This is an archive of past discussions about Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Most recent from CNN says: "The US Department of Defense is tracking the reported incursion of troops from Belarus into Ukraine, a US defense official said Thursday. It was not clear if the troops were only Russian or also Belarusian, the source said." See here. Gazelle55 (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is highly disturbing to see Wikipedia referring to this peace keeping mission as an invasion. A vote should be had to get a more realistic language used. 120.22.6.85 (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I know you're just posting for confirmation, but considering the context–that is, Russia's sophisticated ability to create disinformation campaigns–I'd be very wary of adding any information on military efforts that isn't confirmed by multiple HQRS. I think this stuff automatically goes into the WP:EXCEPTIONAL basket. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No real source or evidence of invasion have been provided, missiles strikes are not invading. Where are the actual evidence (footage, etc) of Russian troops in Ukraine outside of Donbass? Nebakin (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
How not? Why are you afraid of people calling for concrete evidence? Go grind your axe somewhere else, your harassment have been reported. Nebakin (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Nobody "harassed" you - you were wasting bits here - there is OVERWHELMING news reports that this invasion is happening. Wasting people's time to respond to you is not constructive.50.111.36.47 (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Reports are not concrete evidence, without supporting evidence it's just hearsay. There needs to be clear enough pictures and videos of Russian troops in Ukraine. Nebakin (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
CNN has video at a border crossing with a column of AFVs crossing into Ukraine, on the road to Kiev. Not that we require video. Reports from reliable sources are sufficient. -- GreenC06:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, with all the evidence from neutral sources (which BBC, CNN, etc are not), the only admitted Russia movement is in Donbass, and I didn't mean the 2 republics, i meant the areas under Ukrainian control. Also, it doesn't matter what I believe, i was just pointing out the available evidence at the time was insufficient to prove it is an invasion. Nebakin (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Something that isn't so openly russophobic. CTGN is actually very neutral on such things and mainly just retrieves info from Ukrainian, Russian and western media together on their livefeed. They only publish stuff that is confirm, or if not, provide a view into claims on both sides Nebakin (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Of course they're going to say that though, they want to demoralize the Ukrainian Army. Also I agree with ip user, there is overwhelming evidence that Russia has invaded Ukraine and Nebakin's contention of this is not constructive. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I know, I mentioned that because Nebakin said there was no evidence of invasion, while Russian MoD itself issued statement about lack of resistance by Ukrainian border forces. Mellk (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Look at the time when i posted this, there was zero concrete evidence of invasion at that point, only evidence of missile strikes, which is not an invasion on its own. Nebakin (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
NYTimes is [www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/24/world/russia-ukraine-putin/footage-shows-russian-troops-entering-ukraine reporting] Russian troops invading from Crimea. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
There are cctv footages of tanks crossing the ukranian border. It's only been 15 hours since invasion, remember that. I'm sure in the coming days and weeks, videos and pictures of the invasion will start to filter out. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 19:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
There are cctv footages of tanks crossing the ukranian border. It's only been 15 hours since invasion, remember that. I'm sure in the coming days and weeks, videos and pictures of the invasion will start to filter out. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 19:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Under International Law an invasion requires a State to attack a hostile nation on the latter's territory. The attacks in Ukraine is, at the moment, contained in Donetsk and Luhansk, both recognized by Russia as sovereign allied republics. Since these two republics are allied to Russia the operation cannot be classified as an invasion. Acording to Russia it is only defending these allied republics against Ukrainian aggression. China has even explicitly stated the attacks are not an invasion at the moment, putting in evidence the possible wester bias in the term. As such, the use of the word invasion instead of the official term "special military operation" or just operation is pobabably inapropriate. Calling it not an invasion may also be biased, but the only official terminology currently available is "special military operation" and it is also more neutral, so this term probably should be used instead. 2804:14D:7684:8D24:F97A:A1E8:3FC:4D42 (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
There have been witnessed attacks in the mainland of Ukraine too, for example close to Kiev.
The DPR and LPR are under international law part of Ukraine; and there are many sources listing acts of military attacks by Russian forces all over Ukraine. This is a descriptive term and the term used by many reliable sources. For the international legal definition, see crime of aggression. Many of the Russian attacks will quite likely also qualify as war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity if the specific "kill" lists are acted on. Boud (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Will an Admin please block this troll? It was requested earlier on the previous article pre-invasion. There is nothing constructive coming from this person and only WP:FORUM/SOAPish comments. -HammerFilmFan
Do you have evidence of Ukraine attacking Russia? In my eyes, this is an obvious invasion, as many people before have mentioned. They also have sources to back them up. Niobian (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Here goes couple cents, food for thought. There were those 2 rabel regions in Ukraine where Ukraine military murdered over 10000 civilians over 8 years. They say it was Russian invasion and that they're winning, however failed to present a single body of a dead Russian soldier or burned down vehicle. After Ukraine publicly refused to go with Minsk agreements about a week ago, Putin recognizes their independence plus sings a defensive treaty with them. And guess what? Ukraine does not stop the artillery barage of the rebel regions, despite several warnings. The rebel regions ask for military help and Putin grants. So there is less grould to call it an invasion than NATO bombing Yugoslavia or Libya. All verifyable. Not on CNN and the like, tough. Did you notice how not a single "free media" report what Putin actually said? I condemn Putin policies, mind, but these total lies simply push Russians towards him.
Aw really? So, by "Of course the Russians (including their IP editors) will assert nonsense" you mean that Russians are superior to non Russians and thier word should be trusted? Your wording is very deceptive, please change and i will apologize for this honest mistake about Nazi.95.104.198.233 (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
People often use "the Russians", "the Germans", "the Saudis" etc. to refer to the governments of those countries. It's imprecise and can be misread (as you are, assuming you are being genuine in your reactions). —AFreshStart (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Moldovia and Transnistria because they are the only frozen conflict involving Russia that is not currently included on the map. I'm not sure we need the other former Soviet republics, as most of them don't add useful information to the map. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I've removed it from the article while its relevance is not explained; while the frozen conflicts are likely to be relevant, and the expansion of NATO is relevant, it needs to be explained in the text - and I'm not sure that the chosen map is ideal to demonstrate the latter, as it doesn't demonstrate the change over time. Further, I don't believe the members of the CSTO are relevant; only Russia and Belarus are. BilledMammal (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add this information following "died on the first day of the invasion." at the end of the February 24 subsection of the "Invasion" heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SrikTLG (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Pro-Ukrainian protests have occurred at several of Russia's embassies abroad, including those in Armenia,[291] Bulgaria,[292] Belgium,[293] Hungary,[294] Iceland,[295] Ireland,[296] Moldova,[297] the Netherlands,[298] Romania,[299] the United Kingdom,[300] and the United States.[301]
Ukrainian Interior Ministry official Anton Herashchenko relayed via Telegram that those explosions were cruise and ballistic missiles being targeted at Kyiv once more.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1497044255864688640
Ukrainian Interior Ministry official Anton Herashchenko relayed via Telegram that those explosions were cruise and ballistic missiles being targeted at Kyiv once more.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1497044255864688640
I'd like to edit the Invasion section where CNN called Putin's claims baseless. I'd like to point out that this ins't only CNN, it's a consensus that Putin's claims are completely false and unfounded. Please change it to point that out. skelter (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Should we move the sanctions from before the invasion into the "Prelude" section and then turn the remainder of the "Sanctions" section into a "Reactions" section? This seems like the more standard organization for such a page. Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Do we want Moscow Time = UTC+3 or Time in Ukraine = UTC+2 or a mix depending on whether we're talking about statements by Putin or actions in Ukraine? Boud (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Having a single time zone by default, throughout the section, (with optionally another one in brackets) would make things simpler. Boud (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
MOS:TIMEZONEGive priority to the place at which the event had its most significant effects; for example, if a [cr]acker in Monaco attacked a Pentagon computer in the US, use the time zone for the Pentagon, where the attack had its effect. Putin is like the hypothetical cracker here, so Ukrainian time (UTC+2) would make sense as the default. Boud (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Archived sources
Live news sources without web archives are not useful as WP:RS, because their content is volatile - after a few hours they will not show the information summarised from their content. If you think that a live source will qualify as a WP:RS, then at least archive it and include that in the reference. Boud (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Reactions in Poland
The Polish president Andrzej Duda twitted (in Polish, below my own rather direct/word-for-word translation): "Despite the efforts of the international community, Ukraine has fallen victim of a brutal, unprovoced and unjustified Russian assault. We act together with our allies in NATO and the EU, together we will respond to the Russian brutal aggression and we will not leave Ukraine without support." Source: https://twitter.com/AndrzejDuda/status/1496713699515584512
Follow-up tweet from Duda (in Polish, below my own rather direct/word-for-word translation): "Today at 5.48 [Polish time (?)] I spoke with the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy @ZelenskyyUa. It has come to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Its scale is most probably wide. This is an unprecedented act of rape on the norms of international law. Russia excludes itself from the international community." Source: https://twitter.com/AndrzejDuda/status/1495910765177577484
The Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki twitted (in English): "We must immediately respond to Russia's criminal aggression on Ukraine. Europe and the free world has to stop Putin. Today's European Council should approve fiercest possible sanctions. Our support for Ukraine must be real." Source: https://twitter.com/MorawieckiM/status/1496721904551579649— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngfio (talk • contribs) 08:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
An edit [6] by User:Orbitz_stop_st_ro increased the size of the article by about 50% while cutting out a large amount of existing content (e.g. almost all of the details in the invasion section are gone - it looks like it may have rolled back edits to the previous day.) Can you try to fix what you were apparently trying to do, User:Orbitz_stop_st_ro, or otherwise, can someone fix the article or restore the removed changes? Reyne2 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I thought this too, but there was very little content cut, it's just after the massive reference section in the middle of the article you have to scroll past. The article is really broken at the moment. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 09:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
It looks like it was reverted manually by someone else for some reason... I guess this was technically an edit war, but hopefully it's not an issue due to the pressing need of the situation, and I'll recuse myself from editing the article now. Reyne2 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Because the lawful Yemen president asked the Saudis and others to assist his government. Ukraine did not "ask" Russia to invade it. WWGB (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
If you think the Wikipedia coverage of the Saudi action in Yemen should be changed, go make that suggestion there. That has nothing to do with what we say here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing
Just a reminder that the bulk of this article should be sourced to independent reliable sources that have independently verified the information; any disputed/unconfirmed/unverified/etc. claims, of course, can use partial sources attributed inline (e.g. "Ukraine says, Russia says"). In fact, in-line attribution may be safe for anything that could be challenged. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The German chancellor did not shelved Nord Stream 2 because of an ongoing Russian advance into Ukraine
today the Russian military made advancements into Ukrainian territory. If the decision from Scholz was on the day before yesterday, how was his decision based on today's Russian advancement?
I've reverted, as I agree with your reasoning. Germany's shelving of Nord Stream 2 was not a response to the campaign started 24 February (the current article does not seem to classify the Donbas intervention as being part of the invasion, rather being part of the prelude to the invasion, and I think that's correct from a presentational standpoint). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense, however background about the existing sanctions after 21 February is relevant, as a background to the international response from 24 February, if stated as such. Could be moved rather than removed, but future news articles will likely contextualize and repeat the same info when additional sanctions are reported. Rauisuchian (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Putin prepared for invasion in advance
I think it should be expressed in article.
1. In 2021, the process of formation reserve military units manned by voluntary reservists has intensified. Here is the article by Alexander Golts, journalist and military columnist [1] Analyzing numerous scattered reports of regional media, he believes that it involves the formation of several full-stregth corps in each military districts, and it is unprecedented number. The exact number of reserve troops is classified. Usually, individual training of reservists takes 6 month (2-3 days a month), and only then field maneuvers of reserve military units start (as a rule in summer). However, in autumn and winter 2021, new reservists were sent for maneuvers immediately after signing contracts. Not typical rush.
2. On 18 February 2022, Putin signed the Decree on drafting of citizens who had demobbed earlier and had not signed contracts to perform reserve military service (non-reservists). The exact number of drafted non-reservists is classified.[2]
3. According Russian law, conscripts not completed a general four-month military training course should not be used in war zone. In fact, they are used.[3]
I can recommend the following two analyses: [7][8]. They have in-depth description of some background, Putin's political objectives, and military options. They have both predicted pretty much what's going on right now, including the offensives on Kyiv (with an explanation why Russia deems that necessary). These two sources can also be used to start the "Military analysis" section. --Mindaur (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Is this the map in the infobox? I don't think it's POV, but it could do with a legend explaining what the shading means for Crimea and the eastern Donbass, and indeed for Transnistria. It could also do with a legend explaining "NATO" and "CSTO". I would be tempted to remove the references to NATO given NATO is not involved in the fighting. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I don’t mean the first map, I mean the one under Invasion header. Crimea seems to be labelled as Russian. Also, Ukraine is not only the green. Super POV. --82.37.67.151 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Why are mentions of Indonesia and India in the same paragraph? They deserve separate ones.
As for the prominence, I find it strange that a statement from the Croatian Prime Minister is so high up in the list, though it does somewhat fit there thematically to round out the European responses. I'd prefer something from Spain or Italy, as more relevant, as it seems a lot of space to give to a small nation with a strong response to the crisis. Moldova makes sense, as it's on their border, but Croatia is a bit weird to find there among the rest. Maybe it's there for how clear the condemnation is? That might make sense.
What's strange is that stuff like Spain, Italy and France were missing, but Croatia was on the list?
Similarly, calling China "Other reactions" in such a charged topic carries connotations of only two sides. Especially when "Other reactions" only contains Russia and China. English is weird that way. I mean come on, I'm sure all of English wikipedia can find reactions that aren't from the West, or Russia or China.
WHO response, Turkey response that can be added to the condemnation list, Hungary, Bulgaria, Australia, Spain, Italy, Greece, Finland, Sweeden, Canada, there are plenty of reaction over there that could be added to the page. Why haven't they? I have to ask, because the page is locked, and I can't edit it myself. At least add more nations beyond NATO, Europe, and China. Like Japan and South Korea. Finding that wasn't hard, and we can take Italy and Spain from it, to put into the article.
Also, does anyone have any links for what India and Brazil are saying? Apart from "closely following the development of events in the region"?
As well, in the lead in to the article, it should be mentioned that the invasion started without UN approval, which is another violation of the UN charter, Chapter VII. That mention and reference should probably contain a link to other recent examples of such violations, since Russian media are still using that reference and justifications springing from those violations.
A link for possible addition to the article for a column by Masha Gessen: [10]
PS: The article keeps changing, and some of my initial concerns have been cleared up, on the US, UK, Spain, Italy and such. But some stuff is still missing.
In 2009, Romanian analyst Iulian Chifu and his co-authors opined that in regard to Ukraine, Russia has pursued an updated version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, which dictates that the sovereignty of Ukraine cannot be larger than that of the Warsaw Pact's member states prior to the collapse of the Soviet sphere of influence during the late-1980s and early-1990s.
I have read and reread this statement, and I cannot fathom its meaning. What does "larger" mean in the context of "sovereignty?" I implore any editor with a better understanding of the context to rewrite this using clearer metaphor, if any at all.--~TPW16:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Also what relevance does it have, as it is not going to increase in size from the late-1980s anyway, even if all the Rusian-occupied land is returned, it will be the same size.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
It appears to me that 'larger' here means that the sovereignty (or degree of sovereignty) enjoyed by Ukraine cannot be greater than what is used to enjoy when it was a member of the Warsaw pact.Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe that Russia’s reported use of cyber attacks on Ukraine is notable enough to be included in this article, would love to hear feedback. 69.5.138.1 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Was it no Feb 22nd 2022 (11pm CST) that he first recognized and mobilized troops? And Feb 24th is when force started to be used. Should the date be edited to the start of mobilization? If so what time zone should we recognize the official news break so we can decide Feb 23rd or Feb 22nd to be the start? Or are we using Feb 24th as the official date due to use of force? 2600:1014:B02C:489D:D1D6:21BC:4A3A:5C7F (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (4)
I do not think we need every sanction, as it happens. We can just say "as the conflict continued the UK increased its economic sanctions against Russia", and that covers us.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Except there hasn't been a war until now. This isn't a "phase" of some war that's been ongoing, this is the beginning of the war. --eduardog3000 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Is a detailed war map for this invasion necessary? I just made the template and module as quick as I could due to current attention, however I would have no time to populate this map as I am very busy with college and life. MarioJump83!13:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate you making the template. I'll do my best to update it to keep up with events. So far I've partially updated the map and its related articles to keep up with events. If you have any questions or suggestions feel free to leave a comment below here or on my talk page. Colin dm (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If there is one thing that is learned from the Covid-19 article series, it is that there is need for a timeline of events.
Is anyone quickly able to whip one up? Distrait cognizance (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC) the
It's not just the DOW that's lower today -- it's almost every market worldwide. Maybe a section on financial impacts, but not just on the DOW index/American markets. >>> Ingenuity.talk();14:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's important enough to include the reaction by the financial markets. Along with the large fall in stock market indices, the prices of gold & oil increased sharply. Jim Michael (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
US Market reaction today is pretty muted. S&P had already been correcting due to rising interest rates, and is down only 50 points, or 1.2% ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I propose we axe the Stock Market reaction aside from the RTS plunging. A. newspapers are generally less than reliable when reporting on why the stock market did x, y, or z; also I'm not really sure how relevant it is what markets did in New Zealand. What's more is that it creates a POV problem. Hang Seng Index is down so it gets written about, but NASDAQ is flat, so it doesn't get written about. The three prices that actually are important are wheat, natural gas, and oil. But even then it's quite early to draw any conclusions about the latter two. Plus this isn't an article about finance or dissecting price movements its an article on Russia invading Ukraine. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
All of these are unconfirmed reports. The only new thing that happened was that Transnistrian forces made another exercise again. SuperΨDro17:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry. I didn't no it's only claims, I've been hearing this all day on TV. I didn't know it's propaganda/unconfirmed. Bilikon (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I generally prefer British English on European-related WP articles (I may be biased as I'm from the UK), unless there is good reason to use US English, but I'm aware it's not Wikipedia policy. —AFreshStart (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Arms suppliers and non lethal military aid providers to Ukraine
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Correct. The supplied are used by Ukranian military to defend themselves. I would support keeping it as long as sources are given. AXONOV(talk)⚑17:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maybe do more drepper research. You make it seem, like Russia hasn't been weakening their army for the last 7 years. Thats why so much US hardware has increased in volume the last 7 years. Personally thought it was gonna happen two years ago. 2600:100E:B03D:F435:42C3:89B7:6495:9196 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Titles look more sophisticated and better for readers when words are capitalized in it. "Of" is not a word in titles that should be capitalized, but "Invasion" is. Fadedmax (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Under the invasion section, it says:
"At 18:20 (UTC+2) it was confirmed by Ukrainian officials that Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant had fallen under the control of the Russians."
At time of posting this discussion, it is 18:09 UTC. I don't understand how Chernobyl could have fallen already if it's listed as having fallen 10+ minutes in the future.
There are multiple reports of simultaneous multiple explosions at sites across Ukraine minutes after Putin's televised speech. Keep a watch out for Time on target citations. If that is in fact the case, I don't think it's ever been done on this scale, at least not at the start of war. kencf0618 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Biden's speech today said "moments" after Putin's speech - so that's one reported RS as far as what the U.S. President claimed. Whatever his sources are, I'm sure some dedicated editors will pursue ... 50.111.36.47 (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Edit conflicts...
... continue to be a big issue. The UI is a mess to figure things out, so I presume people just save, and then other people edit, and now regardless of where you revert to a lot of edits are lost. Not sure if there's any better ways to manage this problem on highly edited articles? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)the irony:A reminder to users to try to edit in specific sections where possible, rather than editing the main article as a whole. That reduces edit conflicts. — Czello18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
No, this is the Wiki interface. It sucks. Will probably take many many man hours of development time on the MediaWiki end. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2022
According to CNN (link), Ukraine's Minister of Healthcare Viktor Lyashko has confirmed at least 57 killed and 169 injured (combatants and non-combatants). Thanks, EDG 543(message me)20:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
While the invasion itself is rather new, there have bene various battles in Kharkiv, Chernobyl, Hostomel Airport, etc which I would consider worthy of their own pages even though there is scarce and developing info on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebiguess (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
We are already having a substantial duplication of content problem. Pruning and splitting can be done later, after the events come to some kind of conclusion or denouement. There is no WP:HASTE. Focus on content here. I hoped I'd never have to revive this, but please see WP:FORK FORK. RGloucester — ☎19:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree, but not yet. Many current sources are inaccurate or contradicting each other. Lots of info aren't confirmed yet as well. SuperΨDro19:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
transnistria is recognized by south ossetia, abkhazia and artsakh (non recognized states), change the transnistria note thing to reflect that. EpicWikiLad (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"Aggression" changed to "advancement" at time of closing.[17] This is more or less an edit request without a template so closing to declutter talk page. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unclear what this proposal actually is. Hatting because "Russia Cosmonaut said the ISS could felt see" has WP:SNOW chance of making it into the article and the info on Joe Biden sanctioning "corrupt billionaires" is already in the article. [18]Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Italian Wiki's voice was deleted because the event is too recent. Italian Wikipedia doesn't like recent events... P1221 (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Date invasion started not the 24th
Article starts by noting that invasion began in the 24th but it began days earlier when Russia entered eastern Ukraine and simply kept going. This is not two offensives separated by time but rather all one move. Russia identifying parts of Ukraine independent does *not* make them no longer Ukraine. Invasion began the moment troops crossed the Russian boarder, not when it was announced that the troops would continue west. 69.36.65.254 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The war in Donbas has been going on for quite some time - the invasion proper describes Russian forces entering the remainder of the country for the first time in this ongoing tragedy. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
4:24 explosions seen and heard in Kiev
25th February, 4:24 local time (UTC+2): for several minutes explosions could be seen and heard via fourth camera on live stream on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIPNVm6lNfM
At --Invasion-- section, there are several variations when naming the President of Ukraine.
- before 07:00 (UTC+2), President Zelenskyy
- At 16:00 (UTC+2) President Zelenskyy
- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that 137 Ukrainian citizens
- President Zelenskyy banned all male Ukrainian citizens
- By 01:24 (UTC+2), President Volodymyr Zelensky
- Sumy.[172] Zelenskyy's press service
Also when mentioning the name of the President of Russia, the "President" part is mostly removed. Might worth considering when deciding on the inconsistencies of the President of Ukraine's name.
Are these inconsistencies intended? FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Good writing practice would provide his full name and title (i.e. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy) at the first instance and the simply Zelenskyy thereafter. Same for Vladimir Putin. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Minor edit suggestion (2): at the "protests" section, all of the countries have links toward their respective Russia-[country] relations with the exceptions of the UK and the US.
Suggested pages to link: Russia–United Kingdom relations and Russia–United States relations
The IOC condemned the invasion, stating that it was a violation of the Olympic Truce, which was supposed to last until March 20. The International Olympic Truce Foundation and International Olympic Truce Center later stated that it would send humanitarian aid to Ukraine. 76.82.51.127 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oryx blog is making a comprehensive list of all Russian and Ukrainian losses in the war. I believe this should be added because it's hundreds times more reliable than unproven and unverifiable Ukrainian claims because it includes visual proof. Rob Lee also has a good ongoing thread as always if anyone is interested. Links:
Are either reliable sources, per our criteria? Independent, verified, expert? Unless Rob Lee recently quit an important media outlet on moral grounds, if he is any kind of reliable source for this, why is no news agency carrying his information? As I mentioned above, where we cannot have verified sources (e.g. for losses), then the next best is to use the partial-but-official sources and attribute the information to let our readers decide how to take it. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes they are. Everything posted by Oryx in confirmed. At least don't be lazy and click the link
Photos from a single, not (enough ?) reputable source, are not a valid proof. On the Web we receive digital photos which can be easily retouched. --Robertiki (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Being "confirmed" by Oryx, which doesn't have an about page to tell us who they are, how they get their info, etc. and which is covered by/discussed in exactly zero other sources, let alone reliable ones (their collages of images stolen from other random Twitter users' "research" has been used by Vice and that is too recent), and which hasn't even got a cult following on social media (only retweets, again, other random "research"), means nothing at all. It could be your mate's blog reposting every photo they find that claims to be from Ukraine for all we know. You have found a guy trying to be Bellingcat, but whoever Oryx is has no reputation. Kingsif (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
So far it looks like the Russian claims regarding their losses are simply that Ukraine's claims are wrong. What would be put besides a giant question mark? Kingsif (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
That is a form of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I.e. if the information is not significant enough to be carried by mainstream secondary sources, it is not significant enough for Wikipedia; if it cannot be verified by such sources, it is not reliable enough for Wikipedia. It is also using unverified primary reports, so basically the same as the official reports, but with less accountability: who is to say that images and videos, not independently verified by reliable experts, are showing a full or correct picture - and it is not like we can say "according to X" for attribution when X is an unknown quantity, leaving readers in the dark. We might as well just ask Wikipedians in Ukraine what is happening and take their word for it instead of using sources. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
In the section on Prelude > Russian accusations, the last paragraph is grossly biased, one-sided, and without proper citation or research. It currently reads:
In a nationalistic speech on 21 February, Putin also alleged that "Ukrainian society" had become "neo-Nazi" without evidence.[67][68] According to Jonathan Allen, there is no evidence for such far-right nationalism in the government, military or electorate. Ukraine's President Zelenskyy is Jewish, and three of his family members died in the Holocaust.[68]
Three of these 4 citations are to the New York Times and NBC. The biggest richest most consistently pro-intervention corporate news outlets in the USA, sharing their opinions on one of their country's fiercest enemies, is not actually an unbiased survey of journalistic and academic material on the subject. If we look beyond the absurdly narrow purview -- not even far, just say, elsewhere on Wikipedia itself, we can see our own website's well-sourced article on the Azov Battalion, which is described in the very first sentence of the Wikipedia introduction as "Neo-Nazi Ukrainian National Guard unit", followed by 6 citations, including numerous major American news sources themselves, who clearly did slightly more diligence than those cited in the article at hand. This is one example of something that bas been pointed out repeatedly by news and academics in the west and east. This section has to be expanded and rewritten at once or else marked NPOV. 2001:56B:3FF7:2BDF:980F:6418:E781:D50 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Greetings IP. This is a very heated topic, and you are probably aware of this. But we volunteers at Wikipedia aim to provide as unbiased articles as possible. So, I'm listening to your concerns.
You point to the Azov Battalion article, which is indeed about a neo-Nazi organization. There's also for example a political party in Ukraine, National Corps, that is described as neo-Nazi. However, I fail to see how this contradicts this article: It is stated here that the claims that "Ukrainian society and government" had become neo-Nazi are baseless. One battalion is not Ukrainian society, and one party that holds zero seats in the parliament is not the government. And since multiple reliable sources (yes, NYT and NBC might be American, but they are reliable) report that the claim about society and government is baseless, we have that in the article.
In order to get a more balanced view, since I can't find them: Can you please link to the sources that support your viewpoint? I promise we will take a look and include them – if they are reliable. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is seriously saying that the Azov Battalion is not a neo-Nazi group (their founder literally called the group "crusade[rs] against the Semite-led Untermenschen"). But using this as to say all of Ukrainian society is suddenly neo-Nazi (rather than this being an issue among a certain sect of Ukrainian nationalism), and therefore in need of a Russian invasion for "denazification" is disingenuous and alarming, to say the least. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
No, don't just leave it there and back away. If the implication is that one march organized by a fringe group of nationalists points to a 'Neo Nazi' society & government, that's ridiculous. ― TaltosKieronTalk15:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
We should include the context of lionizing Stepan Bandera since that is a big example of this in Eastern Europe. Its a well documented problem and can be discussed at length. Alternatively there are the nazi summer camps and other things that could be brought up, although they are less of an institutional issue and more like the azov battalion, nazis being public but no indication of degree of support. Bgrus22 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"alleged without evidence" is WP:WTW and isn't neutral. We should just say that he "said that Ukrainian society had become neo-Nazi" and put Jonathan Allen's refutation in the next sentence. So:
In a nationalistic speech on 21 February, Putin also said that Ukrainian society had become neo-Nazi.[67][68] According to Jonathan Allen, there is no evidence for such far-right nationalism in the government, military or electorate. Ukraine's President Zelenskyy is Jewish, and three of his family members died in the Holocaust.[68]
Cut the scare quotes, cut out the judgemental word in "alleged", and don't go on about how there's "no evidence" in two separate sentences. I'm sure our readers have the ability to decide for themselves if the Jewish president of Ukraine is a neo-Nazi. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I added that the Prime Minister is Jewish as well. I guess I understand your point, but we could also put less distance between the accusation and that the President is Jewish such as "Putin accused Ukraine's Jewish President of being a neo-Nazi." Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
At 16:02, the user "My very best wishes" deleted "While the National Guard of Ukraine is home to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, part of the press noted that they found no widespread support for Nazi ideology in the government, military, or electorate, and that in the 2019 parliamentary elections, Nazi candidates failed to win ...". Can someone reinclude that? I think it is relevant that Ukraine does not prosecute these men in the National Guard. Furthermore, Putin did not say that Selensky is personally a Neo-Nazi, but he said the country is generally run by Neo-Nazis that don't stop Neo-Nazi soldiers from killing people in Luhansk and Donetsk. He accused them of being crypto-fascist. I do not think that pointing out the fact that he is Jewish refutes that. If anything, that makes him worse for not prosecuting Neo-Nazis in the National Guard. Neither is it justified including the section about how weak Neo-Nazi parties are. That should actually make it easier to take them down for the Ukrainian government. Please change some of these arguments. Junkönig (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any Reliable Source that you can provide that back this? Otherwise it seems that the totality of currently available Reliable Sources strongly refute the idea that Ukraine is somehow fascist or neo-Nazi. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe Putin's accusations. But the two arguments (1. Selesky is a Jew and 2. Nazis lose elections) mentioned in the article are not realiable, either. Furthermore, Ukraine still won't expell the Azov Battalion from the National Guard and someone should reinclude this fact. So, please do that. Junkönig (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The consensus of reliable sources state the accusation is groundless, baseless, unsubstantiated etc. As it is not relevant in context, Putin's accusation does not have anything to do with the facts in Ukraine, so gathering additional original research to support the propaganda claim is not in line with encyclopedic policies. Very few of the sources mention the Azov Battalion at all for this specific invasion without extensive other explanation so mentioning it is WP:UNDUE with the current length of the background section. None of the reliable sources see the fringe Azov Battalion as justifying Putin's accusations against Ukrainian people and Ukraine's democratically elected and Jewish President, so presenting this view as a viable side in WP:FALSEBALANCE, is twisting the sources. We shouldn't feed the trolls, especially IP's that don't reply and users who were dormant single-purpose-accounts for years to pop up suddenly. Rauisuchian (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Reactions from Online
Should someone add another section to the reactions concerning reactions of people on social media and in formal media, as a catch all for the reactions of non-official entities that are still of cultural significance? Could also include the market as in the DOW etc. Brandonazz (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"Cultural significance" is highly dependent on location. The opinions of a former leader of a country may be irrelevant to everyone else, what is the criteria for significance? TheKuygeriancontribs userpage17:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Tons of random people have commented on social media. Even Ja Rule has chimed in. [19] If some social media commentator reacts to this I'd like to see RSes covering that reaction before we add it. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
please familiarize yourself with WP:FORUM, and refer to the various subject articles to see how the U.S. Congress was involved in each of those decisions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (4)
Describe Dotnesk and Luhansk as breakaway regions of Ukraine in the introduction (basically change "Russia recognised the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic" to "Russia recognised the self-proclaimed *breakaway regions* or *breakaway states* of Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic") David Jiang (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I heard (from an unreliable source) that Poland has opened its border with Ukraine completely, to everyone with a passport or not.
Can someone look into this and add information to the page if needed? SwanX1 (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Government websites are primary sources - seems like the media rooms are already on fire trying to figure out what is happening. Are there any information for the borders with Hungary, Romania and Moldova? Juxlos (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Bloated "See also" section
The "see also" section is very bloated. I recommend removing "Invasion of Kuwait" and the articles regarding the equipment of the armies. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Article title
Before I start a big RM about this, is there a reason why the word Russian is needed in the title? That seems like an unnecessary disambiguation, as there has been no other invasion of Ukraine in 2022. (Note: 2022 invasion of Ukraine currently redirects here.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there anything particular that should be updated? Editors here try to keep it up to date but this type of comment is less-than-helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Current reports on social media or a ticker website are not entirely reliable. It’s better to be 24 hours late than to be wrong. A lot of social media reports were confidently talking about an amphibious landing in Odessa or a mass paratrooper drop near Kiev (well there’s that helicopter assault I guess). Juxlos (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
A couple guys hacking Russian frontend websites and listening into radio broadcasts anyone with basic equipment can get isn’t a material addition. Check again if anonymous manages to crash a few russian jets. Juxlos (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Don't have time personally but the current death/casualty count is no longer accurate what w/ the new battle outcomes and attacks. If anyone can find local news sources that'd be great- otherwise, it should be more clearly noted that the statistics change rapidly and may be outdated (this is already in the active war banner but it should be reiterated in the data section). 2601:801:202:49E0:A911:85A2:ADD8:FC27 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Why should it be reiterated? It's at the top of the page and applies to everything including the infobox. Wikipedia is not a news outlet and lags behind everyone else with intent. It'll be updated eventually, but thanks for the note. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (5)
I think this could be mentioned under `Invasion`→`24 February`.
Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Oksana Markarova said Thursday that a platoon of Russian soldiers surrendered to the Ukrainian military, saying they "didn't know that they were brought to Ukraine to kill Ukrainians."
At a press briefing, Markarova said, "Just before I came here, we got information from our chief commander that one of the platoons of the 74th motorized brigade from Kemerovo Oblast surrendered."
"They didn't know that they were brought to Ukraine to kill Ukrainians. They thought they were doing something else there," she added.
Hm. I had an edit conflict, part of my notes and the source got cut off. Anyway, here's the source. Word and phrase as appropriate.
Not done for now: sure but let's wait for an RS to publish this (ideally with independent verification?). Right now, I just see a bunch of tabloids and The Hill (whose reliability, itself, is not excellent). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Named individuals sanctioned by the usa
Proposed addition: of appropriate wording along the following lines with link to the relevant section under Targeted parties of the wiki page United States sanctions
As of February 2022, following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States has sanctions against Russian and Belarusian Individuals Pierre Hugot (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
For the map (Military situation as of 24 Feb. 2022), shouldn't the Crimea region be grey?
@Toadstar6 It is good as it is. The map is not limiter by the advancements made since 24-02-2022 by the Russian army, it shows the illegally controlled Ukrainian area by Russia. Odindewit (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Later at an unknown time, an unconfirmed group either it be civilians or Ukrainian military, ambushed a Russian truck carrying what could appear to be logistics and with the perspectives of other angles of the video, a civilian car was ran over by a tank that witnessed the battle. This would be perceived as a war crime and intentional as the truck hit the car after witnessing the ambush by the unknown group. 2600:1016:B010:F094:2C12:F4EB:CD0E:7077 (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
If it's just updating something in the article that is already included, I dont see why not (ie, old RU MoD numbers with new ones) --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Russia Ministry of Defense is claiming that around 150 Ukrainian soldiers surrendered [20][21] and five combat boats have been destroyed [22]. So could anyone update the surrendered figure and add the combat boats losses? Also wouldn't it be better to move the "2 civilian ships bombed (several casualties onboard)" from casualties1 to casualties3? I mean the casualties1 and casualties2 mostly include military casualties while casualties3 include civilian casualties. AlphaTangoIndia (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Please see "External links" section at the very bottom of the page, it lists all the related articles regarding the history and current relationship of Ukraine and Russia FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The map is being updated frequently, and this thread doesn't raise any specific issues so closing to keep things moving. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe that this page could be vandalized easily by autoconfirmed users, therefore it would be prudent to upgrade the amount of protection on this page. This would also serve to allow the more experienced editors to source their edits and prevent the spread of misinformation. Toast(talk)13:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree; it could quite easily be participating in a state-backed disinformation campaign. It's a tricky judgement call given that Ukrainian claims are also often unverifiable, but based on the "additional considerations apply" consensus regarding TASS at WP:RS/P, I think it's reasonable to be extra cautious here given that it's effectively a tool of the Russian state. Jr8825 • Talk08:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about this???? Been seeing reports all over about an ace Ukrainian fighter pilot being called "The Ghost of Kiev" who has suppossedly shot down 6 Russian aircraft??? == Hypsiosthews (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The only "ghost" of Kiev is people who keep using "Donbas" instead of "Donbass", when the name clearly needs a double "s" and please go Putin - khuilo! yourself if you think otherwise. No matter what language your country uses it's still "Donbass", not "Donbas". Ukrainian lacks consonants so why should this be an issue for those who openly despise it? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
This appears to be a viral social media rumor with no official reporting, sourcing, or backing, similar to many other viral social media rumors in current events. Reyne2 (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, and the only source in the draft page says it as well: "So far, there has been no confirmation that the Ghost of Kyiv truly exists (...) What cannot be denied though is that the idea of the Ghost of Kyiv has gripped social media users, particularly staunch supporters of Ukraine (...) Maybe the Ghost of Kyiv is just a fantasy, but for the people of Ukraine, he or she is a hero they want to believe in.". Not notable to me, IHMO P1221 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The article is as of writing 226,545 bytes. Shouldn't most prose about the reactions here be moved, to the reactions and international reactions dedicated articles? Maxorazon (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Even though it is over 200000 bytes, it only has around 37000 bytes of text (readable prose size) so I don't think much of the content needs to be moved at this point. >>> Ingenuity.talk();17:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022: German Chancellor's speech
I think this should be in the Sanctions and Condemnations section. Especially the passage:
"He (President Putin) alone, not the Russian people, has made the decision for war. He alone is responsible. This war is Putin's War." Herr Hartmann (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah! I hadn't noticed that separate article yet. Now that I've seen it I'm pretty sure that this speech should be present in some form in both places.
"International Reactions" looks like a good place for a moderately elaborate summary. Since that article is not protected, I can do that myself.
As to this article, how about this:
In the afternoon of February 24, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz gave a speech on national television in which he placed to blame for the outbreak of the war directly on Vladimir Putin. "He alone, not the Russian people, has made the decision for war. He alone is responsible. This war is Putin's War." Scholz also announced further sanctions, which "will hit the Russian economy hard." Germany had already halted the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project on February 22, in reaction to Putin's recognition of the self-declared people's republics in eastern Ukraine. Herr Hartmann (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
It's just me, or is every little engagement listed as "a battle"?
I would believe on attacks widely covered by RS. Some of these articles are exclusively based on claims reported by single, not-so-reliable sources. P1221 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
en dashes in lead
I don't like them myself and think they look a bit weird next to each president's name in the lead, but I presume Laurel Lodged strongly disagrees, as he's restored them several times. Am I missing some guidance here? Any other editors have thoughts/preferences? Jr8825 • Talk13:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Parenthetic and other uses at the sentence level. En-dashes can be used instead of pairs of commas that mark off a nested clause or phrase. They can also be used around parenthetical expressions – such as this one – rather than the em dashes preferred by some publishers.[1][2] The en dash can also signify a rhetorical pause. For example, an opinion piece from The Guardian is entitled:
Who is to blame for the sweltering weather? My kids say it's boomers – and me[3]
I wanted to point this out to the editors of this article that the Russian ministry of defense declared a siege of the city of Chernihiv about an hour ago, which I assume is a seperate thing that happened from the Battle of Chernihiv which was declared as a Ukrainian victory on its own article. Here is where I got it from: https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/25-february-russian-ministry-of-defense-declares-siege-on (on the page in the top left corner there is a hyperlink linking to the source of where the info came from). I wanted to put this here for the editors in case if a 2nd Battle of Chernihiv article needs to be created.
--Guillaume Taillefer (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Entire article is pro ukraine/nato
Russian casualties are being greatly exaggerated and the real Ukrainian casualties are being silenced.. russia has actually caused much more casualties to ukraine armed forces than shown here 73.46.175.75 (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
We need reliable, independent sources to verify claims present in the article. Note that we do list casualties according to both Ukraine and Russia to try to reduce the issue of Western bias. Do you have any sources that disagree with the current casualty count of either side? Anarchyte (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I fail to see how casualty numbers have anything to do with the morality/favorability of the situation, though I agree with the above that all claims should be presented when independently-verified numbers are not available. As a broader note about the alleged "pro-Ukraine" slant of the article: When the reason given by the invaders for an unprovoked attack is a fabricated international Jewish-led neo-Nazi conspiracy, RS are unlikely to paint it in a positive light. ― Tartan357Talk14:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I see no lack of neutrality, we use official sources and right now that includes Ukraine and the UK, while Russia is doing an information blackout. Readers will want to know what's going on, and we can only allow what's out there. Once reliable estimates are published from 3rd parties we can include that as well. Until Russia claims to have killed more soldiers than is published here, we can't do anything about it. Plus, imo, the numbers look accurate for a large invading force with battles across several cities. Current estimates from the west say Russia put 1/3rd of its force in, which is a lot of boots on the ground relative to the casualties. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Update Ukrainian casualties
Ukrainian casualties should be updated as new information is available indicating higher losses. I believe the Ukrainian defense ministry clarified that 137 Ukrainian soldiers and 57 civilians were killed on the first day, while the spokesman of the Russian defense ministry is claiming that over 200 Ukrainian soldiers were killed in fighting at Antonov International Airport. History Man1812 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
i recall seeing the 137 figure as official from ukraine as well, so curious why it says 40+ right now --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
F1
Hello, about the Russian Grand Prix, the F1 article states that the Russian Grand Prix is Suspended, whilst this article says that it is cancelled. Should it be changed? TTTTRZON (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Although the listed source here from the BBC states that it has been cancelled, the discussion on the F1 talk page seems to indicate a suspension, and not an outright cancellation, as of the time of writing. I'll make the change and see how it plays out. Benjamin112☎16:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I removed a lot of cruft and burden of knowledge on F1. As you can see I am not that interested in the topic, maybe give a few more hours for the F1 boards to clearly state what they want and will do, and for the wikipedians to settle on this? Maxorazon (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. thank you Benjamin112 for handling.
The reported "1 Su-25 crashed" for Russia is most likely a fake
The article cited isn't clear about the source, but earlier today a video showing one "Su-25 crash" was a fake taken from a video-game. I'm not sure if those are the same reports or different ones. If anyone has clearer information regarding this, it would be welcomed.
Chalchiutlicue (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Difficulty of access, either due to cost or broken links/rare publication is not in itself a community accepted reason to remove an otherwise reliable source. See WP:PAYWALL. If you wish to see the source, consider making a request on WP:RX. Melmann06:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed it is (even though it is essentially Kadyrov property), I think that user is referring to the certain units of ethnic Chechens but by "add Chechnya" sounds like he is confusing it as a country. Mellk (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
In fact, Kadyrovtsy (formally it's National Guard Forces Command units but de facto subordinated to Kadyrov personally) are typical punitive squads whose primary task is a conduction of repression in occupied territories. Although Novaya Gazeta writes that Kadyrov's troops will be engaged in subversion and reconnaissance activity in Ukraine.[1] It seems Putin is out of military reserve and he has to use all available units on the front line. I think these considerations can be useful. K8M8S8 (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Why do we have two economic ramification section, which appear to be near word-for-word duplicates. The separate section should be deleted or merged into the subsection.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
According to multiple sources the Middle East is joining the battle[1][2][3]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).. Country alliances will be determined as time progresses. Lmharding (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I'm starting a discussion regarding presidential standards in the infobox. In my humble opinion, having nations'l leaders represented with a different symbol from their nation's flag is quite confusing for a reader. I sincerely don't understand why in this article and in the one about Russo-Ukrainian War, we use standards to "represent" presidents. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure that presidential standards aren't used anywhere else. Thank you! -- Nick.mon (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree. This is not an article about vexillology. The presidential standards are less well known internationally than the country flags are, particularly given that the country flags appear slightly higher in the infobox anyway. --Metropolitan90(talk)06:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
No, because these sources are only about training, this is not about involvement of any paramilitary in the actual conflict. Sure, they will be involved, but this must be reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
"Per United Kingdom: 57 Ukrainian civilians killed[15]
Per Ukraine: 137 Ukrainians killed overall, 316 wounded[21]
Per United Kingdom: 194 Ukrainians killed overall[15]
Per UN: 100,000 civilians displaced[22]"
Can someone put the 2 united kingdoms into one?
Into something like this:
"Per United Kingdom: 57 Ukrainian civilians killed[15], 194 Ukrainians killed overall[15]
Per Ukraine: 137 Ukrainians killed overall, 316 wounded[21]
Per UN: 100,000 civilians displaced[22]"
Butters (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Estonia closes airspace for Russian airlines.
Can be added to the list somehow On 25 February, Poland, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic announced that they would close their airspace to Russian airlines. Estonia announced airspace closure on 26 February.
@Pigsonthewing: It's a rapidly changing news event. You can't trim this because there's a massive proliferation of different citations as there's currently not one single citation that we can use for large parts of the article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (8)
In the article, there is a line that "Both President Zelenskyy and Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal are Jewish, making Ukraine one of two countries in the world to have both a Jewish head of state and head of government, the other being Israel." Someone in the talk page mentioned adding this information. However, I'm pretty sure it's not true. The citations are to a 2019 NYT article referencing Zelensky's recent election and then-PM Volodymyr Groysman, who was indeed Jewish, and a recent Boston Globe article which reads "For a while, both the president and the prime minister of Ukraine were Jewish, something that has never happened anywhere else, aside from Israel." (Emphasis on "were") Indeed, during the brief period of their overlap, Ukraine was one of the very, very few nations on earth with a Jewish head of state and head of government (or who have ever had one of either, let alone one of each, let alone at the same time). However, the present PM, as correctly stated in the relevant passage of the Wikipedia article, is Denys Shmyhal. Outside of this wiki, I cannot find any sources supporting the claim that he's Jewish.
Spreading misinformation about this conflict is not helpful. I understand the intention of highlighting the conflict with Putin's claims of neo-Nazism, but the actual facts can be presented to the same effect. I suspect that this was simply an error, confusion, not malicious. I believe that this requires a correction, urgently ideally, however I don't know enough about Shmyhal to be sure that he isn't Jewish. Also, while it's clear that there is value in mentioning that the popularly-elected president of this allegedly neo-Nazi state is Jewish, I am not sure if it's relevant that they did, in the recent past, simultaneously have a Jewish PM and President. It may be valuable context, so input is requested on how to rewrite/correct/improve that section. Jbbdude (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
Oppose you yourself said "It seems like there is some ambiguity as to the involvement of Belarus". Why move this article based on an uncertainity? If Belarus is confirmed to participate, maybe then we can consider a move. SuperΨDro16:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Detrimental in my opinion to the clarity of the subject. Furthermore, the belligerence of Belarus is still being discussed here. Maxorazon (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Ambiguity: The possible participation of Belarusian forces in the invasion doesn't change the fact that the crime of aggression - the decision and order to invade in violation of international law - were taken by the president of Russia. It's still accurate to describe this as primarily a Russian invasion, whether or not Belarusian forces have participated. Naturalness: excluding "Russian" is not natural to what the reader expects. This is not just random armies from all over the place invading Ukraine. Boud (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Belarus is only allowing Russian military from their borders, they are not invading Ukraine. Broadening the title is unnecessary. 75.81.138.139 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose We discussed the role of Belarus (see "Role of Belarus/belligerent"). According to paragraph (f) of the article 3 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, Belarus is agressor because this country allowed its territory for Russian troops for perpetrating an act of aggression against Ukraine. And it is coincides with official point of view of the head of State Border Guard Service of Ukraine. But Belarusian troops have not invaded Ukraine (at least not yet). It is Russian invasion. In simple terms, Russia is aggressor and invader, Belarus is just aggressor. K8M8S8 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Support because it's the only invasion so far this year. If there's another one, we should distinguish them by country or month. Whether countries other than Russia are involved or not is completely irrelevant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
Suggestions to deal with false nuke reports
I think we need a new zero tolerance policy directed at anyone who actually decides to deliberately post a false claim about the use of nuclear weapons in and around Ukraine. At this time such lies not only can result in panic and even increase the risk of escalation. Anyone who does this shouldn't only be banned immediately they should also be reported to the authorities. This rule needs to also be retroactive from the 24th of February because of the seriousness involved. Experiment632 (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Spurring hatred can certainly be inferred from a false nuke declaration, and this is a legally binding offense in France for example. Maxorazon (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Too much bureaucracy. People are going to lie and make stuff up here on the talk page all the time. So long as it doesn't make it into the article, it doesn't matter that much and we can deal with it via normal processes. Anyone who believes random Wikipedia editors on the talk page of an article that say nuclear war has started has issues of their own. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (3)
According to Al-Jazeera six Greek nationals have been killed and six others were wounded can you add that data to the causalties. Demotal (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The Reuters article cited for Greek casualty numbers claims 10 Greek expats killed in Ukraine from Russian bombing, not 6. Please correct this in the casualty box and in the citation at the bottom of the article. The article title has changed since first linked. Stephanos100 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to suggest the following:
On 25 February, Russia vetoed a Security Council resolution to require Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, as expected.
be reworded to:
On 25 February, Russia vetoed a Security Council draft resolution "deploring, in the strongest terms, the Russian Federation's aggression", as expected.
(Bolding only for clarifying the proposed change.)
The terms here seem pretty important to me, that failed UNSC draft resolution is kind of the most significant temperature measure of the 'international community' at the moment, in my eyes. I can't find what's the exact status of a draft resolution neither of the vote on such a resolution, and I have not been able to find archive of this one on the UN website.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thanks, SixulaTalk19:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (6)
Request to add a Failed Verification template to the statement “It was later confirmed that the aircraft was a Ukrainian Su-27.” in the paragraph about an aircraft crashing into Kiev. The provided citation (19 in the reflist) does not substantiate the statement. Alternatively, the statement could simply be deleted. Yeoman Scrap 18:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done The source says Ukrainian Deputy Interior Minister Evgeny Yenin told CNN a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jet was shot down over Kyiv. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Namura Queen
Only one japanese ship flying under the Panamanian flag has been damaged, the casualties box says a Panamanian, and two Japanese ships have been attacked. All three of the sources talk about the same ship, the Namura Queen. Editssometimez (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done "The enforcement mechanism is sanctions against the person or company." wouldn't replacing it with "is sanction" make the grammar worse? >>> Ingenuity.talk();13:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (2)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. sl (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (4)
In think it should be added into subsection "Sanctions":
On 26 February 2022, Dmitry Medvedev stated that Russia would arrest accounts of foreign companies and natural persons, reintroduce the death penalty, and denounce New START as response to sanctions.[1]
As this was just him saying its what he would like to see, I do not think this is all that relevant. It will be if Russia does it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
In Economic ramifications#24 February 2022, it is implied that the only few EU countries support the measure to exclude Russia from SWIFT are the Baltic countries and some others, when in fact, there are only four countries that are against it (Germany, Italy, Cyprus and Hungary), according to CNN. I think it is very important to clarify this in the paragraph. --KajenCAT (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The foreign ministers of the Baltic states, Poland and Ukraine called for Russia to be cut off from SWIFT, the global intermediary for banks' financial transactions. However, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Cyprus were reluctant, both because European lenders held most of the nearly $30 billion in foreign bank's exposure to Russia and because China has developed an alternative to SWIFT called CIPS; a weaponisation of SWIFT would provide greater impetus to the development of CIPS which in turn would weaken SWIFT as well as the West's control over international finance. Other leaders calling for Russia to be stopped from accessing SWIFT include Czech President Miloš Zeman and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. US President Joe Biden ruled out blocking Russia from SWIFT after the invasion began, claiming that some European countries remained opposed to the proposal. He argued that sanctions being put in place would exceed the impact of cutting Russia from SWIFT.
Yes, please clarify. At least the Guardian recently didn't even include Hungary (but small Cyprus), I don't know what's newer, perhaps they changed their mind? Canada is in favor also, why is that even suggested to be a EU question? It's a global system, of nation states, EU or not EU doesn't matter much. When Biden said EU he probably meant Europe anyway, unfortunate but common. -82.83.169.119 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that the rest are in support. It means only six have expressed a position on the issue, that CNN was aware of at the time of writing and wanted to include in the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the issue is that it's very hard to say. There are real concerns for why Russia should not be cut off from SWIFT, primarily CIPS, and I think it's an oversimplification to say that X countries are in favour and Y countries against. Boris Johnson for instance says that he's in favor, but to be fair he's said a lot... some statements of which have been more accurate than others. The US for that matter if it wanted to could unilaterally cut Russia from SWIFT by threatening to break from the system, but it has not done that, which shows hesitancy on the US' part as well. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree, and in my edit I tried to mention the concerns the countries (who commented) had about cutting Russia off from SWIFT. Hopefully it explains the dispute somewhat, though further contributions to improve it would be very welcome! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The excellent map of course can be expanded, which is OK for cities. But can it be given another level expansion so that all relevant place names can be read? Davidships (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Image description currently in this article and the front page of Wikipedia possibly incorrect?
This image has been described as showing a missile strike site however the damage is incredibly minimal for what I would expect from a missile with no crater and I came across a video showing this exact scene but earlier in the morning closer to when the invasion began as it was still dark outside and before the wreckage of the missle was supposedly removed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I98Pt5sAh7s
I'm not sure about this but part of the missile did hit the structure, which technically counts as a missile strike (correct me if I'm wrong) Butters (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I would agree with Butters, as it was a guided airborne ranged weapon capable of self-propelled flight. It isn't the "traditional" missle strike in the sense it was a booster from a missile, not the missile warhead striking the building. That being said, I don't know of a better way to describe what happened given the facts. Jurisdicta (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
You could call it "Collateral damage caused by missile fragment from an air strike.", or something like that. Make it the caption of the figure. It wasn't the target (since that is not here the warhead hit), but it was damage caused by the air strike. Maybe link to the source who says it was from a booster. I found a tweet from the mayor of Kyiv, who says it was the "result of the wreckage of the rocket in a residential building on kosice street, 7-A" (google translation).
You can see in the above talk sections on belligerents 1 & 2 that ProcrastinatingReader is trying very hard to strike a balanced and accurate view on the involvement of NATO. This conflict is a great risk to the global peace so this is fully understandable. I personally agree to adding more prominent support from NATO in the infobox and the reaction paragraphs.Maxorazon (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
My original point has been made moot by the newer changes to the article structure. In any case, I surely didn't mean to criticize anybody's efforts to keep the article focused. I appreciate all of the editors who have been herding cats here. - Featous (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The conflict is only a 'great risk to global peace' if the Russians happen to "get lost" and wind up in a NATO territory, unlikely in the most extreme. The news services like to whip up a lot of rhetoric for ratings purposes - editors need to ignore this. Stay calm, combat is liable to be over in a week with no wider war.50.111.36.47 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Sanctions
The sanctions page in the introduction links to the sanctions in place between 2014 and present. That should go in the Russo-Ukrainian War page. As it stands, countries have introduced new sanctions specifically related to the invasion, shouldn't this be the stuff linked?Angele201002 (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Russian losses need to be updated?
Russia's 74th Motorized Rifle Brigade recon platoon surrendered near Chernihiv, as stated with sources in the article, but I do not see it counted in the infobox as Russian losses. Any reason why, other than oversight? — Kiutsushou (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Could you provide the specific link? And also, "a platoon" would best be specified as the exact number of soldiers captured. Juxlos (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Boldface fixation
I agree with not cramming boldface into the lead sentence. It is not, or at the very least should not be, standard practice to have redundancy in the lead sentence, e.g. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine commenced on 24 February 2022 when Russia launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine.Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion on my talk page, contrary to the general expectation that we should usually bold the article title, WP:BOLDITIS (an explanatory supplement of MOS) explicitly says that ("[bolding] is not mandatory and should be followed only where it lends natural structure to the sentence" original emphasis). There's also the section on MOS:REDUNDANCY, which speaks specifically to the wording here. Jr8825 • Talk11:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Multiple subsections of MOS:LEAD state that the lead sentence should not be distorted to include the article title, including MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:REDUNDANCY. Defining the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 does not help Wikipedia look serious. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
That exception might only be said to apply in this case because - perversely - the opening words do not mirror the article name. This is contrary to standard. When the opening words are changed to "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" then the exception will no longer apply. The bolding will then be entirely correct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Could you suggest a full first sentence that uses the article's title but still conveys the same amount of useful information as the current one, and doesn't sound repetitious? I don't think it's easily done without twisting the sentence into a pretzel, to use the analogy at BOLDITIS. Jr8825 • Talk11:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing perverse in the opening words not mirroring the article name. MOS:FIRST: "If the article title is merely descriptive, the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." What is perverse is sacrificing lead sentence quality for some boldface. Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
When you boil that sentence down though, it effectively says "the ... Russian invasion of Ukraine commenced ... when Russia ... inva[ded] Ukraine" – which shows how repetitive it is. Jr8825 • Talk11:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The venue for discussing Invasion of Poland is Talk:Invasion of Poland. The problem with your second suggestion is the same as the problem with your previous suggestion(s): it introduces redundancy for no benefit, making the lead sentence absurd. Of course the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an attack on Ukraine by Russia in 2022. Is there any benefit to the reader in bending over backwards to include some boldface? Surtsicna (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The Invasion of Poland article has been stable for quite some time now. I feel no need to discuss it at Talk:Invasion of Poland. On the other hand, it appears that Surtsicna may have a problem with it. If so, i suggest that you take your own advice. Be sure to tell the editors there Of course the Invasion of Poland is an attack on Poland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
If the Invasion of Poland article stated that the 1939 German-Soviet invasion of Poland was an attack on Poland by Germany and the Soviets in 1939, then yes, I would have a problem with it. Please focus on the subject at hand, which is the lead sentence of this article, and do not feel the need to presume my thoughts on other subjects. I will happily express them myself if and where I deem them relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
There were already three parties in the discussion (now four). Citing one guideline while dismissing other guidelines as "I don't like it" is not constructive. Likewise, you have made no attempt to explain why a sentence with repetition is better than the sentence without. Surtsicna (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't care if yas boldface (I assume this is about the intro) or not. Just be consistent about it, across all War/Invasion/Battle etc articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
We can have consistency among those that have established names and consistency among those that do not. There is no one size that can fit both groups, however. They can, however, all be consistent with the Manual of Style. Surtsicna (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Take it up with the Manual of Style. You are cherry picking from it. The quality of the sentence is more important than a boldface fixation. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Probably not, but the deliberate reprehensible tank rolling over a civilian's car should be. I think it will become an iconic image of Russia's sadistic violence. WWGB (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The State Border Guard Service of Ukraine alleges that Belarusian soldiers are involved as belligerents in the invasion. I suggest Belarus is changed from a supporter of the invasion to an (alleged) or (disputed) belligerent in the infobox.
Let's await third party confirmation for clarity, as an "alleged" or "disputed" structure would be more confusing than the current, potentially inaccurate, phrasing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: I understand your rationale, but my concern would be that by listing Belarus next to Russia and the two breakaway entities, it will cause readers to think the Belarusian troops are directly involved. Perhaps a footnote is enough to clarify this, but I think some caution is wise. Also, ProcrastinatingReader suggested in a below discussion that the resolution is non-binding/ambiguous? Jr8825 • Talk11:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I see no reason why the non-binding status of the resolution could not also form part of a note (as well as the lack of Belerus troops). Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Fundamentally, it's original research to take some original text like a treaty or piece of legislation or a resolution that interprets part of said treaty and then for Wikipedia editors to decide that definition is met in a given case and therefore label it as such. Reliable sources should make that judgement. Secondly, the infobox documentation suggests we should use the format most likely to be clear to the reader, which seems to be the current formulation for now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
In infobox, Belarus is designated as "supported by". According to paragraph (f) of the article 3 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, the action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State, is qualified as an act of aggression. Russian Kyiv Offensive (2022) is carrying out from Belarusian territory, and it means that Belarus is aggressor just like Russia. That is why I think that Belarus should be designated as direct belligerent, and the note "b" should be supplemented by reference to paragraph (f) of the article 3 of the aforementioned Resolution. K8M8S8 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not waiting for a Security Council resolution. I am (or was) waiting for a (non-Wikipedia) consensus that Belarus is a belligerent (via reliable sources, government statements, etc) rather than just supporting. Nevertheless, I think the point that the invasion effort is significantly enhanced by Belarus's involvement is quite strong. I still feel like it's OR for editors (including myself) to decide that, but I guess the criteria is which infobox presentation is clearer for the reader, and that decision is subjective and does fall on Wikipedia editors. I'm neutral overall, as I can see the pros and cons of both approaches. Would prefer more opinions from others, and ideally a consensus here before any change is made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there any available reliable information anywhere of the financial cost of this conflict... for both sides in hryvnias and rubles of how much this is all costing for both sides ?? Would this info merit inclusion to the article? 81.108.244.153 (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I think any reliable info on things like cost would only happen after the dust settles (or at least deintensifies) and we get some broader analysis of the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Archiving reverted
My archiving of several ended discussions, 15Kb in total, has been reverted en masse (on this page only) with an edit summary of "Please do not archive ongoing discussions". This includes the restoration of "edit semi-protected" posts which had been marked as done; and resolved requests to source specific statements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The OP did much more than "archiving of several ended discussions". He archived threads which were still under active discussion (some just minutes earlier), which was why I reverted him.. Sans souci. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@WWGB: That makes more sense. I've went ahead and hatted a bunch of issues that were mooted/too WP:SNOW to be meaningful. Hope that helps with the deluge of threads. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I archived 8 sections at 12:21 UTC. The last edits to each discussion (all times UTC) were respectively:
04:49 - noting incorrect map had been removed
11:05 - saying a requested change had been made
06:01 - query "Isn't this a bit biased?" answered
08:30 - noting that disputed claim was now sourced
06:49 - query answered
07:49 - requested edit marked done
12:06 - non-productive mud slinging, accusing another editor of "nazism"; since collapsed by a different editor as "WP:NOTFORUM"
Re: "12:06". As the target of the Nazism and other ad hominem attacks, I was in the process of responding to said attacks when the thread was summarily archived. POTW elected to conveniently archive eight disparate sections in a single edit, ("Ideally, each edit should contain one distinct change.") I elected the same convenience to restore the section to which I was responding. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
WWGB gives a quotation, but does not attribute it. It is from WP:Reverting. I was not reverting. They were. Archiving multiple sections is standard practice, whether done manually or by bot. And now it seems they were reverting only to persist in the mud-slinging discussion which, as already noted, another editor subsequently hatted per WP:NOTFORUM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Your archiving is more aggressive than I would've done it, and I note editors have had to unarchive a few sections. I'm inclined to unarchive a few others because I think they're promising. We do want to archive sections that aren't going anywhere or have been resolved, but shouldn't archive things that may require further discussion/action. Archiving solely for staleness reasons should be a few days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Also wish to note that it's very important this article is clear for average readers. Many design decisions that Wikipedians are used to aren't clear if you're not used to WikiPresentation. This is especially relevant in the infobox, where things are less contextualised than in the body. That is to say, I think comments from casual IP readers, stating things that confused them (like the sections below that I unarchived), are very helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
"Per United Kingdom"
I've seen several people now who read this article and misunderstood what the different sections under "casualties" meant, thinking the UK has joined the war. I would suggest changing the subheadings for the different sources to "According to Ukraine", "According to Russia", "According to UK" etc to minimise confusion around what these actually mean. 78.150.114.169 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
User @Mellk: has started an hostile revert cycle, willing to maintain the two puppet states of Donetsk and Luhansk as prominent belligerents in the main infobox. I don't think it is appropriate, since we are talking about a conflict concentrating the world's attention, between two main states widely recognized. Maxorazon (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the notes are sufficient. Or have them bulletpointed under Russia. Omitting them because they are not "widely recognized" states is not a valid reason. Mellk (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
In my experience, the Belligerents section of a conflict infobox includes all parties to the conflict, including coalitions, militia groups and unrecognized states. e.g. International military intervention against the Islamic State. For a while, there were even wild animals listed as belligerents on some pages (eg. [27]), although in this case I believe it was decided that Emus in general don't constitute a unified group that could be party to a conflict. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I advocate to omit them from the belligerent section only, the PRs still appear in the strength section of the infobox below. This is clearly a hot topic. Currently, visually, the Russian camp seems to have much more actors and belligerents than the Ukrainian one - while Russia is immensely isolated on the international scene. Having these PRs in belligerents is biased towards Russia mind share in my opinion ; hence why I propose to remove these two states that have been made-up last week. Maxorazon (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
These "republics" were formed 8 years ago. They were only recognized as independent by Russia a few days ago. Mellk (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine is the only armed party fighting on their side of the conflict, while the rebel "states" constitute distinct groups from Russia. These are just facts, and we do not need to obscure them to metaphorically balance the tables or make Russia appear to be less supported. In fact it is our duty not to. Furthermore, we cannot remove groups from belligerents and then reference their leaders and troops further down in the infobox, as these are breakdowns of what is already listed in belligerents. Lastly, I believe that the rogue states have been declaring themselves prior to Russian recognition of them "just last week". At the end of the day a state being "recognized" is an effectively arbitrary construction anyway. Wikipedia should be not be omitting groups that are verifiably participating due to their international diplomatic status, which is unrelated to their coverage on this wiki. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand that there is a soft consensus at wikipedia on this topic. I am willing to challenge it. I think that, not having a clear definition of what is a belligerent in a war between states, is not acceptable for wikipedia, which is handling hot conflicts.
With the surge of cyber warfare and in the information age, if "distinct groups" is the definition for a belligerent, what will you do if someone adds Anonymous or the subreddit r/ukraine as belligerents? They can be considered as virtual as the diplomatic venues of the discussed "popular republics".
To me, having a threshold of united nations recognizing a state participating to the war is a good definition of a belligerent - there surely can be other definitions agreed upon, but they need to be more formal IMO. Maxorazon (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
"In fact it is our duty not to." I believe that is actually our duty to question this representation that wikipedia currently exhibits here, and which favors Russia. In such a global polarizing conflict, remaining neutral is venturing on the utopia land, and not being naive about Russian cyber influence manoeuvres as important as the ones from the Occidental imperialism. Maxorazon (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
There is an extreme tension in my opinion between the ability to cover a hot topic live, and the goal to only follow others. A curfew/delay of several weeks on hot events could be imagined? Maxorazon (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
If belligerents must be UN recognised to appear on the belligerents section then this poses a problem in pages such as International military intervention against the Islamic State or Islamic State–Taliban conflict where one or both sides are not UN recognised. Either way, why should UN recognition determine whether a state is a belligerent or not? There's no precedent for it on Wikipedia and I can't see any good reasons for it to be made into a new precedent now. Armed groups on the ground that refer to themselves as the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic are engaged in active fighting, is that not enough for belligerency? Groups like Anonymous or r/Ukraine aren't engaged in combat on the ground, so that seems like an odd counterargument to make, especially since there's no precedence on internet actors' inclusion either (that I am aware of). ArlodhTrevanion (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Which is to be expected, since this is as much of a physical conflict than a conflict on representations, and the Russian government is heavily accused of revisionism. Maxorazon (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Different parts of the same article can have biases towards different parties, resolving them individually is not inconceivable to me. I wanted to stress that the whataboutism on the "arbitrary construction anyway" may be dangerous, because here we deal not only with facts but with a whole lot of arbitrary representations, it matters to everybody to define and differentiate these. Maxorazon (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I propose, as discussed two sections above, to add to belligerents NATO support to Ukraine, very carefully explaining that this is not direct involvement. And also to mention the unrecognized status of most Russia's allied states - this as a whole would better reflect in my opinion the actual balance of power. Maxorazon (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Surely direct involvement in combat is what defines a belligerent? Again, it feels like you are arguing from a perspective of wanting to promote a particular perception rather than reporting the facts per established consensus. I'm sympathetic to this - I am wholely on the side of Ukraine personally - but I am not convinced that the specific wording of a Wikipedia infobox, as decided by relatively uninvolved volunteers, is materially relevant to the outcome of the conflict (at least not without butterfly-effecting the matter to oblivion). Given this, we should stand by Wikipedia's principles of aiming to report reliably sourced facts per editor consensus, and what you are suggesting is such a broad change in how we present parties to armed conflicts that you'd do better proposing it at WP:VPPRO and starting a discussion about how we word the relevant templates. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I am surely culprit of this. But I don't think that Wikipedia needs such a butterfly effect to be impactful: there has been 2 million hits on the page in 24 hours. IMO it can help boost or defeat the morale of Ukrainians and Russians alike, so this should not be treated lightly. Maxorazon (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Now that NATO is added under support with an explanation directly in brackets about military aid (as opposed to a tooltip), I will say that I am actually not opposed to this - although I imagine other Wikipedians will probably have stronger policy thoughts on the matter. BlackholeWA (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Daily maps of invasion
I think the article needs daily maps of the front line in the end of each subsection of the section "Invasion": front line map at the end of 24 February 2022 (UTC+2), front line map at the end of 25 February 2022, ... and so on. It will be possible to compare front line changes. The subsection "24 February" had the map; why was it removed? K8M8S8 (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I actually support this, although longer term it might make more sense to just make it an animation of the progression of the invasion. Melmann10:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@MaitreyaVaruna: But I have some notes. We should use local Ukrainian time (UTC+2). So, 24th February is the date of the beginning of the invasion, not 23rd February. And we should make edit request here, on the talk page, to include your animated map in the article. K8M8S8 (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
May I also suggest that the most comprehensive legend be applied to parts of the animations to aid consistency. --Cdjp1 (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Almost certainly it was Russian, and probably a mistake. Backsplatter/bystander casualty of the 'fog of war.' An RS will give a detailed report on this sooner or later - Wiki can wait.50.111.36.47 (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Would this incident give Turkey grounds to invoke Article 5 ("An attack on one is an attack on all") of the NATO Treaty which would justify the NATO countries to intervene in the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Following its intervention in protests against the government earlier in 2022, Moscow requested that Kazakhstan send troops to assist in the offensive, but Nur-Sultan refused the request, reiterating that it does not recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk separatists
Is completely false. Russia never requested troops from Kazakhstan. The only official statement from Kazakhstan at the moment is below:
Senate Speaker Ashimbayev: The conflict zone is not in the territory of CSTO member states. Therefore, Kazakhstan does not have the right under these treaties, under ratified agreements, to send peacekeepers within the CSTO to a conflict zone. "But if any situation arises and a decision is made at the UN level within the UN mandate, Kazakhstan can send peacekeepers to any point in the world if there is a decision to do so," Ashimbayev said. [1]
Which is quite different from what the text in the article says. The fact of misinformation was confirmed by Zakon.kz in its telegram blog [2](In Russian). The NBC article does not have any references mentioned, what kind of credible sourcing is that? The recognition of Donestk and Luhansk was never even mentioned.
Which is why this text needs to be removed from the Other countries and international organizations to avoid misinformation. If somebody has the rights to do so, please do accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
It is more or less a reputable news agency in Kazakhstan, publishing political and legislative news. If that is not enough, factcheck.kz has analysed the misinformation and concluded:
In line with editorial methodology, we conclude that the story is a manipulation. A clickbait was used in the headline, the source data does not correspond to that presented in the story, the author of the distortion does not rely on verifiable sources - there is no evidence of Russia's request to use Kazakhstani peacekeepers in the Russian-Ukrainian war. The report that Kazakhstan's position was welcomed by the US National Security Council is also not confirmed by open sources at the time of publication; it is only available on the NBC website and in re-publications. We do not exclude that such a statement could have been made, but it is not currently available in other publications. [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that NBC has an equal level of credibility with the KZ government hand when it makes such claims and that its publication, unsupported by any references, should outweigh the arguments of the local news agency and local fact-checking organisation? Are you serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
NO, I am saying you started this off with a claim "The only official statement from Kazakhstan at the moment is below:", which it was not. As far as I can see there is no statement there denying they were asked for troops, just that they are not sending any. I have no idea bout the reliability of Zakon.kz, and if you want to make an argument based upon another line of reason go ahead. But there has been (as far as I can tell) no official denial they were asked. Slatersteven (talk)
I am saying you started this off with a claim "The only official statement from Kazakhstan at the moment is below, which it was not. Could you read it again and see that there was a statement by the Speaker of the Senate, or see at least one link I shared? NBC article was published today at 06:21 Astana time while the comment from the Senate Speaker dated 24 February 11:59. Do you think the government will comment on every news story in the world? I understand that zakon.kz will raise questions from foreigners, but at least read what factcheck.kz has provided (with translation, of course). Logically, a request by the forces would mean that at least some information would appear in Russian sources about this request, but this is not the case. The Senate speaker was commenting on internal speculation, not an official request from Russia.--Fl7wless (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Foreign support to Ukraine
Oughtn't there be a section about in the article about lethal and non-lethal aid supplied or being promised to the Ukrainians from several Western countries? Right now there is nothing about it, it seems to me a not completely unimportant part of the story considering how much Ukraine has been insisting on it? Yakikaki (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I will give the same answer as I did above (and below) Any sources on what that aid is?, because without any we can't have a section that is empty of anything. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
A non-belligerent state differs from a neutral one in that it may support certain belligerents in a war but is not directly involved in military operations... The term is often used to describe a country that does not take part militarily in a war.
In that sense only Ukraine (and not the arms suppliers) should be in the belligerent section.
Although, reading the Template:Infobox military conflict guidance, it seems a lot of flexibility is left to local editors (however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) ... may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding ... Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. -- providing military equipment (etc) may well be sufficient to list them as 'combatants' in that sense. I think it's subjective whether it improves reader understanding, but I also see unrelated reasons for why it would be a good idea to include them all, so (on rethinking) I think I might lean towards supporting inclusion at this time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that article is the best example for good practice, having closed an RfC there before where the majority position was not policy compliant.
Personally I'm unsure and going a bit back and forth on this. It does seem the West's most substantial intervention is in punitive economic sanctions (though of debatable severity). The Ukrainian PM mentioned in one comment that some British anti-air weapons were used and were helpful, and that more equipment would be helpful, but I don't know to what extent that's politics or whether Western arms supplies are actually substantially helpful (my understanding is the West is not providing meaningful military assistance in this particular invasion, although in the wider crisis in the past few years it might've, and I'm not aware of any military supplies being sent to Ukraine since the start of the invasion). In which case it would not only be inaccurate but maybe even insulting to imply NATO is doing more than it is. Perhaps waiting for sources to come to a consensus is the best approach. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose listing parties that are not participating in combat operations. The trend towards listing entities that are indirectly involved in military conflicts is understandable, but it leads to a mess of OR, UNDUE, and sometimes outright misleading information being included. Diplomatic and material support can be discussed in the article text. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment:'
Should we add Chechnya to the infobox? Such as
I believe NATO should be removed from the infobox as supporting Ukraine, vocal support is not an act of military belligerency. Viewsridge (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed I am aware, however yes vocal support and action is support, and NATO has made it clear they support Ukraine. Stating otherwise and going against what was announced via NATO is Original Research. While can be argued that the support is inefficient, to classify as support. Such nearly all reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine. If we establish a consensus that reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine, and NATO themselves state so stating otherwise is just OR, not only OR but it sets an dangerous precedent of ignoring citations when felt so.
I do however understand the argument that military source is not currently being provided, however we don't classify military support as being the only thing to add to infoboxes. As an example the War in Iraq (2013–2017), another example being the Russo-Ukrainian War shows many countries that supported the campaign but did not aid militarily. If we define that aid support is important then that classifies as support. Des Vallee (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
What support? What reliable sources? Your edit had three sources. Two said NATO was deploying to NATO states which are *adjacent* to Ukraine, and the third literally says NATO and British troops will not be used to assist Ukraine because it would create an existential threat.[28]ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
details support and 1 Moreover the citations go into detail onto military aid being sent to Ukraine, the third is due to the announcement and other. I think a foot-note may be best while this is being discussed on the situation with Russia, perhaps linking to the reaction section. The info-box needs to make that clear as military support is not the only action towards support, and I concur with Maxorazon. Des Vallee (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Both those sources precede the invasion, one is from 2018(!). I accept that NATO have supported Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War over the years, including the provision of arms and training. But this article is not about the war since 2014, or even the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, it's about the invasion of Ukraine, a narrow scope concerning a military conflict. AFAIK no country has agreed to provide substantive military assistance to Ukraine. I accept humanitarian aid etc is being given, and maybe further weapons shipments (which countries have said they're open to, although I'm not aware of any shipments since the invasion began) but I think that needs to be mentioned in the article body, where it can be properly contextualised to avoid confusion. Though I'm back and forth on this, as I said in the other section, seeing some people, including editors, be confused by the NATO (etc.) additions in the infobox leads me to feel this addition is a problem without proper contextualisation. We know a lot of people just read the lead+infobox and nothing else. To them the suggested presentation could give–and indeed has given–the impression that NATO states are actually doing something substantive to help Ukraine militarily against the Russian aggression, when obviously we know they aren't, as the Ukranian PM[29] and ambassador[30] have said and as everyone acknowledges. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, the source is from 2018 such a source does however detail Military support to Ukraine, and the other is deom the recent. The statement that no country has agreed to send extensive military support is not correct. I do however agree with your statement that it may be best to take the complexities of the situaiton. However the situation has passed. According to this citation 1 NATO forces are already deploying troops.
"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Friday that U.S. President Joe Biden and his counterparts have agreed to send parts of the organization’s response force to help protect allies in the east following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Speaking after chairing a NATO summit in Brussels, Stoltenberg said the leaders decided to send parts of the NATO Response Force and elements of a quickly deployed spearhead unit. He did not say how many troops would be deployed, but confirmed that the move would involve land, sea and air power."Des Vallee (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The details are unknown but even if it did, it's still direct military support towards Ukraine, if we take an example of say the Congo Crisis, UN forces could only operate in neutral provinces or counties and only fire once fired on, the are still listed as a belligerent. Moreover the article proves the foundation of non-military support in infoboxes as countries like United States, Soviet Union are listed despite not sending in troops, and only providing material support, another example being the Soviet–Afghan War listing supporting nations. Des Vallee (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
That was not a delivery of weapons by NATO as whole (an organization). That was supply of weapons by individual countries: USA, Poland, Canada, etc. NATO includes 30 countries. By including just "NATO" you falsely implicated countries that did not actually supply any weapons. If you believe these countries should be included as supporters in belligerent section, please start new thread and justify your position. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@My very best wishes:This borders strongly on the disingenuous side. The Reuters reference, which was in the belligerent section of the infobox, was the head of NATO explicitly declaring the sending of weapons. Also, as you probably know, there is the article 5, which virtually makes every military action of a member state the action of the whole group. I firmly disapprove that the mention as it was was misleading to the reader. Maxorazon (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
P.S. why in fact should I bear the charge of the source as I already supplied it? It is your turn to find such reliable sources backing your position, reverting meanwhile. Maxorazon (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
According to the cited source [31], the delivery of weapons is NOT an action by by NATO as a whole (as an organization) and NOT an action by all members of the organization (there are ~ 30 members), as your edit (insertion of NATO in the infobox) implies. Yes, the individual countries did delivered weapons, as this source say. Yes, this source say "NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Friday the alliance was deploying parts of its combat-ready response force". But the combat-ready response force was deployed in countries that are not participants of the military conflict, as someone else already noted above. Please self-revert or you may be reported to WP:3RR or WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Quoting the first paragraph. "the alliance was deploying parts of its combat-ready response force and would continue to send weapons to Ukraine". I see literally the alliance subject of the verb send, with the object being weapons.
I am not trying to antagonize for the sake of it: my hope is to remain as objective as possible while conveying a real change of the attitude of Europeans. Meanwhile your accusation remains baseless, maybe other opinions could further advance the debate. Maxorazon (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
P.S. RaiderAspect has a nuanced view on why he is opposing it in the belligerent section. BlackholeWA supports in the breakaway state section. I repeat, that in my opinion, not mentioning anyone standing besides Ukraine is more dishonest to the reader than displaying NATO help in such contrived terms "indirect defensive military & ISR aid". Maxorazon (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
You always need to read and understand what the source actually say. It say: "Some of the 30 NATO allies announced the type of weapons that they would supply Ukraine, including air defenses, he said, without giving details.". This is all. Everything else (such as relocating their forces) was not in support of Ukraine, but to defer Russia from attacking NATO countries. My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
At the NATO pristine source, quoting "We will continue to provide political and practical support to Ukraine as it continues to defend itself and call on others to do the same." I suggest that you revert to displaying NATO as supporting belligerent. Which it is, not recognizing it is some denial of reality. Maxorazon (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, he tells that ""We will continue to provide political and practical support to Ukraine". But who are "we"? After reading the text, it is abundantly clear it is not NATO as an organization, but a few countries (all sources say about it in terms of support from specific countries). That info about supporting Ukraine is already included on the page, and rightly so. But saying this is "whole NATO" in the infobox is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
You are forming original research here. Please refer to WP:OR, we are not as editors supposed to look for interpretations ourselves, the interpretation should be made in the sources. I have cited explicitely two sources backing my position, you have cited nothing and only pretended to be better able to read prose than me. I am calling for help from other editors and already for moderation for help, to revert to the previous state on this topic. Maxorazon (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 21:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Done by another user. —AFreshStart (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Done userdude 04:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done this article uses dmy format so it is correct. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian invasion of Ukraine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
Already done - it looks like someone already replaced the URL with the one the anonymous editor suggested. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
