, many of its basic, well-documented facts have been either excised to push a simplistic, black-and-white narrative, or cast as misinformation and propaganda, like the crucial role of the far right in the revolution." There is propaganda that tries to wash this away, but Jacobin's reporting is strong and reliable. Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the article linked to with the words “crucial role.” What does it actually say on the subject?  —Michael Z. 20:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that information contained within this article points to American meddling in the internal affairs of the Ukraine, is it not reasonable to mention how the "US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War"? For while the "American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities — democratic assistance, demooocracy promotion, civil society support, etc", are there not indications that their (dirty) work, however labeled, "seeks to influence political change in Ukraine"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.85 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Wagner, the Freedom Russian Legion and other militias alike be included in the belligerents at this point?

The comment could be made that Wagner and other private militias on the Russian side are not acting independently and are just part of Russia. However, the Freedom Russian Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps are taking part in the war, while being independent from any of the armies. 84.125.94.214 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Those are not independent actors. Andre🚐 07:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agred. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add The US and NATO to the Belligerents on the Ukraine side.

since Ukraine is obviously supported by these countries and some of their military equipment, those of the United States in particular, are used by Anti-Putin groups; in the spirit of unbiasness & accurate reporting isn't this a fair move? 41.116.40.211 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War&oldid=1157418798"