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 Cinderella157 (talk | contribs) at 08:51, 18 June 2024 (→Mines in Ukrainian port approaches: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Too many banners

Map which shows territories controlled and regained from Russia in Ukraine is somewhat misleading

The first map at the top uses a very similar colo(u)r for bodies of water and territories that Russia no longer occupies. This makes the area around the Dnipro river confusing, as a reader could very well believe that it is territory formerly occupied by Russian forces due to the similar colors. A change in colors for this map (such as changing the color of territories regained by Ukraine to a color other than blue) could be helpful. Thanks Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light green or a deeper yellow could both work. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow is already the color Ukrainian held territory is being used for, and any other shade could still be mistaken. Green would give the idea of "Ukraine good Russia bad" by implying Ukraine retaking territory is a good thing(while it might be a good thing for you or others, it goes against the idea that wikipedia should be a neutral source) Purple could work though, it is different from the rest of the map and is more neutral Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a light shade of purple would work best. – Asarlaí (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have realized that most maps in this article use the same format as the top one. Making changes would require a lot of time, as it is preferable to have the maps coincide with eachother colorwise, so keep that in consideration Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should be had at c:File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. Melmann 11:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there needs to be a broader question on whether it should be included in the map at all. The other way around (territory recaptured by Russia) isn't indicated in any way, making the map unbalanced in terms of what it's trying to portray. Right now, for example, there is no indication that those two areas captured by Russia in the 2024 Kharkiv offensive were previously indicated as "light blue" on the map. So in effect, the map is presenting a biased view where Ukrainian territorial regains are represented, but Russian territorial regains are not. I think this should be addressed.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

maybe it would be better to get a gif which shows the evolution of front lines throughout the war every month or so, and remove the idea of "formerly occupied by ___" all together, which would make the map more straight forward and unbiased Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the map, has anyone ever explained how it is not in violation of WP:NOTNEWS? TylerBurden (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that remotely a relevant policy here? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the blue-shaded areas are derived directly from whichever areas were colored in red during the early period of the war (February-March 2022), and are thus prone to the errors inherent in breaking news reports. As a result, the boundaries of this blue area are highly suspect.
As an example, I recently found that the cities of Bohodukhiv and Derhachi were denoted as having been previously Russian-occupied, based on a vaguely worded report that an editor had seemingly misinterpreted on 26 February 2022. I demonstrated on the talk page that based on more recent retrospective sources, those cities had never been occupied in the first place. The map's primary editor indulged my request and shifted the blue area so that it fell just outside of the aforementioned cities, despite, in the case of Bohodukhiv, there being no evidence that Russian forces were ever anywhere near this city. On these grounds I can say that at the very least, some parts of the blue-shaded regions on the map are a total mess of synthesis and original research. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude Your response to this? Are Wikipedia editors frontline journalists now? TylerBurden (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a fair question. If there is any issue here, I would think it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I don't see how WP:NOTNEWS reasonably applies either? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The smugness is misplaced. NOTNEWS deals primarily with topic encyclopedicity (a freshly minted word). There is no question that the subject is encyclopedic. Moreover, NOTNEWS explicitly and repeatedly encourages editors to keep articles current. The opening clause of the policy is [e]ditors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage .... I still don't see what application NOTNEWS is supposed to have here.
Regarding OR/SYNTH, the current front is IIRC typically sourced from the ISW. The blue shade of 'former occupation' probably relies on the reliability of former versions of the map. Any error once introduced will be retained until noticed (as in the case raised by SaintPaulofTarsus). The map is hosted on commons.wiki which has different policies to en.wiki. Handling such issues is consequently complicated. Either we can 1a. notify commons.wiki editors of errors once identified as at present; 1b. request the blue shading to be removed to eliminate risk of OR/SYNTH; or 2. migrate a copy of the map to en.wiki (put it under our jurisdiction so to speak) and use that instead. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be all for migrating the map to be under us. It might be marginally more laborious at the back end but it beats the other options.
Also, I now see that I was erroneous in assuming for many months that the fancy map is based on the detailed map template and module. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

@TylerBurden
"...former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev clarified that there was never any promise to not enlarge the NATO alliance..."

This 'summary' of Gorbachev's response to the question of James Baker's 'promise' that "“NATO will not move one inch further east" gives readers the impression that Gorbachev uttered words closely resembling the claim that "there was never any promise to not enlarge NATO."

James Baker may or may not have uttered words to Gorbachev that he interpreted as resembling a 'promise'. However, nowhere in the published interview is Gorbachev quoted as even uttering the word 'promise'. The secondary source referencing the interview makes the claim "There was, he said, no promise not to enlarge the alliance." Gorbachev never said that.

The 'summary' suggests that Gorbachev viewed James Baker's "not move one inch further east" assurance as unimportant or that Gorbachev stated James Baker never said those words at all. Why not just quote Gorbachev directly: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all..." instead of claiming "Gorbachev clarified that there was never any promise"? Chino-Catane (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreeing as such, but if it was never discussed by definition it could not have been promised. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven
You raise an important point. What you are describing is an implication, not a definition. "Mikhail Gorbachev's response implied that there was never any promise" reads differently from "Mikhail Gorbachev clarified that there was never any promise". Nevertheless, why even invoke the word 'promise' at all when summarizing Gorbachev's statements? Chino-Catane (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chino-Catane Because WP:RS did, it's their job to interpret material, not Wikipedia editor's.
The exact part of the source is: "There was, he said, no promise not to enlarge the alliance, though in the same interview Gorbachev also stated that he thinks that enlargement was a “big mistake” and “a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made” in 1990." TylerBurden (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden
"There was, he said, no promise not to enlarge the alliance..." is not an interpretation. It is a false claim stated as fact. The evidence demonstrating the falsity of this claim is the referenced primary source interview. A text search of the interview reveals that Gorbachev never used the word 'promise' in any of his responses.
My edit, which you undid, offers no interpretations whatsoever. It directly quotes Gorbachev and allows his words to speak for themselves. You made the critique that my edit was "longer than it needs to be." I can accept that. You should accept that your "reliable source" is not reliable in this particular instance. Chino-Catane (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted Gorbachov incorrectly: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification (i bolded what you omitted). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Manyareasexpert
I did not quote Gorbachev incorrectly. I omitted words for brevity and substituted ellipses to flag the omissions. If I had included everything, my edit would have been even longer than "longer than it needs to be". My omission was actually more severe than you indicate, as I excluded everything in that sentence passed "...military structures would not advance..." What is your issue with the omission? Chino-Catane (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Defense Contact Group

Would it be useful to generate an RfC for infobox inclusion of the UDCG as a supporting belligerent? News outlets have recently reported that members of this group are supplying Ukraine with weapons that have or will be used to strike targets inside Russia. Chino-Catane (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of adding arms suppliers to the infobox has been flogged to death. It is an ex parrot. It isn't going to voom if you 40,000 volts through it (that's been tried) or if you call it a donkey. It's still dead. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Here are the the main points of opposition and their resolutions:
1. The West only provides hardware
In addition to having received military intelligence, combined arms combat training, analytical exercise preparation, and war games planning, Ukraine is now receiving fighter jets along with many months of NATO-provided training on those fighter jets.
2. Infobox creep
There only needs to be one entry - either UDCG, US or NATO.
3. Infobox inclusion of Ukraine support advances Russian propaganda
Omission is "Western" propaganda.
4. Distinguishing between aid type is complicated
The types of aid we care about are (a) lethal military aid and (b) the most severe economic sanctions possibly in the history of modern civilization. A single "Supported by" entry - UDCG, US or NATO - would encompass those two types of aid, and only those two types of aid.
After more than two years of conflict, it is far past time for that infobox to present an honest assessment of who is engaged in this war. Without lethal military support from the leaders of the so called rules-based international order, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this confict long ago. This truth reasonable inference should be reflected in that infobox. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am with the dead parrot analogy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your ″truth″ is WP:OR. TylerBurden (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But say your suggestion goes through somehow, are we also then adding North Korea, Iran, etc to supporting Russia? These requests interestingly always seem to leave those countries providing aid to Russia out of the equation.
https://apnews.com/article/north-korea-russia-arms-transfers-ukraine-a37bc290ed3ee59cfbbafdc2a994dc58
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/5/how-iran-contributes-to-russias-war-in-ukraine TylerBurden (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden - "Your 'truth' is WP:OR"
Osraige shared sources[[1]] demonstrating evidence of intelligence delivery, combat training and war planning.
"...are we also then adding North Korea, Iran, etc..."
If you accept the proposition that transfers of non- dual-use lethal weapons constitute belligerent support, let's go ahead and add North Korea and Iran to Russia's list of supporters. However, even rejecting that proposition does not exclude the U.S. and our allies from consideration as belligerent supporters of Ukraine. We have contributed substantially more than just lethal weapons, contributions without which Ukraine could not possibly continue its belligerence. Either way, inserting one or three entries to the infobox would not constitute unnecessary or inappropriate "creep". Chino-Catane (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Without lethal military support from the leaders of the so called rules-based international order, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this confict long ago. This truth should be reflected in that infobox"
I was referring to this "truth". Saying "we" also doesn't make your arguments mean more, where you claim to be from is irrelevant. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden You're right, I should not have used the word "truth". Thanks for the criticism. Your interpretation of my use of the word "we" is interesting. Do you have any substantive objections to any of the points I raised? Chino-Catane (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures must be blurred

Wikipedia is open to anybody including children.

It is not appropriate to show violent images without any warning.

I propose blurring of violent images and addition of warning. 31.206.142.86 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTCENSORED. TylerBurden (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious?
Then see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offensive_material 31.206.142.86 (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we're serious. So long as the images serve an encyclopedic purpose, they will not be censored or removed. Per the WP:OM guideline (note also that a policy supersedes a guideline) you just cited: [a] cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. We do not include material for the purpose of being offensive, but we also will not censor or remove material because it may cause offense. In briefer words, the won't somebody think of the children refrain is not a justification for us to remove, alter, or censor the images. If this doesn't suit you, you may refer to Help:Options to hide an image for guidance on hiding images on your browser. That guide also informs the readership that: Wikipedia is not censored, and the community will in general not remove content on grounds of being objectionable to some people. Wikipedia will also not use specific disclaimers within articles warning readers of such content. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further to above, Wikipedia makes no claim about being suitable for any particular use. As the Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer clearly states: All information found on the site is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever.
This means that if you're a parent or a guardian, or otherwise legally responsible for the wellbeing of children, it is your responsibility to assess and determine whether Wikipedia suitable for the use of children in your care (while understanding that Wikipedia may contain content that is offensive, inaccurate, misleading, dangerous, unethical, or illegal), and to take necessary steps to allow or disallow access to Wikipedia for any such children. Melmann 07:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Avdiivka, Russian naval and aviation losses, second Kharkiv offensive (1 December 2023 – present)

The section title was changed from Battle of Avdiivka, second stalemate and continued air and sea operations (1 December 2023 – present) with this edit, which was inturn changed from Battle of Avdiivka, Russian naval and aviation losses (1 December 2023 – present) with this edit. MOS:SECTIONS tells us to apply similar consideration to section headings as we would use for an article title (ie including concision) and to avoid wrapping. The heading for this section is ridiculously long and at risk of wrapping on mobile devices. We really should consider a more concise heading. I had changed it to just the date range but this was reverted back to the current. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the titles of the earlier timeline sections, I support immediate removal of "Russian naval and aviation losses". This may be a case of undue weight, as the naval and aviation losses in question don't seem notable enough to warrant such a prominent mention here. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m mot sure whether I’ve said this before, but it seems pretty clear that yes, it’s a due weight issue and probably based on someone consuming too many David Axe articles. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the seven sources cited for Russian naval and aviation losses, a solid single one of them is by David Axe. I don't see why he would be a problem anyway, since he is Forbes staff, last I checked WP:FORBES staff was WP:RS. So what's the point of your comment exactly? TylerBurden (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria of being natural, sufficiently precise, and concise suggest that unnecessary verbiage should be excluded. Why is it useful and necessary to include anything other than "Battle of Avdiivka" and dates? Chino-Catane (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's shorten it to Russian losses then. On top of the naval and aviation losses, in the same section we also describe the high manpower and vehicle losses during the battle of Avdiivka. TylerBurden (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Russian naval and aviation losses" gets reduced to "Russian losses". This is a step in the right direction. However, "Russian losses" is not useful information to be included in any section header of this article because Russian Forces have been suffering losses since the beginning of the invasion. The author of this heading appears to be over-stretching to highlight Russian naval and aviation losses that are neither strategically nor politically significant. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russian losses, including those of expensive military equpiment, are widely covered in WP:RS, hence why there are many references available to use when covering them. It's not your job as a Wikipedia editor to determine if they are "tactically" or "strategically significant", more WP:OR. The idea that covering Russian losses is WP:UNDUE is.. questionable at best and POV at worst.
I guess when you take massive losses for proportianally little gains, it tends to be reported on by media that is allowed to. TylerBurden (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in question fall to WP:NEWSORG, which means they are an RS with caveats. We are expected to distinguish per WP:NOTNEWS what is encyclopedia content (not everything). This is particularly important when dealing with a high level (overview) article. WP:VNOT applies and so may WP:DUE. These sort of editorial decisions fall outside of WP:OR, which is about writing an editor's conclusions into content. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we can sit and WP:WIKILAWYER all day, what would be more useful is concrete suggestions on how to improve the article that isn't just "remove Russian losses". TylerBurden (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as the notice of original research contained within the article heading identified by Chico-Catane (@ 05:51, 14 June 2024) that should be removed? The 'second Kharkiv offensive' is a non-extant topic within reliable sources. I receive 9 results when searching for the topic: two are Wikipedia, two are Reddit, one replicates Wikipedia content, one is YouTube, one is a 'study guide', and the remaining two are other non-RS (one forum post and one blog). The article linked within the body that is being referred to by that name is 2024 northeastern Ukraine offensive. That too is another editor fabricated title created by synthesizing titles across disparate sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Russian losses ... are widely covered"
Russian losses have been widely covered since the beginning of the invasion. Why do "Russian losses" merit inclusion in any section heading, let alone this one?
"not your job..."
The topic under discussion is the appropriateness of a section heading. You have made it your job to determine that "Russian losses" in the period (1 Dec 2023 - present) are somehow more significant than "Russian losses" at every other time during the invasion. That's "not your job".
As a matter or policy, MOS:SECTIONS calls for precision and concision. The expression "Russian losses" is not precise and erodes the concision of the section heading. It is also not consistent with the style of section headers in other invasion articles rated WP:GA : Operation Barbarossa, Operation Overlord, United States invasion of Afghanistan. Chino-Catane (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

″Why is it useful and necessary to include anything other than "Battle of Avdiivka" and dates?″

Because readers might want an idea of what they are going to read about? --TylerBurden (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Avdiivka was politically significant. Its strategic significance is questionable. The Russian naval and aviation losses discussed in this section are neither strategically nor politically significant. When I google with quotations included "second kharkiv offensive", three results appear. One of those results is this article. Neither of the other two results linked to published news articles. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gennadij Židko

Gennadij Židko is dead, however there has been no cross added next to his name, unlike with pages for many other wars. Update? ReelmsyWiki (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't killed in action. He died in Moscow. There shouldn't be a cross. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of previous days should be accessible

Whilst the map does give a generally good view of how the frontlines change, it’s often hard to tell how much it’s changed or if the change is significant or meaningful in any way. As such, I think it would be neat for there to at least be some way to view the previous maps from previous days in the war. (At the absolute minimum, there should be a new day-by-day timelapse that goes to the current date.) LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mines in Ukrainian port approaches

See Russian invasion of Ukraine#Naval blockade and engagements: Ukraine closed its ports at MARSEC level 3, with sea mines laid in port approaches, until the end to hostilities. The source cited failed verification and has been tagged. I was unable to find an alternative source - particularly in respect to mines. Can anybody else?

Further down in the section: On 1 June, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asserted that Ukraine's policy of mining its own harbours to impede Russia maritime aggression had contributed to the food export crisis ...

The first text might be deleted on the basis of the second passage if no source is found for the first? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1229708837"