Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

source needs home[edit]

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 accidentally overwrote it and am putting it here because I don't think it is a very good source anyway for Russian involvement in Donbas. I looked quickly but the gist seemed to be that the US should not provide military aid to Ukrain in 2022. But maybe I am wrong, or maybe some other point in the article could use some support from the US defense contractor point of view. Russian troops were deeply involved in the conflict.[1]


References

  1. ^ Charap, Samuel; Boston, Scott (21 January 2022). "U.S. Military Aid to Ukraine: A Silver Bullet?". RAND Corporation.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian invasion force size - 2024 update[edit]

As of February 2024, the number of Russian troops in Ukraine given in the infobox is a year out date. This RUSI report gives a figure of 470,000 Russian troops in Ukraine as of January 2024, and I believe the infobox should be accordingly updated. TensorPointer (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The strengths of opposing forces is something that varies with time and is something of relevance. This is something appropriate for the body of the article but is detail unsuited for the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^^ RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove the People's Republics from the list of belligerents in the infobox[edit]

The People's Republics were Russian-controlled puppet states, which, in my opinion, does not justify their inclusion as independent belligerents. Their actions and governance were directly controlled by Russia, making them mere extensions of Russian military and political will, rather than independent entities with their own agendas and decision-making processes. And even this quasi-independence came to an end with their annexation just six months after the full-scale invasion began. Yorkporter (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can mention they were controlled by Russia. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Their inclusion has been long-standing and discussed many times. The consensus has been to retain them with the notes regarding their status. These republics were removed by Yorkporter, referring to this discussion as justification in the edit summary. I reinstated them because I don't see that this discussion has achieved a consensus for removal. I would consider that Manyareasexpert's comment is not supporting their removal but perhaps, an edit to the existing notes? Given the history of the infobox and their inclusion, I think their should be a reasonably clear consensus for their removal before that might occur. For myself, I see that there has been significant reference to these as entities in sources up to their annexation to warrant their continued inclusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Textbox under the image of the shelled building should be changed[edit]

I'm going to discuss this first, since it will likely be reverted.

"Damage to a residential building in Zaporizhzhia following an airstrike on 9 October 2022. Putin has been labeled a war criminal by international experts.[1]"

This seems a bit WP:OR, WP:SYNTH-adjacent and well, unencyclopedic at best.
1. Failed verification
1a. It asserts "International experts" (plural), but the source quotes only one person.
1b. The word "international expert" isnt even used in the source
1c. What even is an "International expert" in the first place?

2. WP:SYNTH
2a. It's using a information in the article (an image) to make the case for another sourced statement of fact (putin is a war criminal)
2b. though admittedly, "war criminal" per se isn't used in the reference either

I propose changing it to "Damage to a residential building in Zaporizhzhia following an airstrike on 9 October 2022.", removing the second sentence per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with your reasoning and with the removal of that sentence. Discussion of allegations of Putin as war criminal probably require nuance and presentation of alternative points of view, probably better placed in paragraph form rather than attempting to fit a short message into an image caption. Also, perhaps you'd need a source that links the particular place shown in the image with a war criminal allegation, if it's to be mentioned in the image caption; otherwise it isn't specifically relevant to the image per OR. Coppertwig (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly, that last sentence seems like a bit of a non sequitur, loosely speaking. Its forcible insertion looks like an attempt to insert PoV unnecessarily.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It took me about a minute to find a more suitable source, it could have been fixed rather than removed. I have restored the image with aforementioned reference. I also don't see how in the context of destruction of civilian targets, the mention of Putin being labelled a war criminal is "PoV". Seems like a rather unnecessary remark that could just as easily be made in the reverse. TylerBurden (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is this is WP:SYNTH, even the source you added merely asserts he is a war criminal with no connection to the building in question. I don't know much about this conflict as a whole, but just a quick look at a map shows that Marupol and Zaporizhzhia aren't even remotely close, so what connection does that source have? I do agree with what RB pointed out, that it is a non sequitur.
It's not about it being a rare take - its about it failing verification and being original research. Information that fails verification or is original research can be removed at any time. The onus is not on me to fix it, the onus is on the one who wants it to be included. People can come to the conclusion on their own that a shelled residential building is a war crime, but explicitly adding it in there with no connection to the building itself, as an image caption isn't encyclopedic, it seems more like something you would see on a news outlet. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Images are used as a suppliment to text in the body of the article and improve the reader's understanding of the subject. The caption (Damage to a residential building in Zaporizhzhia following an airstrike on 9 October 2022. Putin has been labeled a war criminal by international experts) would draw a direct connection between the damage to this building and labelling Putin as a war criminal. That might be fine for a newspaper but we are not a newspaper and this falls too close to WP:SYNTH. The image is placed in a section on the Zaporizhzhia front where airstrikes on residential buildings occurred. It is not a section where war crimes are being discussed, where the deliberate targeting of civilians (and this image) to support such text would be relevant. In short, drop the extra sentence. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks to me that three editors agree with removing the sentence per Wikipedia policy, and only one editor, TylerBurden, argues to keep it and has re-inserted it. In the body of the article it says "Even the usually fractured United States Senate came together to call Putin a war criminal." If you want to add more to the article about the idea of Putin being a war criminal, you might suggest an edit here on the talk page that adds more to that bit of the body of the article, then wait for consensus before editing; but not insert the idea into the image caption (see arguments above). I suggest that the sentence be removed again, based on the discussion above, and not re-inserted unless there's a clear consensus to do so. TylerBurden, do the new sources you've cited mention this specific building and link it to the idea of Putin being a war criminal? Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I agree it should definitely be removed and not reinserted without consensus. There seems to be consensus for its removal. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed. Neither source supports the statement as written (i.e. fails WP:V), and as this is material about a living person it is additionally subject to the stringent requirements of WP:BLP. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assistance in invasion(s) summary[edit]

I have recently created and began working on the List of invasions in the 21st century. Obviously, this invasion and offensives amid the invasion are included in the list. I have a few short summaries already listed in the chart, but I would appreciate if anyone who is familiar with the invasion wants to help out. My current thought process is that anything significant related to the invasion/offensive needs to be mentioned in the summary. So, if anyone wants to help out, feel free to work on, improve, or completely rewrite the summaries in that list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We already have List of military engagements during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I suggest that the appropriate course would be to link to that list rather than duplicating it. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Duplicating? I don't mean listing ever battle or engagement. Actually, there is multiple invasions for this war. For example, the Battle of Kherson and the Second battle of Lyman are in two separate invasions/campaigns. Linking that list to each of the 6 invasions during the war would be more duplication than writing a sentence or two about the few critical ones that led to geopolitical changes. I could link it in all six though if editors think that is better than sentence-form. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are all six termed to be invasions in reliable sources? Otherwise, calling them invasions would be WP:OR. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Treaty / not one inch[edit]

Please, add after 'That statement is disputed.' the following text: Prof. Mary Elise Sarotte from Johns Hopkins University investigated the negotiations with Secretary of State James Baker and Gorbachev. She proved from interviews and written notes, that former president George H.W. Bush sr. rejected crystal clear the discussed possibility that NATO would not expand eastward, "not one inch". Sources book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_One_Inch_(book); interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&t=859&v=aHj0K9PofCw&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=KyivSchoolofEconomics Zanden30 (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not with such clear cut writing, she assrted something, that doe snot make it a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian casualties[edit]

The famous newspaper, possibly based on Pentagon data, states that Russia lost 60k killed and 180-240k wounded. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/world/europe/russia-invasion-casualties-wounded.html 95.25.208.74 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invasion age counted in non-standard way[edit]

Today, 2024:0224, at 11:26 CET, which corresponds to 2024:0224 at 12:26 EET (which is the same as Kyiv time), the information box mentions an age of 2y 1d for the invasion.

I hold the age mentioned should be 2y 0d, since - according to the article - the invasion started on 2022:0224 at 03:40 Kyiv time, and at least until 2024:0224 at 15:40 Kyiv time - i.e. when half a day after the minute of the 2nd anniversary has passed - conventional mathematical rounding rules result in an age of 2y 0d.

An even more widespread, I think, standard says that during all of the nychthemeron of 2024:0224 (Kyiv time) the age is 2y 0d.

I propose the latter way of counting the age be followed.

If some duration calculation algorithm results in the duration indicated in the article, I suppose it, too, needs mending.Redav (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When the template calculates the age, it counts the start as a day and the anniversary as a day. If there is an issue, it is with the template and should be addressed there. It would be also be based on UTC. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article on Ukrainian neutral status[edit]

Here to propose creating an article on a potential Ukrainian neutral status. Not only has this been discussed widely in the context of the invasion [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] but it was also a real policy of Ukraine (in a softer way, non-alignment rather than neutrality) until Russia's first invasion [12] [13] [14] [15]. I incite editors to consider writing such a page as I think it has a lot of potential. Super Ψ Dro 13:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2024[edit]

A new figure of Ukranian military losses has been provided by the president of Ukraine, according to a BBC news article published in the last hour

Please include this casualty report in the confirmed casualties section of the article.

"Ukraine war: Zelensky says 31,000 troops killed since Russia's full-scale invasion"

Source is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68397525

If a better source can be found, please use this instead. But this source I believe is strong enough for use in the article BlunanNation (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done These numbers are already added in Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties as a report by the office of the Ukranian president. So the numbers are in the article already. They should not be considered the most important assessment however as Ukraine has a vested interest in presenting as low as possible numbers given their involvement. Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We generally rely on third-party estimates for casualty numbers, ideally with transparent methodology. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Casualties table sorting[edit]

I propose to sort Casualties table by the end date of the period of the assessment.

Reasoning: all the assessments start at Feb 24, 2022 and the number of casualties is only growing since then. The larger the assessed period the larger the number would be. Showing the reader the most recent estimate first will let the reader to assess the numbers from the perspective of time period. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This might be a bit difficult to maintain. but I don't have an intrinsic issue with this. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Cinderella, and this would be beneficial for the reasons ManyAreasExpert listed. TunaUnited StatesVeniVidiVici 05:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spy war[edit]

  • interesting, the original was published by NYT. This is a lot of info related to this page, although it also covers many events that had happen earlier. My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]