Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022 (5)

Change:

Escalation (21–23 February) In the evening of the 21st of February, at 22:35 (UTC−5),[147] Putin announced the recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics.

To:

Escalation (21–23 February) In the evening of the 21st of February, at 22:35 (UTC−5),[147] Putin announced the recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics. In the same presidential address Putin also claimed that Ukraine never had "real statehood" and was part of Russia. Historian Timothy Snyder argues that is a myth that Putin used to justify the invasion. Similarly, according to Ukranian correspondent Olga Tokariuk, the speech "was perceived as a declaration of war on Ukraine" by Ukranians. 213.31.111.73 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is giving undue weight to Putin's justification of the war in a section about escalation. The article already mentions that Putin believes that Russians and Ukrainians were "one people" and that he expressed Russian irredentist views. Pabsoluterince (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Kherson offensive main article

Double redirect (Southern Front Offensive -> Southern Front offensive)--2600:1700:4579:B80:AC93:64D2:7D79:C19E (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. — Hydrogenation (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian casualties per Ukraine and Twitter as a reference

Ukraine has announced that 9,000+ Russian soldiers have been killed, Please do not change this into casualties or losses without a reference. @EkoGraf: Confirmed Twitter accounts of NBC News correspondents should not be considered unreliable, just because Twitter is being used as an intermediary of nbcnews.com. Viewsridge (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Viewsridge: If its reported by NBC news then an appropriate non-Twitter source can be provided, like you properly did here [2]. Thank you for that. As for the other thing, like I already said, as seen from the Ukrainian government's statements from the previous days, they have not been consistent, referring at some points to both killed and injured, not just killed. Pattern:

1st report - 2,800 "lost" [3];
2nd report - 3,500 killed [4];
3rd report - 4,300 "lost" [5];
4th report - 5,300 losses/killed and wounded [6];
5th report - 5,710 lost/killed and wounded [7];
6th report - 5,840 lost [8];
7th report - 6,000 killed [9];
8th report - 7,000 killed [10];
9th report - 9,000 killed [11].

The figures are consistent during their rise, but the 4th, 5th and 6th reports stand out that they do not refer to them as killed, but actually killed and wounded or lost. I also find it interesting that whenever its reported exclusively "killed" it comes from the President's office, but when they say it refers to killed and wounded it comes from the Ukrainian General Staff. In the same day that the General Staff reported 5,840 Russian soldiers were lost (which they previously showed to mean killed and wounded) Zelensky claims nearly 6,000 killed. Due to this uncertainty we should use neutral language until the situation becomes more clear so to not let any potential propaganda information be presented as factual information. I think the best course of action would be a compromise solution that was found for the War in Donbass back in 2014. We agreed then to not include potentially unreliable figures in the infobox, only self-admitted casualty figures or figures presented by a 3rd neutral party. We still included the potentially propaganda claimed figures in the article, but in its main body in the casualties section. EkoGraf (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: Ok, that makes sense. Thanks. Viewsridge (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Map outdated?

Judging by the "detailed map of the Russo-Ukrainian War" which is referred to under the main map shown at the top of the main Wikipedia page here, the main map seems to be quite a bit out of date. For example, in the detailed map of the Russo-Ukrainian War, this morning it was showing Russians encircling about 3/4ths of Kiev, but the map on the main page shows Russian presence in only about 1/3rd of Kiev's outskirts. Does anyone know the reason for this apparent issue? Ianbrettcooper (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

the oblasts

look I'm a stinky american could we get links to the oblasts when they are mentioned same with the cities. Yes it's me being lazy not wanting to spend an extra 45 seconds to look up where they are on the map. I would be bold and do it my self however this article is under reasonable protection, if its done thank you if not... oi Bruvlad (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the general issue is MOS:DUPLINK prescribes that things should not be overlinked. But in this article, with how it's currently being used by its readership, it's reasonable to think (even more-so than normal encyclopaedia articles) people will read some parts and not others, so IMO this article is a good case to ignore that particular MOS guidance for now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree. In the circumstances, it's a reasonable exception. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wp:In the apocalypse, there are no rules - make it useful now and clean it up when it becomes historical? Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"if its done thank you if not... oi" might be my favourite quote from a discussion on Wikipedia now DirkJandeGeer (щи) 13:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Mostly done now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Detention of children at anti-war action in Moscow

Russian police detained 7-11 years old children who wanted to lay flowers at the Ukrainian Embassy in Moscow. Police juvenile inspectors threatened their parents with deprivation of parental rights.

It's fucked-up! I feel like a character of dystopia. K8M8S8 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's get a picture of the locked up children in the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Pabsoluterince (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Map

Please change the map or its provider. The Russian army does not control the rear and much of the territory in which they advanced. Example of a correct map at the link: https://t.me/ssternenko/3990 Block Baby (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

One solution would be to replace this map with a screen capture picture of Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map which does not have "shaded areas". Tradedia^talk 23:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please remove section

The first paragraph of the Feb 25 section should be removed. It was most likely included because it was seemingly a case of friendly fire... but friendly fire is bound to happen in all wars. However, if one reads the third (and final) source it can be seen that it is hardly mentioned amidst all the other reporting done by CNN. If the press does not see it as a major incident then we should not either. If it is not agreed that it should be removed, at least change the first sentence to read that there were many blasts heard, not just two. Sectionworker (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, no comments. I did further research and found:"CNN has confirmed, however, that the video was actually that of a Ukrainian SU-27 that was shot down by Russia’s anti-air battery in the suburbs, rather than a Russian jet shot down. In an interview with CNN, a senior correspondent said the jet that was shot down was a Ukrainian SU-27." [12] This is what happens when an article can hardly wait to get a daily review of what's going on. Invariably the press makes mistakes in their early sensationalistic reporting but later accuracy fixes are hard to find. In the meantime WP editors have gone on to the the next exciting reports. If an article is going to ignore the ten-year rule it should be willing to do frequent reviews and updates to what it has used. Sectionworker (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"Map" of the invasion

I want to ask all of you: Who the fuxk made this map? Russians are not occupying whole territories, they are just moving through Ukraine. 195.205.75.1 (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@195.205.75.1: The map was created by the contributors to the file File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg (click 'History' to see the full list). Yes, military experts talk about zones of control and the fact that some of the shaded areas are arguably still under Ukranian influence but the map is reasonably accurate given what is publicly known and what can easily be communicated in the visual form given the complexity of a multi-pronged invasion. You are, of course, more than welcome to contribute civil and constructive feedback at File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. Melmann 07:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

One solution would be to replace this map with a screen capture picture of Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map which does not have "shaded areas". Tradedia^talk 15:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Liquidation of Russian independent radio station Echo of Moscow

Board of directors decided to liquidate Echo of Moscow.

References

That's known in mafia circles as complying with "an offer that you can't refuse".

Chesapeake77 (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to archive all references to Echo of Moscow contained in Wikipedia's articles in automatic mode? Otherwise all these links will become dead. K8M8S8 (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Foreign volunteers

According to President Zelensky, 16,000 foreign volunteers have arrived in Ukraine to fight in its defense. Should this number be added to the infobox? Viewsridge (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion it is worth adding this info. P1221 (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The claim should absolutely be added - as a claim. Not a fact that they're there and fighting until this has been confirmed somehow. I would point to the claim that Slovakia, Bulgaria and Poland was going to deliver 70 jets as an example of why.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/28/ukrainian-pilots-arrive-in-poland-to-pick-up-donated-fighter-jets-00012560

It was first reported as a fact (hence the title of that article), that ukranians were already picking up the donated planes.. and within a couple of days the same articles was updated to say that "actually, there aren't even any planes at all". The claim was baseless from the start and yet reported as fact. Wikipedia itself, by simply looking at the respective airforces of the listed countries, could be used to show that this aid was never going to materialize. They never had these planes to give. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of the North Crimean Canal section

I have removed the section below as I believe it contains trivial information that do not belong to this overview article. It was also weirdly placed in the ramifications, at the level of 'sanctions' and 'economic impact'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

North Crimean Canal

Until 2014, the North Crimean Canal brought water from the Dnieper river to Crimea.

Following Russia's annexation of Crimea, Ukraine blocked the North Crimean Canal, which provided 85% of Crimea's drinking water. On 24 February, the first day of the invasion, Russian troops advancing from Crimea established control over the North Crimean Canal. Sergey Aksyonov, the head of the Republic of Crimea, told local authorities to prepare the canal to receive water from the Dnieper river and resume the supply of water, which was planned for the following day. On 26 February, the concrete dam was reportedly destroyed by an explosion and the water supply was resumed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

About the "crushing tank"

What about the "russian tank" (not a tank, nor russian, nor a "military column") that crushes the vehicle? It has been debunked by analysts, but is still being shown in the article. Some example by the press and fact checkers: [13] , [14] , [15], Even those who see the complete videos, the place, the facts and the moment in time it happened, realize it and comment about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.178 (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. I left the word "tank" as this is still seems to be the reference word used for this incident. I've also specifically avoided declaring the operator of the vehicle as this is still unclear from the sources. Until more is known for certain, I clarified that the vehicle is Russian-made rather than "wholly" Russian. As this line already has other inline citations, I've just added the USA Today source for now in preference to English language sources where possible. Here's the change. --N8 16:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's an AA vehicle. So strictly speaking, not a tank. But that seems secondary to the weasel wording of "russian-made" and "veering across the road to crush it" which of course leads the reader to believe that it was a Russian vehicle that was part of the invasion, driven by a Russian, that ran over a car on purpose. But the verdict of the various fact checkers seem to be that this was part of the Ukranian military and that it was an accident. I don't suggest changing it to "Ukrainian AA vehicle ran over a car" though as that also makes it appear like somebody wanted to run it over. Between those two, I would suggest simply removing it. All indications are that it is a traffic accident, it simply happened to involve a military vehicle in time of war.78.78.200.165 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Reviewed this again. Agree it needed further improvement. Updates have been made at Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine since the section was moved there. Because this event was widely shared and additional details may still emerge with time I avoided removing it entirely. According to the "France24" source experts seem to agree that clarity is lacking; not that it was definitely an accident. --N8 17:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Chernihiv, 28.02.2022 - State Emergency Service of Ukraine.webm (discussion)
• Russian shelling of Kharkiv, 28 February 2022.webm (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022 (2)

to include photographs of Russian military equipment captured and destroyed, to include photo of Scuttled Ukrainian flagship in the harbour, to include more information on weapons being provided by the west, to provide more detailed timeline of events in areas within Ukraine. 81.2.177.196 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you can provide a list of references. (Wikipedia is written by volunteers, not paid workers. It means that nothing happens unless one does it by oneself, or at least helps.) · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BSMRD (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Financial Crisis

In the introduction paragraph it says:

   including new sanctions imposed on Russia, triggering a financial crisis. 

It isn't clear from the sentence that Russia is suffering a financial crisis. It could say ", triggering a financial crisis in Russia."

It could also say the sanctions are causing widewspread financial uncertainty to many countries, due to the sanctions, but that would likely need a lot of citations etc. to document then impact on imports, exports, etc.

MeekMark (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement isn't properly sourced either. "The invasion received widespread international condemnation, including new sanctions imposed on Russia, triggering a financial crisis." There should be sources there but there isn't.

Next comes "Global protests took place against the invasion, while protests in Russia were met with mass arrests.[69][70]" Source 69 here deals with the sanctions. 70 with the arrests. So even if we're keeping the text as is, it should be "The invasion received widespread international condemnation, including new sanctions imposed on Russia, triggering a financial crisis.[69] Global protests took place against the invasion, while protests in Russia were met with mass arrests.[70]"

That said "financial crisis" is not mentioned in the source. Only the sanctions. We should probably not say "triggering a financial crisis" until such is a fact (and then add a source for it). What can be said now is only what effects are seen now (and thus sourced), such as the ruble losing value for example.

So how about:

"The invasion received widespread international condemnation, including new sanctions imposed on Russia[source], causing the ruble to plummet.[source] Global protests took place against the invasion, and protests in Russia were met with mass arrests.[source]" ?

78.78.143.46 (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Invasion section + fronts

Today's changes removed much of the material about the invasion itself, replacing it with unsourced summaries. While some structure other than a chronological one is indeed needed, could perhaps someone more capable do it? Thanks. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Include Merchandise to Help Ukrainian Victims of War

Example : Snake Island Go Fuck Yourself Shirts

I wouldn’t agree here; this is an online encyclopedia, not a shopping mall. We aren’t here for advertisements. 2601:802:8180:3790:89F1:EEE9:A3BC:24DD (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This is correct. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

"Wikimedia says it ‘will not back down’ after Russia threatens Wikipedia block"

Not sure if this should be added to the press template at the top of this page (and/or others?):

• https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/3/22960007/russia-wikipedia-wikimedia-foundation-censorship-demand

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If we go by the book, it doesn't mention this WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Another Believer, added at Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2022#March. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Qatar

Just to put some balance to the investment withdrawals, heres qatar. Oddly al jazeera has been markedly different from the govt itself, but this is off al jazeera, which ive not seen there.

Also, "see also" can use a link to the Georgia war since this is eerily parralel in the build up, entrance and sakkazhvili/zelensky reactions changing from agressive to defensive.78.109.69.246 (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a good idea, however, it doesn't appear to be very notable. If it becomes more widely covered then it I would agree with the inclusion. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

cbignore

Why is {{cbignore}} being added to every ref? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader I had a look on WikiBlame. Special:Diff/1074118070 provides part of the answer.

@Rlink2 are you able to shed light on why this tag ({{cbignore}}) is needed? Also, while we're at it, is there a reason for using "ghostarchive.org" instead of the Internet Archive? (the latter is, as I understand it, quite well established?). Your input would be appreciated.

Local Variable (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Local Variable cbignore fixes a phab bug with iabot.

To answer your second question: Usually when preemptive archiving refs at large on articles like these, I would use IABot (which would use archive.org), but alas this article is too big for IABot. IAbot was run on the article when it was smaller though. I have a workaround for this which will extract the URLs for archiving for me to place manually, but archive.org has enabled CORS on their website again, hence the usage of other sites. Archive.today has CORS disabled too but the site hasn't been working for me recently, preseumbly due to the events the article in question is describing. Rlink2 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2 I see, so effectively it avoids an issue with IABot. Thanks for providing the detailed response. Local Variable (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: what phab bug? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2 I'd also be interested to know the phab bug. An alternative approach may use {{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} at the top of the article, rather than a {{cbignore}} tag for each archive reference. That would seem cleaner and could have a HTML comment indicating its purpose. Local Variable (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Local Variable

@ProcrastinatingReader

Phab bug tracked here: phab:T292816

An alternative approach may use {{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} at the top of the article, rather than a tag for each archive reference. Ah yes, i forgot about this. IAbot can't even run properly on this article anyway, so I can do this later today. Rlink2 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Added a bots-deny directive with a comment and now also cleaned up all of the cbignore usages Phiarc (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hetman Sahaidachny Problem

Saw that someone said they updated the Air and Naval section-they did but as with their comment the link to the frigate now links to a random sailing yacht. 2601:802:8180:3790:89F1:EEE9:A3BC:24DD (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

whoops, my fault, see someone has now fixed Ilenart626 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

¨¨Putin Personality Disorder¨

Source: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/putin-personality-disorder/

The keyword here is "opinions". --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Apart from being an op-ed, as I said about the line "Before the invasion, in an attempt to provide a casus belli, Putin accused Ukraine of committing genocide against Russian speakers in Ukraine" in the article - motives are by their nature unknowable because they cannot be verified in any way. It doesn't matter what source one can find that claims to know them. It's simply impossible. One cannot both follow the principle of verifiability and state somebodies motivations and thinking as if this was some kind of fact. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

As with Trump and Biden, no wp:blp even protects Putin. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus Refugees

This may have already been discussed... but is there any available & reliable information of any Ukrainian refugees that have travelled/fled to Belarus...? 81.108.244.153 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Saw a pretty reliable source but forgot what it was. I remember it being in the thousands, 2 to 5 thousand. Same source also mention refugees that went into Russia. Will update if I chance upon it again Nebakin (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Operation "Mongoose Leap"

Hi, did anyone ever hear anything of this??

Translation from Russian:

"The video message about the forced evacuation of residents of the occupied territories of Donbass, which was made public today, February 18, by the leaders of the terrorists, was recorded in advance. Public figure Sergei Sternenko announced this on Telegram."

""I discovered that, according to the metadata, the video about the 'evacuation' with the head of the occupation administration of the Russian Federation in the occupied part of the Luhansk region, Pasechnik, was recorded at least 2 days before publication, on February 16, 2022. That is, even before, according to the Russian version, February 17 "Ukraine launched an attack," Sternenko said and noted that this proves that this forced displacement of the population is a pre-planned operation of the Russian occupiers."

--Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Renat 01:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Add? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

And? Do we say this was not planned in advance? What dio you think this tells us? Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Request to add information 1.

(1)Please add this information in "Foreign military support to Ukraine" section: On March 2, Ukrainian defense minister Oleksii Reznikov announced the arrival of additional TB2 drones. The Gentle Daffodil (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Done--TZubiri (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox conflict duration is wrong

The conflict started less than 1 week and 1 day ago, but the infobox claims it's been going on for 1 week and 2 days. Sunkcaves (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The invasion started early on the 24th of February, so today on the 4th of March, it has been ongoing for nine days (24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th) or one week and two days. Phiarc (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how else to put this, but that's not how time works. If 24 hours pass, we've visited two dates on the calendar but only one day of time has passed. Sunkcaves (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

What time would you claim the conflict started? I can find out what time the infobox is based off.--TZubiri (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Humanitarian corridors

I propose adding that Russia and Ukraine are making a deal to allow civilians to pass through humanitarian corridors to evacuate. They have both agreed on a need to create the corridors in their talks. It seems notable and has been reported in several independent media outlets. Perhaps we could add a sentence about it under the "Humanitarian impact" section, perhaps under "Refugees." Perhaps we could say "On March 3, The Russian and Ukrainian governments agreed on the need to create humanitarian corridors for civilians to evacuate." I would welcome any suggestions of how better to word it, or general thoughts on whether we should even include it.JMM12345 (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

References

U.K. should be listed as a supporting party

I think my previous topic was not clear. So, I'll limit this to a specific case: if Belarus is listed as a supporting party, then the U.K. should as well.

	United Kingdom	Belarus
Stationed Ukrainian/Russian troops in their territory	No	Yes
Stationed their troops in Ukrainian/Russian territory w/a military function	Yes	Maybe
Trained Ukrainian/Russian troops	Yes	No
Gave recon support	Yes	Yes
Arms Support	Yes	Maybe
Financial Support	Yes	Maybe

References

For these reasons, if we're going to list Belarus as a supporting party for Russia, then we should be listing the United Kingdom as a supporting party for Ukraine. Fephisto (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe indeed. I would look at precedent. Take for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war .. Under support for "interim government"/syrian opposition, a number of countries is listed. Qatar, US, Saudi Arabia, UK, France, Lybia. Most of this support was indeed material or financial rather than any active participation in combat. So there seems like there might be precedent for it. At the same time, I'm not sure if there is any established consistent pattern / policy in regards to this. There should be (one should always have one standard, not several) but there may not be. And the syrian civil war article may be the one that isn't consistent with articles about other conflicts. Someone might have to dig through a bunch.. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think this is an exceptional nonsense. Did UK host an army to attack Moscow or Kyiv? Belorus hosted an army to attack Kyiv. Did someone fire rockets from UK territory to attack one of these countries? I do agree though that Belarus is actually a belligerent, not just a supporter. My very best wishes (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Ground invasion of Iraq was launched from Kuwait, but yet Kuwait isn't even listed as a belligerent on the wiki page. Nebakin (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point w.r.t. Kuwait not being listed as a "supporter" Belligerent for the Iraq War. In fact, that page is quite telling, as Spain is also listed as a 'supporter' despite not even having a source listing them as an arms suppliers at the very least, as with what's going on in the discussion above. Fephisto (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:Please keep in mind I agree with you that Belarus should be on that list, and I also want to emphasize that I'm discussing this here as opposed to just editing the article outright to try to reach a consensus and maintain good faith here. That said, I apologize, but I don't think it's "exceptional nonsense." To explain my point a bit more, is Belarus offering recon and potential targeting fire support for Russian troops IN a currently active battlefield? If you're offering support that is a traditional military function, then surely that's above and beyond even quartering troops, correct? At least, that's a bit more of explanation of where my head is coming from here.

References

Fephisto (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Country	UK	Belarus
Sent their own citizens to die in the war?	No	Yes

Your table is missing this. Unless I am terribly mistaken Belarus is directly a belligerent, more than a supporter. UK is a supporter, although it may be contested.--TZubiri (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

link to 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus

In the intro of the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, update/change:

The invasion received widespread international condemnation, including new sanctions imposed on Russia, triggering a financial crisis.

to:

The invasion received widespread international condemnation, including new sanctions imposed on Russia, triggering a financial crisis in Russia and a massive international boycott of Russia and Belarus.

Thank you. S 0524 (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The boycott article lacks a prose overview, but there are plenty of WP:RS and the size of the list is massive. We don't formally need support/oppose arguments, but since this is the WP:LEAD of an article with an overwhelming number of interested editors and readers, I'll let others take the initiative to guess how many comments are needed to judge the likely consensus. Boud (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Because this article is directly linked to the main invasion article I don't think voting is needed to add a reference here, so I just did, though at a later point in the paragraph so it goes: Condemnation - sanctions - financial crisis - refugee crisis - global protests - boycott - aid, which seems about the right order to me. Phiarc (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

US accusations

I recently added a Dec. 3 2021 WaPo article[16] about an accusation by US intel that Russia was planning to invade[17]. This was reverted[18]. I think it's important to show that the accusations started by at least that date. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The lede needs to be concise; 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#US_release_of_invasion_plans, not so much. Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

All information added to this article must be presented from a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW

I am talking about the page "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". I find that, from the first lines (description, introduction the point of view is clearly NOT neutral. And I understand, it is hard to make it neutral, when it is about war. Each country "knows who's right". The page is presented in a "Russophobic" point of view ("Indeed ... frequently engage in strategies of manipulation through deception involving exaggeration, omission, and misdirection") The Wikipedia is written by people. Just volunteers. They write what they think. But I think it would be more neutral to say (in a visible place!) that this is the point of view of a country (US, in this case). Also I want to say that it is wrong to lock that page (or parts) as if 100% certain and known by all. Even proven facts in neutral articles (f.e. blue is a colour, Tchaikovsky is a composer, the Sun is a star...) aren't locked. 2A00:1FA1:8262:30AA:0:60:51B8:1B01 (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Any specific claims? Or just rhetoric on "russophobia"? K8M8S8 (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, many editors are not Americans. Secondly, any proposed revision is welcome, but it has to be substantiated and well sourced. I kindly invite you to make specific requests, possibly hrough the "edit extended-protected" template. P1221 (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is banned in Russia/Moscow, I'm uncertain why you are concerned about "locked articles"?50.111.36.47 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

IP user [...]:1B01, see WP:V and WP:NPOV § Due and undue weight. Feel free to contribute, citing reliable supporting sources expressing differing viewpoints. If an article is locked to editing by unregistered users, feel free to register for a free Wikipedia account. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean that you look at "both sides" and present the midpoint. That's WP:FALSEBALANCE. Phiarc (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Referring to the views of a government of a major country (ie Russia, which is in turn also supported, or partly supported, in their view by other major countries such as China) a mere minority view might be to strech the limits of that term "just a tad bit" (that's sarcasm - it's really pushing it to the limit) That said, I don't think this article is as biased as claimed here. Calling it "russophobic" is also pushing it. Hard. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No, we repeat what RS say. And as said above, we do not represent both sides of a one sided debate to ain't a false balance (and by the way I am not American). Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Does this constitute due weight/ reliable sourcing?

I have already reverted three times on this page, otherwise I would have reverted this already. I am interested if this sentence should remain in, be removed or edited. 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Russian_military_build-ups:

'V' has been spotted as well.

References

Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless we have some clue as to what 'V' means, then no. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this [19]? EEng 16:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Mmm this is great. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Invasion of Moldova?

Shouldn't we mention this in a way or another, despite nothing being official? Here are English and Romanian sources. I added it yesterday, but it got deleted despite one user at first accepting it and making some corrections.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/01/belarus-dictator-alexander-lukashenko-appeared-to-show-russian-plans-to-invade-moldova-through-ukraine/

https://news.yahoo.com/belarus-president-lukashenko-appears-stand-101548955.html

https://observatornews.ro/extern/va-fi-invadata-si-republica-moldova-lukashenko-ar-fi-prezentat-o-harta-in-care-ucraina-e-impartita-in-patru-transnistria-face-parte-din-una-dintre-aceste-zone-460990.html

Lupishor (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit speculative, so I can see why (at this time) it should be left out. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Has this been reported on by more established newspapers/media than the ones listed? NYPost is a tabloid and Yahoo is a news aggregator, this particular article is lifted from Fox – neither have good reputations. Jr8825 • Talk 16:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable UK press reporting on it:

• The Independent Ukraine crisis: Belarus leader may have inadvertently revealed Russian invasion map on TV
• The Telegraph Bumbling Belarusian leader lets slip Vladimir Putin’s secret plan for more attacks
• iNews Will Russia invade Moldova? What Lukashenko’s ‘battle map’ could indicate about Putin’s plans after Ukraine

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to evaluate non UK sources, beyond looking for their entries on RSN or RSP. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s been reported in multiple sources, and is no question it’s a fact that Lukashenka showed a map that might show an invasion route into Moldova (I must say there’s a weird colour change in the line), and it could be mentioned in this article. We should not read anything else into it, like “there’s an invasion plan.” —Michael Z. 17:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is interesting. It shows the map used by Lukashenko, and the map shows the strike to occupy Moldova from the south of Ukraine. The Russian forces made a lot of "progress" on the south of Ukraine, but they probably need to take the city of Odessa before striking Moldova. Also, the division of the entire Ukraine territory into 4 zones of occupation on the map is significant. But one probably needs a little more coverage for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, I think this now should be included because of coverage here [20]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Is this other source considered reliable? [21]. For further backing of the claim. Super Ψ Dro 18:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think The Week is fine. Definitely superior to tabloids, my guesstimate is that it's probably about the same standard in terms of reputation as the New Statesman. Jr8825 • Talk 18:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Opposed to inclusion, The Hill isn't a great source either btw but I'd be opposed even if CNN/NYT posted it. It's WP:CRYSTAL with a hint of fear-mongering and speculation. Opposed to inclusion until either it happens or government officials start raising the alarm (rather than tabloids raising the alarm). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a WP:CRYSTAL. This is a fact that the Belarus president was standing in front of map indicating Moldova invasion plans as multiple RS say. That is significant because Belarus is an active participant of the invasion. Hence the coverage. EU just sanctioned 22 Belarusian officials and military for involvement in Russian invasion of Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

EU just sanctioned 22 Belarusian officials and military for involvement in Russian invasion of Ukraine. which is relevant to an alleged future invasion of Moldova how...?

If this were a credible rumour I'm pretty sure US/UK intelligence would be ringing alarm bells, as they did for the Ukraine invasion and various specific events relating to it. There's no way we should be increasing fear based on speculation that seems to originate from the Daily Mail (according to The Week), before spreading through the tabloids and then into culture and political magazines, all based on a supposed interpretation of an old map. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• I note that a Moldovan official has now commented on the topic [22] [23]. Super Ψ Dro 21:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Am I missing something? Looking at that video, it seemed to me that the forces were coming out of Moldova, into the coastal area of Ukraine west of Odessa. Presumably that's Russian or Transnistrian forces from inside the breakaway Moldavian region of Transnistria entering Ukraine - presumably to enlarge the territory of the breakaway Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic to include sea access. Moldovia hasn't had control of that breakaway region for about 30 years, and Russian troops have been there for decades. I don't see any indication on that map of any forces entering Moldovia from anywhere. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite obvious that Russian Army would (I am not saying "will") attack Moldova from Transnistria, rather than from the occupied Ukrainian territory. Does it make any difference? But they probably will not attack before finishing their "business" in Ukraine, which becomes more and more difficult for them with every passing day. My very best wishes (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename please the article

It is not good to tell 'germans' instead of 'nazi'. In the same way it is not good to tell 'russian invision' while it is just one president's army. Russians are in most keep anti-war side. But most scared to declare their position. Simple russians does not see ukraine enemy. Sory my bad english. PavelSI (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Although "some" of the Russian people oppose this invasion, this is still an invasion by the country of Russia and the Russian military into Ukraine. Oppose this request to move the article. Natg 19 (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• • As for me, the more correct to name the article 'Putin's invasion of Ukraine (2022)' while it is just his own war. .... English language does not distinguish details: russian ethnic group and Rossia'ns (meaning Russian Federation attribute). So You should be more correct. County is Russian Federation to be exact, not shorten it in this case. Russian Federation mean the Federal govenment and oficial forces which make the Federal control. And please mention them as agressors, not 'russians'. And should to note russian ethnic group is just one of multiple in 'Federation'. For example, my father has never been russian while being RF-resident till his end - he was ukrainian by ethnic, so my own family-name is ukrainian. And in return, there are numerous russians in Ukraine and they does not invade. And not call federal troops 'russians' while there are chechens for example. If so, write at least '2022 Russian Federation invasion of Ukraine' to note it is NOT an ethnic conflict. PavelSI (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

An RM was already attempted for this and failed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about this invasion, it is an invasion by the Russian Federation, which is commonly shorted to Russia - our page on the English Wikipedia about the country is simply titled Russia. "Russian invasion of Ukraine" does not imply an ethnic conflict, but one country invading another. Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• • It is bad. Article name is incorrect. PavelSI (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

In russian, my english is too bad... Попробуйте донести идею. Русскоязычная статья названа абсолютно корректно - Российское вторжение. А не русское. Это нейтральное название. А англоязычная статья - названа совершенно некорректно. Не надо разжигать ненависть между русскими и украинцами. Не 'русские' вторгаются, а Россия как государство и политический режим. PavelSI (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Pavel. Perhaps the distinction you are able to make in idiomatic Russian is between "Russia's invasion" (the state) and "the Russians' invasion" (lots of individuals). In idiomatic English, "the Russian invasion" is the normal phrase which could mean either, but in this context it means the former. If we wanted to mean individuals, which we do not, we would change the title somehow. Google translate uses "Russian" for both Российское and русское. Mirokado (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Am sympathetic, and I would be in favour of making the title more specific: “2022 Russian Federation invasion of Ukraine,” making it clear that it is the Russian state, under its government, that is persecuting this war, and not the Russian citizenry, or the ethnic nation, or something else. However, the great majority of reliable sources use “Russia” for the name of the state, and our guidelines are to follow RS’s. —Michael Z. 06:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki is a powerful resource to change humans opinion, even the 'great majority'. Wiki to declare trueth, not common opinion and common fake. As for me, it is "Putin's invasion" to be the best tittle. PavelSI (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry this is a Russian invasion, ordered by a democratically elected leader, who is up for reelection if a couple of years or so. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Democratically elected? Great joke! To tell the truth, Putin is a bloodthirsty dictator, but it doesn't have any significance in the context of the article. Russians (I mean all Russian citizens, not only ethnic group) could overthrow him but they have not yet done this. I realize that it is very very very difficult but it should not be the problem for the rest of the world. Germans could overthrow Hitler and prevented Second World War but they were unable (or unwilling) to do so, and subsequently they had been repenting for many years. K8M8S8 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russians cannot protest. Previos protest suffocate in blud and Europe not protect us. PavelSI (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Note the tanks (on the image) shooting our parlament. Can we resist the tanks? People are scared to declare their opinion in the internet. PavelSI (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a great change, per WP:COMMONNAME the most recognized name of the country should be used, not the 'official' name. I don't know about you, but I personally have never heard "Russian Federation" in a conversation, and the vast majority of news sites use "Russia" or "Russian Invasion", almost never saying "Russian Federation" MutantZebrea999 (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? Naming it after the nation appears to be the usual practice, ie precedent. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_invasion_of_Denmark_(1940) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan A 'compromise' would be to do as here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq and call it "2022 invasion of Ukraine". But is there a point to that change? It would seem that the invasion of Iraq was called "2003 invasion of Iraq" because it was done by a multi-national coalition (even though the US was the dominant party in it) And if anything, that article should really be called the 2003 US invasion of Iraq regardless because of how dominant the US was in the coaliation. Here however, there's only Russia and Ukraine. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason it is not the US invasion is that there was a coalition (of two and a half countries, but a coalition none the less.)Mozzie (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should we begin migrating reactions to the dedicated reactions page?

I've started cutting down some of the reactions section, but there's a ton of stuff with questionable relevance to the article. I propose that we whinny it down to the reaction of the US, EU, China, NATO, UN and India and get rid of the rest. It's wonderful that Transnistria believes in peace and that Kazakhstan has offered to mediate but I'm not sure if this is relevant to the article, especially as the article has gotten too long. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I deleted/moved a lot of content to the dedicated page. I also added subheadings under countries. The NATO section doesn't really cover the US in depth so the US can then be added under the countries section, and Germany could be added as well. Countries has China and India for obvious reasons, I also left Kazakhstan since Russia requested Kazakh troops and Kazakhstan denied the request which seems pertinent. I also cut down the Religious leaders section by about half. Works still needed: EU reaction can be added to, OSCE can be subtracted from as can Entertainment and sporting organizations. Ultimately it seems like the reactions should be somewhat pertinent to the war. The reactions of the US and China for instance are very pertinent. The reactions of those who would have little impact on the wars outcome seem like they should instead go to the dedicated page. Ie China can affect the wars out come, China stays, Serbia most likely will not affect the wars outcome so it goes to dedicated page. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree and thanks. Good solid WP:10YT editing there. Lots of stuff gets added because it seems relevant in the moment, but that isn't really historically relevant form a long term perspective. Thanks again.Mozzie (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Kazakhstan's defence ministry made an official comment on its Telegram blog where it denied that Russia had ever requested troops from them

NATO (Primarily USA and Germany) have supplied a plethora of munitions but are not mentioned as allies

Add “Munitions support from NATO” please 130.184.252.76 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no NATO request that Germany deliver anything. NATO is a defensive alliance. No NATO state was attacked. There were also no official NATO supplies delivered from Germany to Ukraine. Germany's deliveries are not NATO deliveries. Some of the weapons come from very old stocks.

The German government (as well as the opposition) distinguish between types of ammunition and types of weapons. Weapons are supplied that were optimized to destroy war equipment, but not weapons that were optimized to kill as many people as possible directly. A distinction is made also between Putin's war against civilians and military units. It is assumed that the delivery of small arms could lead to escalation in Russian army's dealings with civilians. It was decided to supply armor-piercing weapons and anti-aircraft weapons, but not small arms.

Already delivered (officially): Response of the 'German Ministry of Defense' to an inquiry from a public television station ('Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen', Public broadcasting TV; March 2, 2022, translated from German): Germany's announced arms deliveries for Ukraine have arrived. The material has been handed over to the Ukrainian side, a spokeswoman for the German Defense Ministry said Wednesday in response to a request. The German government had announced over the weekend that it would deliver 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 surface-to-air missiles. Source (German): https://web.archive.org/web/20220303034308/https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/cherson-kiew-russland-ukraine-krieg-100.html

And (current discussions, March 4, 2022); There are currently discussions about 2,700 "Strela" anti-aircraft missiles, which originate from old NVA stocks. : The Ministry of Economy has approved the delivery of 2700 "Strela" anti-aircraft missiles. However, these old weapon systems are said to have quality deficiencies. A Bundeswehr press release from January literally says: "The missiles of the type 'Strela' have been blocked for use since 2012." There is talk of micro-cracks in the propellant charge of the ammunition, of mold on the packaging boxes. Source (German; „Tagesschau“, Public broadcasting TV, March 4, 2022): https://web.archive.org/web/20220304093458/https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/ukraine-deutschland-waffenlieferung-101.html

NATO; EU; Schengen; private people: To divide the world into NATO, Non-NATO or states in general is a far away from living in Europe. Switzerland (e.g.) is located in Europe, but is not part of the European Union, which was also founded to overcome nationalism. The borders between nation states are open. There are no border controls within the European Union and other states caused by Schengen Agreement. European Citizens are not locked up. You have to distinguish private citizens from state initiatives because the state cannot know what individual citizens are doing. (e.g. See: Mathias Rust) No government or NATO can control every private individual.

For example, the Ukrainian border is only 700 km away from Germany. There are currently a number of privately-organized convoys driving through Ukraine, consisting of a few vehicles, each taking a few dozen private Ukrainian women and children out of the country in private cars. At the wheel of the car is sometimes a German priest on a private mission, bringing refugees from Odessa to Germany. These private persons will probably not have informed the German government, nor have they probably "officially" approached the Ukrainian government, and they probably have not asked anyone, because the Ukrainian government certainly has quite different problems at the moment. (Where to register officially in southern Ukraine? Is the building where an office of the official 'Ukrainian tourist information' was located still standing?)

Another example: There are many millions of private handguns and rifles in the European Union. The state authorities will probably not be able to influence their whereabouts. Therefore, many rifles or pistols from the European Union will probably turn up in Ukraine sooner or later. If a European hunter tells you he lost his gun in some forest, no one can check the story anyway.

It is important to note, however, that so far no handguns from state stocks have been officially delivered from Germany to Ukraine, and no state-organized groups are operating in Ukraine. But of course: No European state is likely to be able to control small-arms shipments from private individuals to Ukrainians. (E.G.: Switzerland (NON-EU) or Austria are not part of NATO but accept of 'Schengen-agreement'. Anyone can drive from a 'Schengen country' to an Ukrainian border without beeing controlled) --Eneliting (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless NATO is explicitly taking actions as that organisation (and not the individual actions of its constituent states), then these are not the actions of NATO and to claim otherwise is not accurate. If anything, it is WP:SYNTH. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I see it exactly the same way. That is why I have given sources that quote "German ministries". In Germany, there are no statements available on NATO deliveries, only on arms deliveries explicitly provided by the Federal Republic of Germany. Regards (Sorry, but my post slipped because I didn't find a "reply button".) --Eneliting (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Horlivka Offensive evidence.

One of the sources saying the city is occupied by the UAF is from a pro-Ukrainian news outlet whose source is a blogger? That doesn't seem very reliable. Nebakin (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I added that one from the Ukrainian WP. Apparently it wasn't blacklisted, plus the source itself is in Russian so I doubt it's disinformation. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because it might not be disinformation doesn't mean it is reliable. Nebakin (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I can't find another RS. The others state Horlivka is under siege, but not yet taken by Ukrainians. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps it is better to remove it until the UA or RU MOD/military depts makes a statement. Nebakin (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, how about we keep it with for at least until the Ukrainian morning? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

That or dubious source. Nebakin (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the blogger identified and if so, does said blogger in turn present a source? If he does, then maybe see what that source is and if that is usable instead? If claims from a blogger is the primary source of the news outlet, then the outlet should not be regarded as reliable in this case either. All the secondary source could be used for is as a source that the primary (ie blogger) made this claim, not that the claim is true. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus as a belligerent

Belarus allowing foreign military access for the purposes of an invasion is an act of war on behalf of Belarus. As is allowing missiles to be launched from Belarusian territory. In addition, Ukraine reports Belarusian soldiers in Ukraine.

This point has been put forward numerous times on this talk page and there was consensus that Belarus was a belligerent. Please change Belarus from "supporter" back to "Belligerent" in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lluq (talk • contribs) 21:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is this consensus? Regardless, if a country is a belligerent in a conflict.. should that really be a question of opinion and consensus (we should add any nation if enough people agree to it?) and not more of a yes/no question based on a simple criteria: Are they taking part in military action, yes or no? If yes, they're a belligerent. If no, then they're not. Afaik, a nation allowing another to pass troops through their territory is not regarded as making them a belligerent in said war. Consider Sweden allowing German troops to pass through their territory during world war 2 as an example. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

During the Midsummer crisis Sweden violated its neutrality, by allowing German troops to pass. Violating neutrality does not automatically make a state a co-belligerent. For a state to become a co-belligerent, at least one of the following 3 conditions much be met.

• The state declares war
• The state participates in hostilities to a significant extent
• The state systematically or substantially violates its duties of impartiality and non-participation.

I am not a lawyer, but it is blatantly obvious that Belarus is much closer to being a co-belligerent than Sweden ever was during WWII. That said, the conclusion to this, much be based in sources by actual legal experts. BFG (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, closer as in Belarus has far closer relations with Russia than Germany and Sweden had with each other, with Belarus speaking out in clear support of Russia. And that's likely to matter. But the example more was more in reponse to the sole claim that letting someone invade through your territory is an act of war in itself and then that makes you a belligerent - that does not seem to have any precedent.

"That said, the conclusion to this, much be based in sources by actual legal experts.". Agreed. At the very least, I really don't think it can be decided upon by opinion. There must be some kind of standardised, neutral criteria. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

See "Role of Belarus/belligerent" in Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 2. 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. The head of State Border Guard Service of Ukraine accused Belarus of the conduct of war against Ukraine, in his official letter to the head of State Border Committee of the Republic of Belarus, referring to the fact that Russian troops use Belarusian territory for their invasion of Ukraine. But the definition described in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 is not binding on the United Nations Security Council. Russia vetoed Security Council resolution that denounces its invasion of Ukraine.

But I think we can consider Belarus as belligerent because United Nations General Assembly Resolution of 2 March 2022 established "the involvement of Belarus in this unlawful use of force against Ukraine" (see paragraph 10). United Nations General Assembly resolutions are not binding, but it does not have a significance in the context of the article. The fact of condemnation is enough.

• Yes, I think this answers the question. It does not matter if a resolution was binding. We can say that Belarus is a belligerent in the conflict according to resolution by United Nations General Assembly My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Babi Yar

"On 3 March, three Personal Representatives of the OSCE Chairmanship: rabbi Andrew Baker, dr Regina Polak and ambassador Mehmet Paçacı condemned the Russian missile attack on Babi Yar.[442]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#International_organisations_2 The article seems to make no mention of the strike (was it cut?), then just drops this reaction. So the event isn't mentioned.. but the reaction to it, is?

I know this was earlier claimed to have been hit, bit this claim that it was hit seems to have been rather premature & it was actually a nearby communications tower that was targeted and hit: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sk8byetx9 "Ynet reporter in Ukraine says Holocaust memorial is unscathed despite three missiles being launched toward nearby communications tower, which suffered great damage". "The damage was caused to nearby Kyiv's communications and television tower complex, some 300 meters (400 feet) away from the new memorial and a kilometer (3,000 feet) from the old one."

Unsure how to treat this, it seems most strange to include reactions to things that are not even mentioned in the article. Yet at the same time, the strike should not be added in if it didn't actually happen. Should the reaction be moved to the timeline article instead? (Where one could also then add that it was not hit, despite initial claims it was etc)

78.78.143.46 (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Likely collateral damage. If you look at a map of the Babi Yar you'll see that the memorial is directly next to the tower which has been hit by multiple missiles. Phiarc (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the distance is mentioned right above you. Source for damage to it? According to Ynetnew, the most recent source and who talked to reporters at the site, there isn't damage. Also, there's still the issue of including a reaction to an event that isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Casualties and losses in infobox

The casualty and loss section in the infobox is getting very long, especially via mobile view. Additionally, the massive amount of information makes it a bit convoluted, which I believe goes against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Clearly much of the information is disputed between countries and organizations, perhaps we summarize the info. KD0710 (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, I do not think we need a list of every piece of equipment destroyed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. the infobox is meant to be an "at a glance summary". If it is not, it fails WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that 1.) Get rid of material losses. This is a war and each material items lost will likely be forgotten in relatively little amount of time unless it is something of major significance. 2.) Change the personnel losses to a range such as Russian deaths 498-10,000/Ukrainian deaths 110-2,800. Then change this to UN numbers once they announce them.KD0710 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Numbers come from what's currently listed on the infobox. I would use the current sources and put the low estimate and high estimate. KD0710 (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@KD0710: If UN (a third party) casualty figures are more reliable than figures given by involved actors, then perhaps we should take out the claims of the foreign ministry of Ukraine? Most of material losses are sourced from them. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed the materiel losses from the infobox. (reverted) Phiarc (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

?? Can't see this change so I suppose the edit was reverted anyways.. But why would materiel losses be any less relevant than manpower losses? 78.78.143.46 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of interfax as a reliable resource

Information from interfax a Russia controlled site is completely unreliable and cross fact checking leads to a lack of credibility support for information posted there. Many interfax post are clearly just Russia government propaganda stated as is with no additional information or statements and how much or how little is actually fact is completely questionable at best. 96.58.103.123 (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we are only using it for attributed statements about each side's claims, it seems OK for what. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It is an private news agency that is often quoted by other respected RS, like Reuters. You did not address what the issue is here, nor is it used for exceptional claims. "It's just propaganda" doesn't say anything. Mellk (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of interfax as a reliable resource

Information from interfax a Russia controlled site is completely unreliable and cross fact checking leads to a lack of credibility support for information posted there. Many interfax post are clearly just Russia government propaganda stated as is with no additional information or statements and how much or how little is actually fact is completely questionable at best. 96.58.103.123 (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we are only using it for attributed statements about each side's claims, it seems OK for what. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It is an private news agency that is often quoted by other respected RS, like Reuters. You did not address what the issue is here, nor is it used for exceptional claims. "It's just propaganda" doesn't say anything. Mellk (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Request to add articles about donations to the Ukrainian Army alongside state aid

I request that alongside the mention at the top that "Various states provided foreign aid to Ukraine both prior to and during the invasion, including arms and other materiel support.[71]" a quick sentence should be added that this war has triggered one of the first ever people-funded donations directly to a military, via crypto and bank transfers to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. This is a very important distinction to make, both since it is very unique in world history and because it is directly contributing to the war.

Donations are now running at a rate of $3 billion USD a year ($55m a week) which is one third of Ukraine's entire defence budget. This is a highly highly important distinction to make with lots of high-profile trusted sources reporting on this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2022/03/02/crypto-donations-to-ukraine-top-52-million-as-funds-pour-in-from-bitcoin-ether-polkadot-and-nfts/?sh=6aab46e74e59 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/ukraine-to-issue-non-fungible-tokens-to-fund-armed-forces https://techcrunch.com/2022/03/02/ukraine-deputy-minister-talks-it-army-and-deploying-25m-in-donated-crypto/ https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/24/bitcoin-donations-to-ukrainian-military-soar-as-russia-declares-war.html

@anon: This is an interesting point. Thank you for sharing. When I have more time I might dig deeper here. In the future, please sign your posts (~~~~) and consider following the method outlined at Wikipedia:Edit requests § Making requests. Another editor might still take care of this after reviewing for WP:V but the steps there can help requests get implemented faster. --N8 19:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

Please add it into the subsection "United Nations" of the secction "Reactions" of the article:

The same Resolution confirmed the involvement of Belarus in unlawful use of force against Ukraine. K8M8S8 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

See paragraph 10 of the Resolution. K8M8S8 (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2022 (2)

I’d like to edit the number of foreign students killed in the fighting. There was 4 Chinese students and 1 Indian student killed by Russian attack on Kharkiv college dorm, as reported by Taiwan News: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4461836 Maximations (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2022 (4)

I think the last sentence of the subsection "Censorship and propaganda" should be amended to read:

" On 4 March, the Russian State Duma, controlled by Putin's United Russia party, passed a law, under which "fake information" about Russian Armed Forces and "discrediting" a use of the Russian Armed Forces including calls for obstruction of the use of the Russian Armed Forces punishable by up to 15 years in prison. On the same day, Russian Federation Council approved this law and Putin signed it. "

There's information about the content of new law (in Russian). Sources already used in the article contain the information about "discrediting a use of the Russian Armed Forces including calls for obstruction of the use of the Russian Armed Forces" too. I believe this is very important nuance because it criminalizes any anti-war protest and speech in Russia; so it should be included in the text of the article. K8M8S8 (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Note: The information proposed here is already outdated: Putin has signed the amendments to the Criminal Code into law. Otherwise the fragment is partially implemented in the text. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This law must go down in history as Pacifism Prohibition Act. K8M8S8 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've found an English source: " this law also makes it illegal "to make calls against the use of Russian troops to protect the interests of Russia" or "for discrediting such use" with a penalty possible of up to three years in prison. The same provision applies to calls for sanctions against Russia ".

Another English source: " Mr. Putin signed a law that effectively criminalizes any public opposition to or independent news reporting about the war against Ukraine. Taking effect as soon as Saturday, the law could make it a crime to simply call the war a “war” — the Kremlin says it is a “special military operation” — on social media or in a news article or broadcast ".

The text of the Russian Federal Law of 4 March 2022 №32-FZ and the Russian Federal Law of 4 March 2022 №31-FZ K8M8S8 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Peace talks, humanitarian corridors, nuclear plant seized

There's a few major events that should probably be added. For starters - there has been peace talks and while no major agreements, they did announce humanitarian corridors for civilians to evacutate. The nuclear plant that is reported as under siege in the article, has been captured by Russians.

Humanitarian corridors announced after peace talks: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/60615310 "Russian and Ukrainian negotiators have agreed for the need to create humanitarian corridors for civilians. It's after a second round of peace talks between the two countries took place. Several Ukrainian cities are currently surrounded or almost surrounded by Russian forces, following the invasion of the country by Russia last week. It's hoped the humanitarian corridors will allow for the evacuation of civilians and the arrival of aid such as food and medicine, although at the moment no humanitarian corridor has actually been announced."

Russia seised the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, there were initial fires, but these are now put out: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-attacks-ukraine-nuclear-plant-invasion-advances-83245801

78.78.143.46 (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

As your own source points out "although at the moment no humanitarian corridor has actually been announced.", so we need to wait until they are. I agree that we should have some stuff about peace talks. As to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, yes we should say it has not been captured. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I have now added the stuff about the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Great. Check the typo though: "but whilst fires were repotted there was no radiation leak."

And you're correct, "announce" was a really bad choice of words on my part. To correct myself: They've annonounced they should be created. (I should really say "they've agreed they should be created" rather than use the word announce again) They're indeed not announced as in actually created. I do think we should mention them being agreed upon though. Then when they materialize (or if they fail to do so!), that can be added to it.

78.78.143.46 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Enerhodar fell according to map but not articles

Someone I think updated the map wrong. Siege of Enerhodar still shows the battle is ongoing, but the map shows it under Russian control. Can someone please fix which one is incorrect? Elijahandskip (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems to have been changed to being over and that Russia won and took the city. Anyways, much like the wiki says (and the source in the subsection, the one from ABC news, above mentions), Enerhodar is the site where the nuclear plant Zaporizhzhia is located, which has been taken. So the map was correct.

78.78.143.46 (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The plants are not the city. Very different. If someone cannot find sources for the city being captured & update the siege article, I would kindly ask if someone could fix the map. People are spreading information using the map on social media saying the city was captured, but it appears the city has not be captured. Only the plants (located outside the city) were captured. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Never said it was the same thing either? I said it was the site of the plant. The plant is in the city, by the river. (Dniepr) I suggest you look at "Zaporizhzhya NPP" on google maps. You can also look here for instance. https://anonw.com/2022/03/04/where-is-zaporizhzhya-nuclear-power-plant/ 78.78.143.46 (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This is why this live-update idea just does not work with an encyclopedia, the situation will change hourly. Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No, actually it is quiet easy to do it. Update the map when the articles are updated. Not that hard. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The map is not hosted on en.wiki. It's being edited by commons editors, some of whom do not edit en.wiki and some of whom do not speak English at all. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Scuttling of Hetman Sahaidachny

I have updated the brief comment on the scuttling of the Ukraine flagship Hetman Sahaidachny in the Air and Naval subsection. Have removed "It was reported" as there now appears to be enough references, including from the Ukrainian Defence Minister. The photo of the scuttling is already on the Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaidachny page, worthwhile to include on this page? Ilenart626 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Aeroflot Removed From Sabre System

Hello,

https://www.sabre.com/insights/releases/sabre-terminates-distribution-agreement-with-aeroflot/

Please edit the article to mention that Sabre (the international code-sharing company), has removed the Russian state airline 'Aeroflot' from it's system as of 3-March-2022. Above is the link to the Sabre website. -- Post by someone

We need a secondary source explaining why this particular corporate action, out of zillions, is worth calling out. EEng 03:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Media Censorship

Article needs an update on this. News reports are being made at present showing that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have just been blocked by the Russian government. It's made me question something significant in relation to this - would the next thing Russia do be to block Wikipedia's Russian version next for refusing to shut down this article in Russian? 2A02:C7F:50C1:8300:D104:3771:2635:4B89 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Why, you must be a mind-reader! https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/russia-threatens-to-block-access-to-wikipedia/ EEng 03:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Material losses in infobox/article

Material losses have been included in the infobox. It has been suggested to put them into the body of the article instead because of autoexpand issues. What are everyone's thoughts with including this material in the infobox vs putting it into the body of the article. If it would go into the body of the article is this a table that is included or is this a paragraph summary of the each side's claims of material losses? For my part it does seem easier to include in the infobox though I understand it can make the infobox rather ungainly. Words in the Wind(talk) 15:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure we need such a list anywhere, but if we must have it let's not clutter up the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Prior discussion at #Casualties_and_losses_in_infobox. I don't know where the materiel losses should go - they are relevant but at the same time the current numbers are obviously not verifiable, which lowers the value of having them. The casualties section as-is appears under "Humanitarian impact", so materiel losses should not be in it. Phiarc (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is that given the PR/rhetoric/propaganda and limited information that provides competing numbers for losses in an active conflict. Past conventional wars such as the Winter War and the Pacific War both provide losses of materials, such as vehicles, ships, tanks, etc. In those cases these numbers were not actively changing from day-to-day from various sources. I do think it is important to include these numbers as I believe they provide encyclopedic value. The hard part is how to include these numbers in an active war. A section may need to be included and the headline of humanitarian impact could be changed to impact, with the numbers included in a paragraph or table there. At that point whenever this war ends, the numbers could be put into the infobox. If we do not have a section in the page, then the numbers should remain in the infobox for now. This is my argument at least. Words in the Wind(talk) 23:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Timeline a little hard to find…

It’s obviously a good thing that the article has been shortened a bit, as short as some of the replacing summaries may be, but since the timeline got moved to its own page wouldn’t it make sense to link it somewhere in the article? It’s a little odd that I only found out it exists by coming to the talk page and for those of us who have been following the war progress it would be nice to have an easy link to the timeline. 2601:802:8180:3790:89F1:EEE9:A3BC:24DD (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It's linked at the very top of invasion (see the further information links). Perhaps this isn't prominent enough. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, you’re right. Thanks! Might do well to put it at the very top, may not be something necessary. I’ll let someone else make that decision. 2601:802:8180:3790:89F1:EEE9:A3BC:24DD (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The relative obscurity of the timeline article was the reason why I amended the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) heading on this talk page to mention its existence. JaventheAldericky (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The section "Invasions" holds the timeline of main events. It is currently organized with cardinal subsections, this might be a byproduct of an early version of the article where there was no time-wise division of events because only a day had transpired. I don't think a geographical structure is sustainable across time, and even if it is, it's atypical for events not to be achronological.

The best path forward here would be to return to a chronological ordering of the invasion events, perhaps provide a less detailed summary of the events listed in the timeline article, and if needed the 4 cardinal divisions can remain as sub subsections (subsections being each day or time period) when necessary.

I say sub sub section, but I think it prudent to not use actual sub section or sub sub section headers, rather just consider it as an implicit internal structure to the paragraphs. Such that each paragraph corresponds to a day, and eventful days, like the first two, can be further subdivided into geographic zones, however it's better still to further subdivided them into narrower timeframes like 'night' 'morning' 'noon', but that might take more work, so keeping that structure is acceptable. --TZubiri (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Victory article by Ria Novosty

I propose to mention an article published on February 26, 2022 by RIA Novosti (read about its realibility) that hailed Russian "victory" over Ukraine and the "beginning of new era". The article is now deleted. It was widely covered by western media. It worth adding it. Links

• Article (in Russian): https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html
• EN Sources: [24][25][26][27]
• RU Sources: [28][29]

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

IN what way? Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

As I remember, we discussed this. K8M8S8 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Previously on Wikipedia: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_4#Russian_plans_according_to_RIA and Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_5#Russia_state_media_prematurely_declared_victory,_hailed_'new_world'_in_now-deleted_report Phiarc (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phiarc: Thanks. It seems there are no objections. I wonder why it wasn't added earlier. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think this premature claim of victory should be included somewhere.. wouldn't the timeline be a better place for it anyways? 78.78.143.46 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean the Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? If so, I'm totally ok with that. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

"Do you mean the Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine?" Yep. Of course, I cannot give "permission" nor "deny" you from editing this one or that one. It's just my own suggestion for where it would fit best. :-) 78.78.143.46 (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think its probably notable enough for a brief mention of its existence (nothing too lengthy). The Economist article is a good source, and shows that early longer-form analysis (rather than breaking news coverage) treats it as significant, illustrating the pan-Russian/imperialistic intentions of the regime, as well as its miscalculation about the speed of the invasion. Admittedly a degree of editorial judgement/guesswork is needed about its importance until more comprehensive secondary overviews are written. I attended an academic panel discussion yesterday where it was mentioned several times and referred to as illuminating. Perhaps a scour for other sources will turn up more? Jr8825 • Talk 21:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps a scour for other sources will turn up more? Let's hope so. For now though, I'm only proposing to briefly mention it. I can't do it by myself because I'm busy with consequences of the war. Just wanted to make sure that this irredentist piece is remembered. Thanks. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It was in multiple Russian state sources, including also Sputnik.[30] This article, or perhaps Russo-Ukrainian War needs a section on the causes, rationales, and promotion of the war (as in Putin’s broad intentions, “on historical unity,” etcetera, and not just a list of events leading up to it), and secondary sources’ discussion of this article would belong in this section. In the meantime, it should at least be mentioned. —Michael Z. 21:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

English translation:

• Petr Akopov, “The new world order,” The Frontier Post.

 —Michael Z. 23:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Mercenaries

Add “Supported by” Wagner Group, Kardyovites in belligerents? 216.193.170.144 (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Presumably both of those would be covered by "Russia" Phiarc (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

The Russian casualties according to Ukraine should say "disputed" in brackets beside it in the column list as this number is a bit far fetched. Magichands92 (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

We're just reporting what the Ukranian government says. While I understand what you're saying, we're saying explicitly that this is self-reported. It's a given that all of the figures are disputed, in some form or another. If you can find a handful of reliable sources explicitly saying that the Ukranian figures are thought to be "far fetched" or otherwise unreliable, then that's another story. But we don't make edits based on original research. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Only if you got sources for that. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not. They are both just claims made by respective governments. Neither should be trusted and we don't need to put "disputed" on any of them, and certainly shouldn't on only one of them, that'd be far from NPOV. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2022 (2)

Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1500046086865661952 Other source: https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1500040899304333313 P4p5 (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If there's a possibility to authorize me to edit the page, I'll gladly make those updates myself. P4p5 (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2022 (3)

Under section 8.3.1 Religious leaders, a citation is needed for Patriarch Kirill of Moscow's reaction. I am not familiar with this topic but perhaps this source is reliable: religionnews.com/2022/02/24/orthodox-patriarch-of-moscow-kirill-calls-on-all-parties-to-avoid-civilian-casualties-in-ukraine/ Clay Bahl (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize the citation for the next bullet point covered both claims. Clay Bahl (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022 (3)

Under Sanctions

Please change:

Further information: International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War and List of people sanctioned during the Russo-Ukrainian War

To:

Further information: International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, List of people sanctioned during the Russo-Ukrainian War, and List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War

It is important to explain the role of non-state economic actors and the suspension of their services in Russia during this conflict.

GeorgeHenryBorrow (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

A notice regarding one file used in this article

Hi there, I just want to let you know here that I added the English subtitles to the Putin's speech on February, 21 used in this article (File:Обращение_Президента_Российской_Федерации_2022-02-21.webm). I don't know if it's relevant for English Wikipedia, but I would like to suggest adding a notice in the article to the video's text like:

<small>(English subtitles available)</small>.

Thanks for your attention! — Pacha Tchernof (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done: I honestly have no idea what the guidance for this is but I went ahead and added this suggestion because without it, I probably wouldn't have looked for the button to turn these captions on. This is incredibly helpful on English WP when including foreign-language media. Thank you! --N8 16:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Please change:

In early 2021, Russia began assembling military forces along the Russia–Ukraine border.

to:

In early 2021, Russia began assembling military forces along the Russia–Ukraine border, triggering the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis.

In the current intro section, the Russo-Ukrainian crisis is linked but never mentioned by name (see MOS:SUBMARINE). This leaves it unclear to readers what "During the crisis, " refers to later in the paragraph. By my reckoning, it could be any of the 2014 revolution, the annexation of Crimea, the occupation of the Donbas, the "ongoing eight-year war", or the military buildup. --Xarm Endris (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022 (2)

Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1500406475616927749

If there's a possibility to authorize me to edit the page, I'll gladly make those updates myself. P4p5 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It will be updated you are not the only person with access to that Twitter feed. I really have to ask again, can we please not have tones of edit requests to update losses as it is being done without being asked. Maybe this needs adding to the FAQ "losses claimed by both sides will be added". Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The map illustrating the situation in Ukraine is wrong

• Not all red zones are territories occupied by Russian forces. The only zones really occupied are the Crimea annexed by Russians and the Donetsk zone controlled by separatists.

• These red zones are not even "zones of control" understood as areas where Russian military denies Ukrainian military presence. We know that the Ukrainian military successfully operates on these areas and is able to attack Russian's backs.

• Most of these red zones are simply territories with Russian troops presence.

• Therefore painting these zones red and describing them as occupied is greatly misleading.

• Also, there are no clearly defined „front lines” in this war. It's not a trench war.

Here's a Twitter thread explaining this in more detail: https://twitter.com/Calthalas/status/1498998318755680260

77.255.79.188 (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You will need to provide more reliable sources than just a Twitter thread. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 15:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This source looks reasonably reliable.[31][32][33][34] I have seen other sources make similar statements, but sorry, I don’t have one at hand. Is there a source saying we should treat this the opposite way? —Michael Z. 15:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The Twitter thread not only question the accuracy of this map but maps as a whole. Arguing that the colored territory does not imply total control, but area denial. The Twitter thread also questions the accuracy of BBC, NYT and Die Welt maps (that are almost exact with the one used on Wikipedia). WP:FRINGE Viewsridge (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The maps from BBC or NYT are misleading too. And it's not a fringe view, military maps are looking very different for a reason. Recently retired US Army general suggested live in BBC that these big swatches of red are misleading and that they [Russians] “ain't controlling jack.” 77.255.79.188 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think it questions the accuracy; it discusses better ways to represent the information in them, with implications on how to interpret them. Granted, it does recommend that some ways to represent it are better than others. —Michael Z. 17:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As per the Geneva convention and UN Charter, the zone described as "Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia and pro-Russian separatists" is incorrect. I highly recommend that we all read the article on | Military Occupation. My understanding is that the Donbass (area prior to Feb 24) is occupied by pro-Russian separatists. Most of the rest is an area of denial or - and I find this term more intuitive - a zone of control.

Additionally, we should probably have a third type of zone to indicate where the conflict is active, the zone of control is fluid or uncertain. P4p5 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting map [35]

Showing more clearly the lines of troops / military vehicles. Could we do something similar? Maybe with the red being darker. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Strongly support something along the lines of the Doc James link above. In particular, the current map shows Russian "control" of regions adjacent to the roads along which Russian forces have advanced. But I haven't seen any sourcing to support that. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

One solution would be to replace the current map with a screen capture picture of Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map which does not have "shaded areas". Tradedia^talk 05:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree the map does not represent the situation on the ground, thin columns of vehicles along the axis of a road do not represent the zones of control of the Russian army, these are contested areas, I put it that the map that Nathan Ruser had linked [[36]] is a much better representation of the situation. An analogy can be made to Napoleon invasion of Russia, Napoleon only controlled the areas just around his troops not the entire Oblasts his troops were passing through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsobrien (talk • contribs) 09:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Crimea is internationally recognized as a part of Ukraine. The land was occupied by Russia in 2014 and not in 2022. It should be mentioned on the map. Ukraine lost control of the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014 as well and not in 2022. The map is about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. M.K.Dan (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

US intelligence support to Ukraine

According to this CNN article, from a few minutes ago, "US is sharing intelligence with Ukraine about Russian force movements and locations, as well as intercepted communications about their military plans." Should US be added under support or Intelligence support under Ukraine in the infobox? Viewsridge (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

More than that, the U.S. and the U.K. have been offering direct military recon in Ukrainian territory. Fephisto (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The link is pre-invasion (23 Feb). Viewsridge (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Viewsridge: I'm getting confused by the dates, sorry. Fephisto (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent additions - Encyclopedic tone

Alcibiades979 - Wikipedia is not a PR team. Write your additions to the article in encyclopedic tone. I'd edit it for you but I do not have a subscription to the Economist. Emmanuel Macron of France has walked a fine line, on the one hand he has striven to help create a unified EU response to Russia's invasion to help ease the concerns of EU members in the east but on the other hand he has also worked diligently to keep communication lines with Vladimir Putin open and to allow him off ramps to end the war without further escalation. 'Walked a fine line', 'striven to help', 'worked diligently' - this is not encyclopedic language. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. These are qualitative opinionative statements that don't really qualify to be written in WikiVoice. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979:It would also be nice if that line had a more up-to-date source. Fephisto (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If your issue is the prose like you say then you don't need an economist subscription to change that nor do you need to create a section on the talk page: 'walked a fine line' -> 'worked both to'. Before this section was a word salad of random quotes with zero context. This is a tertiary source. It's not opinion that France has both worked diplomatically with Russia whilst working to coordinate EU sanctions, that's precisely what they have done and what they are continuing to do if you have sources that say otherwise please provide them. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There wouldn't be much left if I simply cut it down to plain facts: Emmanuel Macron helped create a unified EU response to Russia's invasion while maintaining an open line of communication with Vladimir Putin in an effort to bring an end to the war. I'd also have cut out: ... to help ease the concerns of EU members in the east ... because alone this statement conveys little information. What concerns? Whose concerns? How have his actions helped ease these concerns? I'd assume this is expounded upon further by your source, but again, I don't have access to it. But my main problem remains with the use of idiomatic expressions and opinion statements in Wikivoice. Nevermind all that now, as somebody has already done it and with better results. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Mr rnddudeI've been the one editing it. I'm trying to formulate how to best put this... In the future instead of coming on to the talk page and trying to order me around on what you do and don't like why don't you show a little initiative? Which is to say, I'm done with this thread. You have privileges to edit the article, so if you see something that you don't like then do it and don't waste my time. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:TONE - this is a part of MOS. I didn't raise a concern of personal taste, I raised a concern based on WP:P&Gs. Beyond that, I have nothing to reply to either. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Friendly Fire

I may have missed it in the article... but are there yet any known/reported cases of friendly fire... by either side in this conflict? 81.108.244.153 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Not that I have seen. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine reports friendly fire among Russian forces: https://twitter.com/AVindman/status/1499753688478494721

Translation by @ChrisO_wiki: Just in the Kiev region, near Severinovka, the Russian occupation forces came into battle with ... the Russian occupation forces. As a result, thanks to "friendly fire", 9 tanks and 4 armored personnel carriers were destroyed. Accordingly, it saved us 13 Јavelin. We understand the manifestation of such suicidal tendencies in the occupiers and ask them to continue in this spirit. And mothers of the Russian Federation are recommended to find out where their offspring are now on the lists of captured occupiers or still alive. But this is only at will. It is possible not to find out. All the same - all of them will be in one list, but in different plastic bags. P4p5 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There are quite a few claimed incidents. Mostly on social media such as twitter, like the one P4p5 linked above. But claims on twitter are not exactly very RS. I suppose some here might have seen that truck video for instance (you can see a man jump out of a truck and is instantly gunned down) It's also referenced here for instance: https://www.the-sun.com/news/4768170/russia-ukraine-news-kyiv-attack-explosion-war-2-2/

That is alleged to be friendly fire by some - the man (men, but only one of them was seen being shot on-camera if I recall it correctly) was shot by ukranians and he was in ukranian uniform and driving a ukranian vehicle. Others allege (like the article references) that it was really russians disguised as ukranians. How do you actually verify either claim when the actual identities of the shot men aren't forthcoming?

A confirmed incident that might be regarded as friendly fire could be the Israeli tourist. https://www.timesofisrael.com/body-of-israeli-man-killed-in-ukraine-returning-to-israel-for-burial/ "The remains of an Israeli man who was killed by Ukrainian troops due to apparent mistaken identity were being flown back to Israel on Friday ahead of his burial, the Foreign Ministry said." 78.78.143.46 (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Friendly Fire

I may have missed it in the article... but are there yet any known/reported cases of friendly fire... by either side in this conflict? 81.108.244.153 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Not that I have seen. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine reports friendly fire among Russian forces: https://twitter.com/AVindman/status/1499753688478494721

Translation by @ChrisO_wiki: Just in the Kiev region, near Severinovka, the Russian occupation forces came into battle with ... the Russian occupation forces. As a result, thanks to "friendly fire", 9 tanks and 4 armored personnel carriers were destroyed. Accordingly, it saved us 13 Јavelin. We understand the manifestation of such suicidal tendencies in the occupiers and ask them to continue in this spirit. And mothers of the Russian Federation are recommended to find out where their offspring are now on the lists of captured occupiers or still alive. But this is only at will. It is possible not to find out. All the same - all of them will be in one list, but in different plastic bags. P4p5 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There are quite a few claimed incidents. Mostly on social media such as twitter, like the one P4p5 linked above. But claims on twitter are not exactly very RS. I suppose some here might have seen that truck video for instance (you can see a man jump out of a truck and is instantly gunned down) It's also referenced here for instance: https://www.the-sun.com/news/4768170/russia-ukraine-news-kyiv-attack-explosion-war-2-2/

That is alleged to be friendly fire by some - the man (men, but only one of them was seen being shot on-camera if I recall it correctly) was shot by ukranians and he was in ukranian uniform and driving a ukranian vehicle. Others allege (like the article references) that it was really russians disguised as ukranians. How do you actually verify either claim when the actual identities of the shot men aren't forthcoming?

A confirmed incident that might be regarded as friendly fire could be the Israeli tourist. https://www.timesofisrael.com/body-of-israeli-man-killed-in-ukraine-returning-to-israel-for-burial/ "The remains of an Israeli man who was killed by Ukrainian troops due to apparent mistaken identity were being flown back to Israel on Friday ahead of his burial, the Foreign Ministry said." 78.78.143.46 (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Additional Battles

Should there be additional battles listed as the Ukrainians have re-taken some smaller towns outside of Kyiv, such as Bucha and Hostomel? (Those are some that come to mind but I believe they've also pushed into some other towns near Kharkov as well. The Bucha firefight involved several dead VDV soldiers and several destroyed vehicles. There's a few videos and official statements from the Ukrainians regarding all this. There's also some reports that the Ukrainians re-took the power plant as well. Just curious. LeukonTheBosporan (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That content would fit much better in the either the articles about the individual battles, the 3 main offenses, or the general timeline article. But the invasion section for this article is trying to give just a general overview of the war's progression.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@LeukonTheBosporan: If you feel like a battle is particularly notable, feel free to start a draft of it. If it is notable, someone will move it into mainspace and link it up with the List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Bloat

Please think of the reader who comes here looking for an overview of the topic. I am trimming or moving extraneous content. A crisp article that gets to the point, free of digressions should be the goal. Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Thoughts on merging the "Reactions" and "Ramifications" sections? I think we only need one which can then be cut down considerably. Hollth (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Airspace restrictions

The map that shows countries should also show their teritorial waters (as seen hereAirspace bans and unfriendly skies around Ukraine ), or in other words all the airspace that is closed to Russia

Justas.pingvinas (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Enlargement of NATO

From the intro:

>During the crisis, Russian president Vladimir Putin described the enlargement of NATO after 1997 as a threat to his country's security, a claim that NATO rejected,

The way this is written makes it look like NATO rejects the claim entirely (that they're enlarging, and that it's a threat), not that (if you read the source article) NATO rejects only the part of that claim that their enlargement would be viewed as a threat. It is true that NATO has been working together to include Ukraine and Georgia. Could this be rewritten as:

>During the crisis, Russian president Vladimir Putin described the enlargement of NATO after 1997 as a threat to his country's security, NATO rejects that this is a threat,

?

Fephisto (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Fephisto. Agreed. It doesn't make this very clear at all. Saying for instance: "During the crisis, Russian president Vladimir Putin described the enlargement of NATO after 1997 as a threat to his country's security. NATO rejected his claims that this would constitute a threat to Russia." (could also give their reasoning as to why) would be better. @ Slater. Much like the discussed sentence brought up by Fephisto, that's not very clear. You disagree with some part of what he said, or all of it? And your argument is..? 78.78.143.46 (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

My argument is that it is perfectly clear we are only talking about his perception that NATO enlargement threatens Russia has been rejected by NATO. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven. Especially given there is a link to the article on enlargement of NATO, I don't see how it could be confused. Hollth (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, but is it though? Fephisto does not seem to think it is that perfectly clear, and I don't either. Linguistically it doesn't seem clear either. There are really two claims being made by Putin. A says X [enlargement of Nato after 1997] and Z [this is a threat], B rejects A's claim. So, which claim did B reject? X, Z or both? Is that really clear? No, it isn't. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there even a problem with changing "a claim that NATO rejected" to "NATO rejects that this is a threat"? Fephisto (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

No seriously, I'm surprised that even only adding two words to improve clarity gets shot down here. Fephisto (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The sentence occurs in the middle of a paragraph which has already addressed events from 2014 to 2022 making it clear the phrase, "the enlargement of NATO after 1997" is simply a historical reference. Reading this in the context of the paragraph I find it difficult to interpret as NATO rejecting the claim of its enlargement. --N8 17:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with N8; don't agree that a change is needed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

NATO enlargement is Putin justification narrative, not sure why this statement is even in the lead.. Decades prior Putin also said that the collapse of the Soviet empire "was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century". Since then Russia has attempted to coerce post-Soviet states into a Russian led version of security and economic unions whether they like or not, and failing that use of force. There is always some excuse why the victim is to blame, currently its Ukraine grasp for NATO safe-line against Russian aggression, before the war it was Ukraine's reach for free trade agreement to balance Russian economic coercion (then Russia threatened with 'inevitable financial catastrophe and possibly the collapse of the state, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements'[37] which soon after "spontaneously" manifested itself with Russian support). Since then we have had 8 years of politically frozen portracted conflict with recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk its last move. Not sure how you can linguistic dissect all of that, maybe its best to leave the various media narratives perception/interpretation of events to background and focus on Russian military invasion of Ukraine--Nilsol2 (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC).

second opinion

I rewrote the summary for the southern offensives to, among other things, specify what direction the various forces were moving towards. I was reverted with the edit summary, "This was too badly worded to be in improvement." I figured I'd just drop a note here for posterity, in case anyone wonders why it's so hard to parse what is happening in the invasion section. - Featous (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem was that it was (as I said) very poorly written, with some of it not flowing due to poor choices syntax, or tense. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename topic to “2022 Russia-Ukraine War”

It’s evident it’s moved past the “invasion” phase and into the “war” phase. 2607:9880:4218:142:FD3B:55EB:57E6:787A (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There's been a war for eight years, and we have an article on it: Russo-Ukrainian War. This invasion is actually the third in the course of the war. RGloucester — ☎ 19:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian forces are still trying to advance into Ukraine and invade its territory and cities. Operation Barbarossa, for example, was an invasion that lasted over five months. —Michael Z. 23:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's wait for the historians to give it an official name - that will come in the comming months.50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There's almost no WP:RS'd information on Ukraine attacking Russian territory (I think there was one incident across the eastern border). While the invasion is a form of war, it's better to have the more specific title ("invasion") rather than a general title ("war"). Boud (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

International brigade

Is Ukraine call for foreign volunteer fighters, and Zelensky's claim that 16,000 have answered, worth being somewhere in the main page? So far its just in the info box. Maybe in the "Foreign military support to Ukraine" section? ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2022 (4)

"The invasion was the largest military attack in Europe since World War II." Remove 'was' as invasion is still ongoing. Honestly I have no idea why someone would make this change. 2601:196:200:6380:C541:31C:793D:121 (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia's often talk in the past tense - and as the warning at the article states, this is documenting an ongoing event. This is a gnat as far as problems with this article are concerned. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:RELTIME. Boud (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Address by President Vladimir Putin, Feb 24, announcing the invasion

The site of Kremlin seems to be continually down due to active DDoS, but I managed to save a copy of the address by Kremlin that announced the invasion. Here's the PDF, in case it's of any use for the article: download link Might be retrieved from Web Archive as well if there's any working snapshot. PS: The original link was also mentioned by the Russian MFA on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreiSf (talk • contribs) 00:35, 6 Mar 2022 (UTC)

Leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy

Reintroducing this section, which was archived by a bot for further comment. Incidentally, it was deleted from this talk page but not added to the archives.Mozzie (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This section seems incredibly biased. We only see negative portrayals of Putin and positive portrayals of Zelenskyy. Could we maybe have some level of balance here, as the article is verging into propaganda. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Care to give some examples? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some examples, but as a general note: almost the entire world is against Putin's war, and this extends to reliable sources discussing the war. So it's not really surprising that most sources portray Putin's involvement negatively and Zelenskyy's positively, especially given Ukraine's predicted odds. Since Wikipedia reflects reliable sources (per WP:DUE etc), it follows that the same portrayal will exist in this article, otherwise we'd be doing WP:FALSEBALANCE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The section looks more like an op-ed piece that have no business being on wikipedia. Moreover, your claim that almost the entire world is against the war is simply untrue as proven by the International Reactions section, close to half are neutral, made no comments or are supportive.Nebakin (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Close to half are neutral [...] or are supportive" is an interesting way to put it, as there are only a handful of countries supporting Russia here (and Belarus and Syria are Russian puppets). Phiarc (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I have at least tweaked this section slightly https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1074838524&oldid=1074838374&title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diffmode=source given the existing sources. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 13:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

In the context of this war, what "positive portrayal of Putin" would you like us to give? Maybe we could praise his dress-sense? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets see some RS praising him.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Made no comments" doesn't mean appraising Putin. In addition, no comments means there isn't anything we can write... P1221 (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, kind of my point. Not having an opinion is not the same as having a positive opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed the section for now and copied the text below for discussion, as I think it needs a heavy rewrite before it's ready. I agree it reads like an op-ed piece/WP:OR, in particular the WP:TONE isn't impartial/detached, which means it violates WP:NPOV, one of the core content policies. There are also a lot of exceptional claims and subjective statements, which require excellent sources and clear in-text attribution. Wikipedia doesn't have the authority to say, in article voice, claims such as "Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine" – who is this according to? Which experts of Russian politics say this? Or "His leadership was characterised by his failures to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to oppose the invasion, the worldwide backlash, and the poor performance of his own forces" – again, who knows what Putin was expecting? This is the viewpoint/analysis of several journalists. These kind of analyses need in-text attribution, e.g. "According to the Economist..." Also, we should prefer subject experts/academics over columnists/journalists writing in magazines. I appreciate that a lot of effort has gone into the section, and there are some good ideas to work with, but it needs a careful rewrite before it's ready, especially given how highly trafficked the page is currently. Jr8825 • Talk 16:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE is also a concern (and a part of NPOV), So far we have seen no sources praising Putin, so to argue "we have to be neutral" when it's clear RS is not is a false balance argument. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don't largely object to the substance of what's written, my issue is with how it's written. All of these claims, which I largely believe are correct, are written as fact in article voice, which is inappropriate. Pretty much every sentence is problematic. In-text attribution is required for assessments of how Putin may have been thinking, or subjective assessments. We don't write "Hitler thought X", or "Churchill believed X", we write "According to historian X, Churchill believed X". For example, "Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies for support" – according to who? Writing "Zelenskyy was widely seen as being highly effective in lobbying his allies for support" is different from stating this assessment (a judgement of effectiveness) as fact. We don't make our own assessments, because Wikipedia is a tertiary source. "Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community" – this is a subjective opinion, not a fact: what constitutes a "pariah"? What does "shunned" mean? How much of the global community is "much"? We need to be accurate and factual, not sweeping and subjective. Jr8825 • Talk 16:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Except, of course, the Ukrainians are getting help from all kinds of places (even countries traditional Nuetral), and Russia has pretty much been treated as a pariah. So do we really need to attribute what is staring us in the face? Sure if it was open to some doubt that Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies" (in truth allies should be removed, as many of them are not allies) you might have a point (the same with Putin's Pariah status) but it's not the case. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Zelenskyy's effectiveness is perhaps the least controversial claim, so I accept that may not need attribution. Putin's status as a "global pariah" is not something Wikipedia should proclaim in article voice, however. Kim Jong-un doesn't say "he's a pariah". Has China (world's largest population) condemned Putin? Or Iran? Or Venezuela? These are also members of the global community, even if they have unpleasant regimes. The democratic world is not the entire world. That's why such a statement should be attributed to whichever expert is saying it. What do the sources supplied actually say? And yes, we do need to attribute the obvious unless the reliable sources are unanimous about it, in which case we don't need to attribute it. So if all the sources say Zelenskyy was effective, that's fine. But the reason we need to avoid stating as fact the things we find obvious is that we don't all agree on what's obvious - tertiary sources collate other sources without adding any additional analysis, which is why readers can trust them. Jr8825 • Talk 16:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

True, but if we list the countries that are outright sending arms compared to those not condemning which is larger? But we do in fact say (in the first line "According to the portrayal in Western media") and we go on "was shunned by much of the global community", and this https://www.statista.com/chart/26946/stance-on-ukraine-invasion/ implies it is most of it (look at all that blue). If anything we downplay the degree to which he has been condemned. Hell he is being stripped of honorary titles and wards, by people like the IOC (hardly known for not being neutral) Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need to compromise on what's being said or water it down – the general content is fine, it's just large parts of it are clearly analysis, and Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) do analysis in its own voice. So we can either attribute the analysis, or demonstrate the validity of the analysis by providing relevant facts. Unfortunately, the use of these sources in the paragraph below is poor. Look for example at the Guardian article for the statement "Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community". It takes the attention-grabbing headline and repeats it as fact, directly contravening WP:HEADLINES. The actual article itself says "Putin was facing ... the prospect of pariah status" – not the same as saying he already has it. Our sentence should reflect what the article actually says, and could go something like: Putin faced international isolation after the invasion; in the global condemnation and outrage which followed, even long-term allies such as China and Hungarian president Viktor Orbán refused to support his actions. Jr8825 • Talk 17:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, this is all wrong for a number of reasons. For example, "Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine." No, he was not "the sole architect of the war". General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was, not mentioning a lot of other people who are now sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• As the primary contributer of this section, I welcome the use of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and than Jr8825 for using it. In writing this, I found it very difficult to adopt a neutral tone. The best available contemporaneous reliable sources say are highly praising of Zelenskyy and generally damning of Putin. How do we come up with NPOV tone here? Is it even possible? To quote WP:NPOV "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." and then goes on to say with respect to bias in sources: "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." Is this article better served by leaving leadership out altogether? It is clearly a significant issue in the conflict.Mozzie (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If RS say it’s bad leadership, then it is neutral to say it is bad. —Michael Z. 05:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

RS is not the same thing as neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." 78.78.143.46 (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

In my view the question is not if this content is all supported by reliable sources, the question is does it fit in this article? This article is already bloated enough. I think it is better suited to other articles that discuss the media presentation of the conflict. I'd suggest Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis Hollth (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• While most of the individual points above can be supported by RS, this Z versus Pu comparison in the same section is an example of WP:SYN. Well, maybe one can find a couple of opinion pieces about this somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Consensus building

• Is there consensus that the leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy has been a prominent factor in the conflict?

• I'm not sure if an original source says this specifically, but I think this is pretty self evident.Mozzie (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

No RS say this exactly, but yes it more or less encompasses the whole of the coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is there consensus that Putin is effectively in sole control of Russia and that this war was his choice and his choice alone?

• Perhaps this should be that analysts and commentators widely speculated that the invasion was the sole decision of Putin?Mozzie (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Less sure, but yes he has been the focus of the coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is there consensus that Putin failed to anticipate Ukranian opposition, worldwide reaction and the poor performance of Russian forces (is any of those three things wrong?)?

• This is all speculation by various experts, observers and commentators. Perhaps it needs that caveat.Mozzie (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

As above this is widesrapd speculation, so maybe caveat it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is there consensus that Putin become a global pariah?

In RS yes there is, but maybe it needs to be less about him, and more about Russia itslef.Mozzie (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is there consensus that Zelenskyy's become a national hero and a global figurehead?

Yes,l amounfg RS that is clear. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy

The leadership of the presidents of Russia and Ukraine was a prominent factor in the conflict. According to the portrayal in Western media, as the autocratic ruler of Russia, Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine. His leadership was characterised by his failures to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to oppose the invasion, the worldwide backlash, and the poor performance of his own forces. Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community. This contrasted with the leadership of Zelenskyy, who quickly became a national hero, uniting the Ukrainian people and rising from obscurity to become an international icon.

In the beginning of the conflict, Zelenskyy refused to leave the capital, pledging to stay and fight. When the US offered to evacuate him, Zelenskyy replied that he needed ammunition and not a ride. He used social media effectively, posting selfies of himself walking the streets of Kyiv as the city was under attack to prove that he was still alive. Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies for support. He appeared before numerous gatherings of international leaders, telling a conference of European leaders that this might be the last time they would see him, and appearing before the European Parliament where he earned a standing ovation.

References

"Second War of Ukrainian Independence" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Second War of Ukrainian Independence and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 6#Second War of Ukrainian Independence until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

On the numbers, there are 30 bolded "support" !votes and 31 oppose !votes. On the strength of arguments, there is no global consensus to be applied that would give one side or the other sufficient weight to overcome the numerical split of opinion. Although this RFC has only been open for a little over a week, continued discussion in this RFC is unlikely to lead to consensus, and as an uninvolved editor, I am closing it, although a subsequent RFC, which can be launched at any time, may yield consensus, if it takes into account the discussion in this RFC, which I will summarize below. Thus, this is a "no-consensus-without-prejudice-to-speedy-new-discussion" result.

There is clear consensus against adding countries that are supplying arms to the |belligerent= section of the infobox without at least some form of separation from the countries that are combatants and are listed as "belligerents". Several editors directly opposed this, and combined with the recent NATO RFC, the consensus against listing supporting countries along with active combatants together in one unseparated list is clear.

The consensus about listing countries in a separate list, e.g. "Supported by", which might be a collapsed list under the "belligerents" section, is less clear. This RFC, which asked the open-ended question, "Should the individual countries that are supplying arms be added to the infobox?", has probably done as much work as it can in terms of generating consensus for such a list. On the plus side, it asked a general question (not indicating exactly which countries should be listed, or where in the infobox and under what heading), which allowed for a general discussion in pursuit of consensus. On the minus side, because the question was very general, it is not exactly clear what editors were supporting or opposing, with many participants supporting some specific implementations and opposing other specific implementations, or supporting/opposing conditionally. As such, a new RFC, with a more narrowly-drawn question, may yield consensus about a "supported by" list, especially if it takes into account the discussion in this RFC about a "supported by" section. I see the relevant parts of that discussion as follows:

1. Editors pointed to a number of other articles about wars that included, or did not include, a "support by" section in the infobox. There is ample precedent for both approaches and no universally-consistent practice. Nobody pointed to any documented global consensus either requiring or prohibiting inclusion of a "supported by" section in the infobox. With the lack of a binding global consensus, editors are free to come to local consensus at this article about whether to include, or not include, a "supported by" section in the infobox.

2. A number of editors !voted to "support if" or "oppose unless" there was a consensus of reliable sources that verified listing a country in the infobox under a particular heading. This is already a requirement of global consensus, documented at MOS:INFOBOX (e.g., the section MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), which documents the global consensus that infoboxes should summarize the body of articles. This means that no country can be listed as a "belligerent" or a "supporter" unless the body of the article says the country is a belligerent or supporter (and of course, per the Verification policy, the text in the body must be reliably sourced). In this case, the article does identify countries that are belligerents in this war, as well as countries that are providing support (see, e.g., the "Foreign military support to Ukraine" section of the article). Thus, global consensus such as WP:V, WP:RS, and MOS:INFOBOX, is or can be met, at least for some countries to be listed in the infobox as belligerents and for some countries to be listed as supporters, if the local consensus of editors here is to do so.

3. A number of editors who opposed did so on the basis that listing all the supporting countries in the infobox would make the infobox so long as to be unusable or disruptive, especially for mobile readers, for whom collapsed lists are automatically uncollapsed, and who have smaller screens, resulting in a lot of scrolling to get past a long infobox to the article content. I am going to note here that this is an example of an unnecessary technical limitation constraining editors' content decisions – there is no reason infoboxes can't collapse for mobile readers, and that's something we could change as a community if we wanted to. Putting aside my soapboxing on unnecessary technical limitations affecting content, this objection nevertheless leaves open the possibility that editors who oppose this RFC may support adding a "supported by" list if that list were not too long.

TLDR: While this RFC is not resulting in consensus, editors who wish to add supporting countries to the infobox may want to launch a new discussion (or even a full RFC) proposing the addition of (1) a specific list of countries (2) to be added under a specific heading (e.g. a nested list within a paramater, such as "supported by" under "belligerent"). The list of countries and their designation in the infobox must be in the body and properly sourced. The list should also be short (although I have no numerical cut-off for how long is too long), which might mean grouping the countries somehow (e.g. "NATO" instead of listing individual members), or listing the "major" countries with the last entry being something like "... and XX additional countries", or some other creative solution. This RFC close does not prevent anyone from launching such a new, more narrowly-focused, RFC at any time, although a pre-RFC discussion may help, and if that discussion leads to consensus on the talk page, a full RFC may not be required.

In sum, I believe this RFC has done as much as it can to hone consensus, and while it didn't achieve consensus, it did illuminate the issues, and hopefully paved the way for a consensus to be reached on this topic through further discussion going forward. (non-admin closure) Levivich 21:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the individual countries that are supplying arms be added to the infobox? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Update : several users rightfully asked what sort parameter I would suggest. I suggest adding the collapsable parameter "Arms suppliers" (cf. Korean War, etc.). - LouisAragon (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Arms suppliers" isn't a parameter. You're suggesting using the belligerent param |combatant2a= with {{collapsible list}} (and I'd note that collapsed lists do not work on mobile, they auto-uncollapse, so this is going to extend the scroll length by several scrolls as well). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

How is there not a WP:Skin auto-collapsing on mobile :/ Maxorazon (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom. There are dozens of WP:RS making world headlines for more than a day about the millions of dollars worth of (lethal) weaponry that are being sent to Ukraine. In fact, this very article includes numerous of these RS already.[38] In addition, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia which likewise list arms suppliers in the infobox, such as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and First Nagorno-Karabakh War (FA-class). Thus I don't see why this should be an exception. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, the FA-class article you reference didn't have arms suppliers at the time it was promoted to FA, plus its current title is probably OR. The 2020 article is not the best example to use either - I remember closing an RfC on that article where the majority position was not policy compliant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support countries have been sending hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment, including lethal weaponry. Even though they aren't committing their armed forces, their assistance is vital to the Ukrainian war effort. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, just supplying or selling weapons (like by Turkey) does not make any country a belligerent in a military conflict. Secondly, what exactly list of countries do you suggest to include? This is a long list, and they must be explicitly named in the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, per comment by ProcrastinatingReader, one needs multiple RS saying that "country X is a participants of a war against Russia", not that "country X delivered weapons to Ukraine". Claim that delivering weapons makes country X a participant of the war against Russia would be WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: UK, Poland, Germany, Netherlands, etc., cannot be labelled as "belligerents" by any reasonable definition. Any of them would deny that they are participants in a war against Russia. The claim needs to be contextualised and explained, which is best done in the body (incl the lead), lest people start thinking half of Europe is at war with Russia, which would be quite problematic indeed. I also think it's an excess emphasis on Western military involvement; the equipment I'm sure is valuable but as the Ukrainian President said they're defending Ukraine alone and, absent further context and considerations (best done in the body, as infoboxes are space-limited), that does seem correct. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support obviously - only if USA is at the top of the list. Let the peacekeeping friendly USA take the spotlight with the peacekeeping friendly Russians.Maxorazon (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - most articles have countries that sent support to any belligerant in the infobox, so i think that it would make sense for it be the same here. EpicWikiLad (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - this is a significant part of the story. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 00:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support if they can be reliably sourced or are otherwise notable for inclusion. --lomrjyo (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. per My very best wishes and ProcrastinatingReader. Much of NATO and the EU as well as the US is selling or giving weaponry, or has done so. Any list would be absurdly long and fail to give context. The infobox is not the best place for this information and supplying arms certainly does not make a country a 'belligerent'. Even with more 'normal' wars, this would not be done ordinarily. Of course this is a significant part of the story, but that story is not simplisticly reducible to an infobox list. Pincrete (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Question and alternative How big is this list going to be? An extensive list would not fit with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An infobox is intended to be an "at a glance summary". Bloating an infobox with extensive and intricate detail defeats the purpose. Also, the infobox detail must be verifiable and supported by the body of the article. I am not opposed to such inclusions subject to the preceding. However, I am almost certain that such a list would quickly become inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The alternative is to place a note that would direct the reader to a section in the article eg - See section Foreign military support to Ukraine for countries that have supplied material aid and arms to the Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

PS adding what would be an extensive list becomes a matter of WP:ACCESS. Collapsed lists do not display as collapsed on mobile devices. Consequently, a mobile user must navigate past a bloated infobox to even get to the second para of the lead. Links to a section and, even better, to an article are the best options to indicate "support" from the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support The arms shipments and now calls for foreign volunteers is not an isolated incident and appears to occur on a continuous basis, with vocal government support from the supplying nations. The inclusion of individual countries supplying weaponry appears in other major conflict pages including the Vietnam War and Iran–Iraq War. This precedent, in conjunction to the ongoing aid, provides added weight that such information should be added to this conflict. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment, good point. I'd add the Korean War article might be a good guide for layout.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 05:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, very good find. I like how it is broken down into sub-categories. ElderZamzam (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support per precedent and if reliable sources indicate the arms support is related to the invasion. Suggest adding the European Union. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support but only if they are clearly indicated as providing arms and not as belligerents. A separate portion of the infobox would be helpful if the infobox can be tailored that way. (Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly analogous to the "supported by" section in the Iran-Iraq war infobox. Meets the H:IB criteria for infobox inclusion. 李艾连 (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Robert McClenon. Peter Ormond 💬 07:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support Although I suggest the title be called Arms Suppliers unless countries are not providing support beyond supplying weapons. Viewsridge (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• General support - This is common practice and actually communicates something important about the conflict appropriate for a summary, though if need be make it a collapsible list or direct it to a section (and inevitable new article) on "Foreign support for Ukraine" or something. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the belligerent section should’t be included in any form the name of countries which are just selling weapons to one or even both factions, without fielding any soldier nor shooting any bullet. The process is just a supply of weapons, no different from what always happens between countries. The said countries are not involved in the conflict, nor have received any aggression from Ukraine or the Russian Federation. The fact that military competence is the cornerstone of statehood and sovereignty shouldn’t be a push for including as participant in a war every country that has shown preference or hatred for a determined part in conflict. --Foghe (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Copying my statement from the previous survey. Only entities participating in combat operations should be included as belligerents. I understand the desire to include ever more information in the infobox, but it is one area where we should be ruthlessly prioritising. Too many conflict infoboxs end up overburdened with minor details, and it simply distracts from the essence of the situation. Ukrainian is at war. NATO is not. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems you didn't read the RfC. I never mentioned NATO. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I did. However my position that only entities participating in combat operations should be listed in the infobox applies just as much to the Netherlands or Estonia as it does to NATO. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support As long as it is material support and not merely diplomatic. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of countries (may be around 40) have provided some support that was not merely diplomatic, including imposing sanctions, even Switzerland. And even Finland promised to supply weapons. Sure, this should be noted on the page, but listing all of them in "belligerent" section would be misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support They are included in similar articles so I don't see why this should be an exception. The supply of (at least) hundreds of millions of $ worth of military aid is not a "minor detail", especially when you take into account Ukraine's yearly military budget of around $5 billion. Qowert (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose under the basis this should be elaborated on beyond a simple infobox mention. The International reactions section would, I believe, be more appropiate, and enable more contextual elaboration. Calling them belligerents is a bit overboard though, even if it is for organizational purposes. Mooshua1857 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't go in the infobox; it would lead to infoboxes that are huge and useless for... well, most wars. For example, 1948 Arab–Israeli War correctly does not include Czechoslovakia as a belligerent on the Israeli side, despite their arms support for Israel being so huge and significant that there's an entire article on it at Arms shipments from Czechoslovakia to Israel 1947–1949. And that's correct: for basically every single Cold War conflict, we'd have a useless infobox of half the countries in the world if we adopted such a lax standard. Now, if something like armed Ukrainian insurgents start operating out of Poland with Polish support, then we can talk... but not merely arms shipments. (Canvass warning: saw this RFC on a neutral request for comment at the WP:DISCORD.) SnowFire (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Relevant, suppliers are partial belligerents in all cases, and main belligerents in some ( Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy war.)
• Acceptance criteria would include:
  • Listing the countries as arms suppliers
  • Listing the countries as supporters
  • Listing the countries individually
  • Listing the countries under groupings (like NATO)
  • When combined with other reasons, and if this extends over time, listing the country as a main belligerent. --TZubiri (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• 'Support As previously mentioned by others, this adds to the value of the article, is important information and it demonstrates which countries support the Ukraine by action and reflects values exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support if we're listing them as arms suppliers and not "belligerents". I myself came to this page to see who had officially sent Ukraine lethal aid, it would have been useful information to have clearly listed. I don't support them being listed as belligerents, however. NATO nations are going to great lengths to avoid ending up at war with Russia, and while I personally don't understand why shooting a Russian plane down is a declaration of war but funnelling weapons to Ukraine and explicitly trying to bankrupt Russia are not, that appears to be the reality of the situation. John Bullock (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Provisional support (edit: on reflection, I now oppose adding this per Lyndaship's point about the difficulty of distinguishing what level of support warrants inclusion and the concerns about mobile accessibility raised below Jr8825 • Talk 08:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)) - while it's useful information to show, as many point out above, arms suppliers shouldn't be listed below (i.e. within) a "belligerents" section/header, like the Korean War example given above. Either {{Infobox military conflict}} needs to be adjusted to allow for a dedicated section, or the | combatants_header = parameter should be used to change the section name to something broader than "belligerents". I oppose adding it if neither of these changes are made, as it'd be inaccurate. Jr8825 • Talk 11:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support infobox, so long as it is clearly not under "belligerents". Belligerent has a very specific meaning, and supplying arms does not make one a belligerent. It is however, useful information that would be nice in the infobox (preferably in a collapsible form so it doesn't take up too much space). BSMRD (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support as per nom.--BlackShadowG (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Support as nominator? Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest speedy close to RfC, overwhelming support. Viewsridge (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter how much support a proposal gets if it's not feasible (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). As already pointed out, these infobox sections auto-expand on mobile, which is how 70%+ of readers will see this article. An "arms supplier" list of 40+ anything in an infobox would render the mobile infobox unusable, so it's a non-starter. Infoboxes are not for every single true fact, just the ones short enough to be summarized. (At best, we could have a "see section/list" for Arms Suppliers that was an internal link.) SnowFire (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

    would render the mobile infobox unusable Not just the mobile infobox, but the article in general. The infobox, which appears after the very first paragraph, goes on forever (on mobile devices) if it's too long, and it's a heck of a scroll to get further down to even the second paragraph of the lead, even though the actual summary of the events is contained in the lead and not in the infobox. So a lot of people might just not, and that means they're deprived of actually useful information. It's considered a given in web development at this point, to design for mobile devices first because that's how most people consume information these days; I feel like the same principle should be applied to editing Wikipedia articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

    Other similar pages show that not to be the case. In the Gulf War article, a whole 40 countries are listed on one side under "Belligerents" and it doesn't seem to be a major issue. But if it was really an issue it could easily be rectified by putting "Supported By" and under it, text linking to the separate page listing all the countries providing arms shipments and aid. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• support I want to know it, in addition to arms dealers. also those who put sanctions on Russia as it this war is more than just Ukraine now, but that's an opinion. as for the arms dealing it's not just selling there is a fair amount of just throwing weapons at them and telling the Ukrainians here use these. or that is what it looks like.... i could be wrong I don't have proof on hand. Bruvlad (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

    i think another way to satisfy this is maybe have a separate list to show supportersBruvlad (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. A pointless bewildering of our readers. The epitome of what shouldn't be in an infobox. Refer readers to the text, or a separate article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's my perception and many readers' that the rule is actual belligerents are listed directly in the infobox, and material support goes into a "supported by" list. Pretty much every article does this in some way, and readers are able to make this distinction that while the US may not be directly fighting Ukraine, they're a participant in the war in the sense they're sending lots of weapons. I can see the argument that this is technically incorrect based on the definition of belligerent, but the fact is that pretty much all the Wikipedia articles on wars list the countries actually fighting and then provides "supported by" in a separate list within the infobox. This isn't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm advocating encyclopedic consistency with how pretty much all the other articles on wars deal with this issue. If we're going to change this, this should be both a global change and done after the top 6 most viewed pages on the English Wikipedia aren't related to the current conflict. [39] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is how things work..... that is two sides getting arms from other countries. Definitely not worthy of being included under belligerents. This paramater was taken out years ago...so we dont list 100 places in the infoboxMoxy- 00:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Moxy:What about providing military reconaissance in warzone airspace? Fephisto (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Significant material support is important to mention. Also per the arguments put forward by User:Chess and User:Ingenuity. --Inops (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Arms suppliers are not belligerents. This will just clutter the infoboxes and detract from the readers' understanding. Arms and equipment are often secured from many neutral countries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Bewildering indeed. Nazi Germany would be added to the nations supporting the Allies in World War II, and Sweden in the Vietnam War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Arms suppliers, especially of defensive equipment, are definitely not classified as belligerents. Involved parties in infobox must be extremely clear. Tellarin (discuss) 01:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose frankly, this is pointy nonsense, and a rabbit hole that would severely bloat the infoboxes of almost all modern conflicts. Mention in the body is all that is needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not against naming supporting countries per se if they are actually notable, but it's difficult to say whether supplying equipment by itself is worth mentioning. Maybe in huge quantities, or in combination with other gestures or actions that, taken together, might be significant, but otherwise it's debatable. CurryCity (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Propose Alternatively, link to a list instead of enumerating all the arms suppliers. CurryCity (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose mention in prose (if adequately sourced) but it's too much detail for an infobox. Think we're going to hit a problem here defining just what level of arms supply qualifies Lyndaship (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There are way too many countries and individual donations to keep the list accurate.Mozzie (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, because now there is a dedicated article. P1221 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit: I would support however to add a link to that article in the infobox P1221 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose - Infoboxes should be summaries of key points about an article, not a replacement for the article itself. Additionally, adding these countries with only minor roles to the infobox would overplay their role and minimize the efforts of the actual belligerents. Finally, this would set a bad precedent for other articles' infoboxes. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Would add clutter for little benefit. Infoboxes are meant to be a simple summary of key facts, and the more facts you try to squish into them the less useful they get. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support as it is already done on conflict pages --Spafky (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose No problem with it being listed in article as its an important part of what is happening but would make for an extremely long Infobox which is not desirable for all the reasons listed already. Thx811 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and move discussion to infobox talkpage - On a basic level, I oppose listing out the countries per User:My very best wishes's reasoning. Listing countries there would redefine what "belligerent" means. That said, this discussion would be moot if the infobox had an "Arms Supplier" param per User:LouisAragon's idea. Adding that parameter to the infobox, then listing the countries under it seems like the right idea to me. NickCT (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would argue it still should not be used in this specific case. In this case, the issue should be handled by creating a separate list, i.e. List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War that we already have. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as this is against the purpose of infoboxes and creates issues for mobile accessibility. We should link out to a section or a different article for the context being sought here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per TZubiri . He points out that this has been done in other pages, and it makes sense to be consistent with them. If this measure is not passed, then Belarus should be removed as a supporter of Russia as well to be consistent. If not, then at least provide some sort of criteria. E.g., if the argument is that Belarus provided recon, the U.S./U.K. have provided sat recon. That they've housed troops, then the U.K. has trained Ukranian troops. At the very least, they should be place under the "Supported by" column, right? Fephisto (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - infobox is supposed to be sort and concise. List of arms suppliers would be 30+ countries long at this point.--Staberinde (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too verbose for infobox and too unclear now, if evidence of significant material support with training etc manifests then there's a possibility. Battleofalma (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Just look at other conflict related infobox’s (particularly Cold War related) and it’s quite misleading to suggest that it’s just Ukraine vs Russia and its allies. This just depends on where you draw the line. Belarus has not used its troops but has supported Russia by letting them use their territory to invade so why not include arms suppliers. - Fluffy89502 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - This has already been brought up before about adding NATO. The request was denied.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Even if the arms suppliers are not sending soldiers to Ukraine, they are still involved in the conflict. It’s misleading to suggest that is only Ukraine against Russia and the separatist republics when there are countries actively supporting Ukraine. Davidmejoradas (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, imagine "indirect" supporters were removed from the infoboxes of Cold War proxy conflicts, it would be ridiculously misleading. A large amount of readers don't go beyond the lead section and/or infoboxes as well. Qowert (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose due to mobile UX; just try looking at the article as it is on a phone. The infobox is already a very long scroll and imho details should be removed from it (e.g. materiel losses) instead of adding more and more stuff. Also, listing e.g. Poland and Belarus both as "supporters" would imply a false equivocation (Belarus being a staging ground for the Russian attack and allegedly also adding forces of its own versus Poland providing arms and humanitarian aid). So if the very long list of countries which supply or support the Ukraine in one way or another (be it training, arms, aid, sanctions etc.) were to be added, it clearly would have to be in a fashion that demarcates it from direct military involvement. Phiarc (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not what infoboxes in war pages should be used for. They should be in reference to the two sides of the conflict. We don't put arms support in Soviet–Afghan War. Gimiv (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Should follow the layout used in FA level articles.2605:8D80:541:667F:4DFD:EC42:1E57:5C1A (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support Countless other related Wiki articles give a "Supported By" section composed of nations alliances or groups that provided arms, equipment, or humanitarian aid without direct troop involvement. Examples:

Iran-Iraq War. China, Libya, Israel, Poland and others are all listed under "Supported By", with only financial and/or weapons support.

Vietnam War. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Cuba, Sweden, Taiwan, and Malaysia are all listed under "Supported By" with no direct troop involvement and only providing weapons/humanitarian aid. It even says diplomatic next to Sweden.

Yom Kippur War. The Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea and Pakistan and on the other side the United States are listed under "Supported By". All mentioned parties only provided weapons and equipment.

Soviet-Afghan War. East Germany "(Military and Political Support)", India "(Humanitarian aid)".

Korean War. Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, Romania on the North Korea side and Israel, Taiwan, Japan, Pakistan Pakistan, Cuba, El Salvador, and Spain are listed on the South Korean side. Again nations which provided, financial, humanitarian, or arms shipment assistance.

Football War. The United States and Nicaragua area listed under "Supported By". Nicaragua provided weapons and ammunition, the US supplied various military arms and hardware.

Cambodian Civil War. Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Romania, Soviet Union all supplied arms or medical aid. Again listed under "Supported By". SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support (but not as "Belligerents" or any collapsible list, "Supported By" is fine) - Belligerents should be restricted to those with involved troops/pilots/captains/etc actually pulling triggers. Now, "Supported By" is not something that needs to be in every article about any war ever, but this war in particular is practically a proxy war being fought via non-trigger pulling "support", so I think it's particularly relevant for this article. And yes, the list of supporters is long. That's why a lot of people are thinking this might legitimately become WWIII. It's vitally important information. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• support adding NATO only to support. Beshogur (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  You missed the boat on that RFC... Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Listing "Arms Suppliers" may be acceptable someplace but under/within the label "Belligerents" falsely implies a connection that does not exist. Several countries in question have very deliberately limited support to the supplying of arms because this is accepted internationally as nonbelligerent. States have a shared implicit consensus about what constitutes direct military involvement and thankfully their leadership is both keenly aware of where that line is drawn, and for the time being, holding steady on the nonbelligerent side of it. Blurring that line by adding "arms suppliers" in this location is at best shoehorning data into a someplace it doesn't belong simply because we've made the same/similar mistake in other WP articles and at worst giving undue weight to a fringe theory that this topic has involved 25+ additional nations as co-belligerents. This proposal would be a poor summary of the primary topic flooded with unnecessary and potentially misleading details that are already contextualized where it's appropriate to do so: in the article prose. --N8 04:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: The infobox is too large as it is. Additionally, I think that it's too crude a delivery to lump countries as belligerents or not where there is no clear answer if they are belligerents. This information can be added somewhere else in a less crude way. Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Pabsoluterince: I propose the question of "belligerence" is one of the few very clear cases in which involved parties (notably exclusive of WP editors) actually agree. Putin himself has acknowledged the distinction saying, "These sanctions that are being imposed are akin to a declaration of war but thank God it has not come to that." He further contrasts the current status quo with the possibility of another power imposing a no-fly zone in Ukraine which Russia would consider as entering the military conflict. (via Reuters) [emphasis mine] Russia and "the west" have a mutual understanding on this point. --N8 17:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Putin says a lot of things, that does not mean they are true. If he thought it aclty meant Russia was at war with NATO they would be attacking us, they are not. Thus that is all just hyperbole. As poitneds out, he contradicts himself. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we agree here Slatersteven. The whole point is that Russia's actions specifically indicate Russia does not view "arms suppliers" countries as belligerent. The refusal of NATO countries to send troops via air, water, or land indicates an understanding of where they have common definition of nonbelligerent with Russia. These parties clearly agree about this definition. It's just the discussion here that seems willing to expand the scope of belligerence despite that agreement. --N8 22:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Clear difference between belligerents and countries engaging in trade. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Note: this RfC differs from the one above, in which the inclusion of NATO as a group was specifically discussed. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• I feel that the RfC question should specify which parameter will be used to add this information? I am inclined to support the inclusion but not if the supplying countries will be listed as belligerents in the conflict.--John Cline (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• @John Cline: Thanks, yeah. Suggesting the collapsable parameter "Arms suppliers". Will add that to the description of the RfC. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• BlackholeWA mentioned in a previous section the idea of a WP:VPPRO to better define belligerence in armed conflict infoboxes. I think that wikipedians should not be comfortable stating that only direct armed forces on the ground can be qualified as belligerents. I am a supply chain advisor and know that, for one soldier firing a rifle on the front, there are 10 other soldiers providing for him in the background. Ensuring the supply chain of war - as far as simply financing the operations, is belligerence in my eyes, and tracking the chain of responsibility up is beneficial for a wider understanding of the reader. The risk is WP:OR, and turning to geopolitics, then philosophy, then void. But some wise geopolitics coverage cannot hurt. I think that this deserves a systemic discussion and attention. Maxorazon (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a bit moot – even if you have experts saying that belligerence means what you say it does (so it isn't OR), Wikipedia is for readers (WP:RF/WP:AUDIENCE) so we should be using words in layman's terms, as they're commonly understood. My concern is that many people may take "belligerent" to mean "someone involved in a fighting". Jr8825 • Talk 12:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

PROPOSED INFOBOX
Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War
Date 24 February 2022 (2022-02-24) – present (2 years, 2 months and 1 day) Location {{{place}}} Status Ongoing (list of engagements · control of cities · timeline of events)
Belligerents
Russia  Donetsk Republic  Luhansk Republic  Belarus	Ukraine Arms Suppliers: Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Spain Sweden United States United Kingdom

• This is how I think, proposed infobox to the left should look like, with a collapsiple for arms support, and note describing what arms have been provided by the countries. Viewsridge (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice job. I vocally disagree with full alphabetic state. I can find another wikipedia article if you want as precedent, but sorting by descending order on the budget of supplies is mandatory in my opinion. Maxorazon (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This is pretty nice work. Fephisto (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I dropped off a neutrally-worded notice of this RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC_@_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_No._2. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Also, while I'm here: I stated my opposition above, but if this RFC is seen as passing anyway (which I would not agree with), having a mobile-readable infobox is required, not optional. I would humbly suggest that a simple link to Military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or an internal-link to the relevant section of this article ("Foreign military support to Ukraine") would be better - just one line. Even if this is decided to be pertinent to the "belligerents" field of the infobox, it's simply not feasible to list so many countries. Note that the infobox at, say, World War I cuts off a "full" list of Allies and Central Powers and simply has an "and others" link at the end, and that's for countries that are non-controversially part of the Belligerents field. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are two issues here. The first is about recording foreign support to the Ukraine. I am not arguing against that. The second is where and how it should be recorded. The responses don't necessarily distinguish the two issues. There is some perception that the infobox is the best and perhaps the only place to do this. Such an extensive list is contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Bloated infoboxes help nobody. Even in the body of the article, such an extensive list details would be a disproportionate section. List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War is perhaps a better article to link to. It currently lists (almost exclusively) aid provided leading up to and subsequent to the invasion. There is a discussion to merge this with Military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is also a suggestion to rename this to better reflect that it is primarily focused on recent aid - leading up to and subsequent to the invasion. Linking is much better than bloating the infobox in the first instance and the article in the second. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. What about moves other than just being an arms supplier? For example, the U.K. training Ukrainian troops; or the U.K. and U.S. supplying intel and sat recon? Fephisto (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Notes & references

The following notelist & reflist consists of the notes & references of the proposed infobox:

Notes

References

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.

Nuclear high alert

Was it "in response to the military aid to Ukraine" that Putin announced high alert for Russian nuclear forces? --Mhhossein ^talk 02:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Not according to the source :/ Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It was in response to western sanctions and military aid AFAIK. If I properly recall. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

To tell the truth, strategic nuclear forces have only one level of combat readiness - full-alert posture. So Putin's statement doesn't mean any changes in military service regime, it's just disguised threat. He goes mad because his blitzkrieg failed and turns into position war. K8M8S8 (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Not by the looks of it. The source used in the article (AP News) says he was "Citing “aggressive statements” by NATO and tough financial sanctions". From many other sources I've seen, it was due to "hostile rhetoric". See for instance https://www.thestatesman.com/world/russia-puts-nuclear-forces-high-combat-alert-1503049044.html Even russian state media such as RT, which many sources (such as above) in turn refer to as their source (https://www.rt.com/russia/550767-putin-nuclear-deterrent-forces-order/) does not elaborate further than that and simple says "hostile rhetoric". Putin may not have elabortated much further on it himself. Due to wp:blp though, it would probably be best if his supposed reason could be quoted as-was. Is there transcript of this announcement somewhere? 78.78.143.46 (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I consider "'hostile’ rhetoric by top NATO officials" and "'aggressive statements' by NATO" to be the same. Could simply be a translation thing. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Page protection

If we keep on having IP's add the same BLP violating rant I will be asking for page protection. Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

No, there are still plenty helpful IPs contributing. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"Invasion" wording against "Intervention"

Why is it an "invasion" when Russia does it and an "intervention" when the USA ist doing it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%932021)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war

It's OK when we do it and bad when they do it? This is hypocrasy.

Either we keep it neutral or we're not better than them. 161.142.205.248 (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment, and the US is just as dastardly as Russia, but there is a difference. See the rightly termed 2003 invasion of Iraq. It is an invasion when a large force enters another country to occupy territory. In the conflicts you cited above, the US did not send a large occupation force but has mostly done airstrikes; admittedly the Syrian conflict is more complex as the Americans are occupying Syrian territory. But it's ok to call this a Russian invasion because it is simply a Russian invasion. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:3832:ECE5:4910:6709 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

RUBBISH. WP:SOAP - take it to a blog or somewhere else.

See also intitle: "United States invasion of" --Xarm Endris (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The talk page for the Russian invasion of the Ukraine is the wrong page to complain about the title of another conflict. Please go to the talk pages of the articles you are not content with for that. Phiarc (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

RS call it this, and (Unlike most of those) there is no reason to assume that a land grab by the US was involved. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Support for Ukraine

Materiel support for Ukraine should be in the infobox, similarly to how Belarus is shown as "supporting" Russian and the separatists. A NYT source below:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/us/politics/russia-ukraine-weapons.html

The source says that several American air shipments of javelins and stingers have been transported and landed in Ukraine already, as of Friday March 4. This would count as American support, so "United States" should be put under Ukraine in the infobox under the label "supporting." Notice I am do not think NATO as an organization should be put into the infobox yet, as I have found no source to support that conclusion. With the above source, only the US should be listed as "supporting." I think this is straightforward. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:3832:ECE5:4910:6709 (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Please head on up to Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC:_Should_the_individual_arms_supplying_countries_be_added_to_the_infobox?, where the relevant rfc is taking place. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Fastest growing refugee crisis since WW2

According to the UNHCR chief, the refugee crisis caused by this invasion is the fastest growing refugee crisis since the Second World War. Should this comment be added to the lede? Viewsridge (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems appropriate if properly attributed and definitely over at the Ukrainian refugee crisis article. --N8 17:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Animated Map

would it be possible for anyone to make animated map from this war? --Persesus (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There's already one at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § Invasion. If by "war" you mean the conflict since 2014 I would check over at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War. --N8 17:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Racism towards Russians who had nothing to with the conflict

there has been reports of anti russian sentiments towards russian people who have absoluty nothing do with the conflict. does anyone think that should be mentioned? https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/03/03/anti-russian-sentiment-us/ --Persesus (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we need more than one source for this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I posted sources in tge anti russian sentiment page if that would help here is the link to the talk page where is posted other than that source

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment does that help Slatersteven --Persesus (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really no, as I am unsure that some of those are exactly not just hysterical themselves, with some of them clearly being about Putin supporters being sacked (for example). The rest seem to be isolated incidents, not a wave of anti-Russian hatred. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Its not just isolated incident of what you just said Slatersteven there are reports of russian owned shops being attacked and vandalized for having nothing to do with it.

I did not say it was I said isolated incidents, a few here and there, not part of some large scale campaign of harrisment. Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I get whst you are saying but am i right to raise the concerns about it?--Persesus (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6374377

Yes and no, you are right to ask for an edit to be made, you would not be right in using this as a forum to raise concerns (see wp:forum) about something off Wikipedia. But there are also issue of wp:undue, wp:rs,and wp:v to consider before we add anything about this. Now (as I say below) we could have one line based on what has been presented so far (which is why undue may come into it, is this really (at this time, what happens on the future is covered by wp:crystal) a significant part of this conflict?). But what we can do is keep an eye on this and see if it develops into something that does warrant more than one line (if at all). Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks for understanding and keep me update to date on whats going on Slatersteven--Persesus (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.wusa9.com/amp/article/news/local/dc/nw-dc-russia-house-restaurant-vandalized/65-ff73fd23-4daf-40e1-8ede-689fa2f963db

https://dc.eater.com/2022/3/1/22954736/washington-dc-russian-harassment-boycott-vodka-russia-house

https://news.yahoo.com/russian-businesses-u-face-threats-183750909.html

https://soranews24.com/2022/03/04/russian-shop-in-tokyo-becomes-target-of-vandalism-after-owners-controversial-remarks/amp/

https://wjla.com/amp/news/local/vandals-target-iconic-russia-house-restaurant-lounge-dupont-circle-ukraine-war-crisis-connecticut-avenue-northwest-dc-joe-biden-vladamir-putin-poland-romania-moldova-attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Again I have to say I am not all that impressed, its not even clear if some of this (such as the shop in japan) is even related to the war or anti Russian feeling. At best this might enable us to say "isolated incidents of anti-russian vandlaism have ocrured in some places, and some pro-putin russians have lost their jobs". Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'mjust going to leave this here. am i the only one who is right to raise these concerns?

https://www.gmfus.org/news/over-war-ukraine-do-not-conflate-russians-putin --Persesus (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/russia-ukraine-conflict-brand-name-change-freedom-fries-1314245/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/03/03/anti-russian-sentiment-us/

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/04/russians-abroad-blamed-for-a-regime-they-sought-to-escape-a76762

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/03/02/the-dangerous-rise-of-russophobia/

https://eurasianet.org/tbilisis-russians-watch-their-countrys-war-with-shame-and-worry

https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/report-alleged-anti-russian-slur-thrown-at-battalion-player-5126841

https://thehockeynews.com/.amp/news/report-ohl-player-an-alleged-target-of-anti-russian-slur

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-wave-of-anti-russian-hysteria-is-sweeping-across-the-west

https://www.wionews.com/world/russophobia-in-us-nears-cold-war-levels-80-see-russia-as-enemy-poll-456748

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tom-tugendhat-and-the-worrying-rise-of-russophobia

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/25/russians-are-also-victims-of-putin

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bu6xUG9zoRg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o_4I8Pr73zA

https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/amid-war-in-ukraine-czechia-sees-a-worrying-rise-in-russophobia

https://www.wionews.com/world/russophobia-in-us-nears-cold-war-levels-80-see-russia-as-enemy-poll-456748

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tom-tugendhat-and-the-worrying-rise-of-russophobia

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/25/russians-are-also-victims-of-putin

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-must-not-become-engulfed-by-russophobia-s5fk6cs5w

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/russophobia-leads-us-to-assume-the-worst-of-russians-and-assuming-theyre-demonic-could-be-dangerous-1478850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of the above sources are saying that ordinary Russians are suffering from increased repression or being penalised by sanctions designed to prevent the regime's actions. This is widely accepted to be the case – and a separate issue to racism. As it happens, I agree our section on the impact of sanctions on Russia (Sanctions and ramifications#Economic impact#Russia) currently does a poor job at explaining how the sanctions have been broadly described as a form of "economic war" against Russia (notably, this phrase does not currently appear in the article prose, a significant oversight in my view), in order to both limit the ability of the country to finance its war and to place pressure on the regime to cease its invasion by conveying to the Russian population (many of whom may be out-of-touch with events because of state propaganda) the scale of international condemnation. I've read strong sources which can be used to add this analysis going forward; FT and Economist have both covered this, for example.

However, this is not the same issue as Russophobia/racism towards Russians, and using such sources to make a point about racism would be a clear-cut case of WP:SYNTH. That's not to say that Russophobia/racism isn't an issue that may warrant discussion. You're right to gather sources, as this is the best way to demonstrate to other editors there's due weight for saying something about this in the article, but it's important the articles you gather explicitly support the information you say we should include. What we need are 1) sources which are WP:RS (high reputation sources) which 2) directly discuss racism/russophobia and 3) say this is already widespread. Sources warning this could appear in the future aren't helpful per WP:CRYSTAL, and news articles documenting individual cases of discrimination aren't notable per WP:NOTNEWS – we need several sources which clearly state this a significant issue. I don't have time to check all of the above article as most of them clearly don't do this, but that's not to say all of them are definitely inapplicable. Jr8825 • Talk 15:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be its own article Jr8825 and you are right and youtuber NFKRZ as already expirenced it. However I think during this whole crisis and racism towards the russian people during the war should get a article but it needs more articles other than the ones i dropped. This whole situation is worrying. --Persesus (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Persesus: to clarify, I'm not saying I think this is an issue that definitely shouldn't be mentioned in this article. It would be easier to judge how important it is if you could reduce the above list to only sources which meet the criteria I mentioned in my above comment, as at the moment the list is overwhelmingly long and a good chunk of it doesn't appear to be helpful or is unreliable (e.g. YouTube sources, the i article from 23 feb which has aged horrendously, Spiked (an opinion-led current affairs magazines), local news sites etc.). It may also be the case that more sources appear in the future. Jr8825 • Talk 15:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I get it Jr8825 i get what you are saying--Persesus (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in this article & the article anti-Russian sentiment should be updated. Jim Michael (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That page should be updated Jim Michael--Persesus (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Putin’s Nazi Claims / Ukraine Far Right / Azov Battalion

Any reason why the following has been removed from the Russian accusations and demands subsection? The Azov Battalion is constantly been raised as the basis of Putin's Neo Nazi claim and the deleted section below placed this in context. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Putin pushed a false Nazi narrative, taking advantage of World War II memories and collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine, to justify Russia's attack on Ukraine. While Ukraine has a far-right fringe, including the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and Right Sector, analysts say Putin greatly exaggerated the scale of the issue, and there is no widespread support for this ideology in the government, military, or electorate.

• Agreed, I think this was valuable contextual information on an issue that's key to understanding Putin's legitimating rhetoric. I also don't think it took up too much space. (Admittedly I'm invested in the text since I largely wrote that sentence.) Jr8825 • Talk 11:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• I also agree that it adds context.Pincrete (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree this adds necessary context and would be good to include. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Ok I have added back the deleted section. Ilenart626 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

For further context, you might find this publication relevant which covers the evolution of Putin\Kremlin worldview and foreign policy, released in March 2019 hence untouched by current events. --Nilsol2 (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Significance of February 24

I was just reading Timothy Snyder's, The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America (2018), which is eerily prescient of the current situation in Ukraine. In the book he discusses the 2014 Crimea annexation, and that Russian troops first penetrated the border of Ukraine on February 24, though the press did not pick up on it for days after. The same day of the 2022 invasion. It may be coincidence or not. Notably other events on February 24 are the invasion of Iraq by US forces in the first Gulf War. At this point it remains OR, but I think it bears watching as the histories are written what if any significance Putin placed on the 24th. -- GreenC 14:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

the iraq comparisons have been brought up multiple times before--Persesus (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The reaction of the Romanian Orthodox Church

I think we can also add the reaction of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the "Religious leaders" section. Patriarch Daniel of Romania called for the end of the war [40] and Patriarchy's spokesperson called Patriarch Kirill of Moscow "a cynical accomplice of a political assassin" [41]. --Kotys ek Beos (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The § Reactions section is already tagged with {{Overly detailed}} so I recommend adding this information to the Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article instead. We might also consider migrating reactions from religious leaders without direct ties to involved parties such as the quote from Justin Welby in the same fashion. That way it would be easier to turn the religious leaders sub-section here into prose from the current list-style information. Open to other approaches though. --N8 17:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added it on the Reactions page. Super Ψ Dro 19:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Also thanks!--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I've also added it on this page, as declarations from the (spokesperson of the) patriarch of a fully autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church with jurisdiction in a neighbouring country of Ukraine but also within Ukraine itself surely is more important that those of the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby in this context. Super Ψ Dro 20:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Exhaustive summary list

Is there any way to find a fully exhaustive list of everything we know happened, with date and location of what happened?

as in: 28/02/22 5:37PM - This happened 28/02/22 6:57PM - Putin says this "..." 29/02 etc.. Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Esteban Outeiral Dias: Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine may be what you're looking for. For future reference, the WP:HELPDESK is the correct place to ask this kind of question, as talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article in question. Jr8825 • Talk 22:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

ohh thank you! and sorry! I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia and using on the phone app is kinds laggy Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Signs on russian military tanks and trucks

https://kp.ua/ua/politics/a644877-u-zsu-rozpovili-shcho-oznachajut-poznachennja-na-rosijskij-tekhnitsi https://kp.ua/img/forall/u/0/58/274002863_284248243807174_4865340587807057973_n1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.52.9 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? Fieari (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We know Russia's claims, now we know Ukraine's claims. What we have already included is the wide reporting of RS. Neither Russia or Ukraine's claims need to be included, until widely reported by RS. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI, we already have an article about this, which cites RS: Z (military symbol). Levivich 17:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Komsomolskaya Pravda is considered a rather unreliable source in Russian Wikipedia. It's an extremely yellow tabloid, comparable not even to Daily Mail but rather to National Enquirer. Doesn't matter if it is in .ru or .ua domain. Deinocheirus (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible cause of World War III.

It is possible that the invasion might cause World War III, rather than Germany being the main cause of it, but couldn't drag neutral counties like Switzerland and Belgium from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeshi Ishii (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Refrain from discussing anything beyond the article's main structure or edits. This is not a forum here. PenangLion (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2022 (3)

Change title; Ukrainian Sunflower War (2022) —this is for the national flower of Ukraine, and the symbolism of many of the images we’ve seen. 100.40.220.142 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Do any RS call it this? Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We don’t just make up “cool” titles on Wikipedia, this documents what actually occurred. Unless this invasion is generally accepted as the flower war, this article won’t be named that. KD0710 (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Typo?

At citation 198: was the person who wrote this reading the map upside down?

"Russian troops entered Ukraine from four main directions: north from Belarus, heading towards Kyiv; northeast from Russia, heading towards Kharkiv; east from the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR); and south from the annexed region of Crimea."

Going north from Belarus takes you into the Baltics, and going south from Crimea takes you for a swim in the Black Sea.

99.227.246.15 (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted that statement. It's stating that Russians are entering into Ukraine from the north from Belarus, not that they are heading north of Belarus. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This is actually a bit ambiguous. What about this: "Russian troops entered Ukraine from the north in Belarus (towards Kyiv); from the northeast in Russia (towards Kharkiv); from the east in Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR); and from the south in Crimea." Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pabsoluterince that is better. Less ambiguous!

2607:FEA8:3160:5FC:C177:CCC6:4A41:83DA (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

from the map, it should be military situation as of 24 February as the map was made I 24 February Yymmrt (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The map has been update since then to reflect more recent changes. To see these changes see: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to see clearly the yellow arrows for Ukrainian advancements against the country's yellow background. Perhaps a blue edging border on the arrows would help? Wokepedian (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it would. Not a valid discussion for this page however; the photo is not hosted here. Here is the relevant place for such a discussion: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

However Shostka has been confirmed to have been taken though. The map should reflect that Kaisersauce1 (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2022 (2)

There is use of the past tense that doesn't really make sense in the northern front section. I propose to change "Russia had made the most advances along the Sumy axis on the east; Russians won the Battle of Konotop, while the Battle of Sumy was ongoing" to "Russia has made the most advances along the Sumy axis on the east; Russians won the Battle of Konotop, while the Battle of Sumy is ongoing".

The part that really irks me is "the battle of sumy was ongoing". That part of the sentence doesn't really make sense and leaves something to be desired; the part at the beginning of the sentence should be changed to agree with that. If the person implementing this request has a better idea, they are welcome to do so. 184.57.147.234 (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Closing due to archiving. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Commanders

I suggest bringing Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox more in line with Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (like this). The commanders-in-chief of air forces and navy of both countries are omitted, instead there are prime ministers, Patrushev, Naryshkin and Internal Affairs Minister Monastyrsky who have little influence on military. Brandmeister^talk 07:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Yeah I agree that makes sense. I don't understand where the threshold for inclusion currently lies though. If you use Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as the template, wouldn't something closer to this make sense?

Russia	Ukraine
Vladimir Putin Sergey Shoygu Valery Gerasimov Oleg Salyukov Sergey Surovikin Nikolai Yevmenov Andrey Serdyukov Denis Pushilin Denis Sinenkov Leonid Pasechnik Yan Leshchenko	Volodymyr Zelenskyy Oleksii Reznikov Valerii Zaluzhnyi Oleksandr Syrskyi Mykola Oleschuk Oleksiy Neizhpapa

Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense. Brandmeister^talk 13:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox is an at a glance summary of the article. Accordingly, entries in the infobox should be supported by the body of the article. Unless a commanders mentioned in the body of the article (and receive more than a passing mention), they shouldn't be in the infobox. Documentation for Template:infobox military conflict would also limit the list to a maximum of seven each. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Which commanders would you include? Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Pabsoluterince, I would need to check the article to see which are supported by the article. It is something I have been meaning to do. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Only the presidents and the heads of Donestk and Luhansk receive any mention in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, by my count, only Putin and Zelenskyy receive any significant coverage in running prose within the article. Except for Pishilin (who receives one mention), none of the others receive any mention in running prose (though a couple do receive a mention in one of two captions). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Pasechnik is the one mentioned in an image caption - along with Pushilin in the same caption. He's the head of Luhansk PR. Addendum: Ahh, as is Shoygu except that the image caption spells it Shoigu - didn't think to check for spelling variants. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, call Help with those Airliners and their lists

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/aeroflot-cancels-international-flights/ --90.186.249.178 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

What inclusion would you like, and where? Noting that this sentence exists in the article. "On 25 February, the UK banned the Russian airline and flag carrier Aeroflot, as well as Russian private jets, from UK airspace." Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ohhh thanks for a nice hand... and support. Short saying it is just to put 'terminated' in all except in Russia and Minsk in those 3 Lists. At Aeroflot imo, the Preface must be much shorter because AeroFlot disappeared in Rest of World, so of course it will be in future much smaller... So 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Aeroflot_destinations 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Aurora_Airlines_destinations 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rossiya_destinations it is maybe very fast for those with common with those tables' methods. Regards and many thanks appreciated. --90.186.249.178 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My nice hands are renowned for their support. What I think I should include is something along the lines of; Russian airlines were banned from airspaces in the UK, Poland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Germany, Portugal, EU, and US.

Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Appreciated Thks !--90.186.249.178 (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Just please correct the table format Switzerland, THEN ARCHIVE --90.186.249.178 (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2022 (4)

Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://uacrisis.org/en/total-estimated-losses-of-the-enemy-as-of-march-7

If there's a possibility to authorize me to edit the page, I'll gladly make those updates myself. P4p5 (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Same but this english wikipedia don't let me.

I edit on romanian wikipedia. Alxvlad02 (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Please note that the Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses are updated on a daily basis, basing on the report issued by the Ukrainian MFA. It is not necessary to ask for an update every time a different source appears... P1221 (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Please also refer to Q3 of the FAQ above. P1221 (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Ukrainian children are fleeing Russian aggression. Przemyśl, Poland 27 02 2022 (51912279687).jpg

The picture seems to be manufactured, because:

The girl front-right is needle sharp and has no shadows (studio like). That differs from the background what is lighted from behind-left and generally very shaky (smart phone quality).

How can a Canon EOS 5D Mark II photo shoot at exposure time of 1/500 sec be as shaky as the woman on the left is?

I also think, due to the light conditions, the father in the center and the person in blue being made up as well (always children).

Here is also no reason for the distortion on the picture. 141.35.40.20 (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

PLease read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"generally very shaky (smart phone quality)" ... "as shaky as the woman on the left is" ... "is also no reason for the distortion on the picture" Depth of field Phiarc (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s obviously shot through a chain link fence, dirty window, or something. All of the background flaws could be a result of the background’s soft focus and/or diffraction through the screen. As 1.5 million refugees have fled Ukraine, why would someone bother making a fake photo of such quality? —Michael Z. 16:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Invasion? Really?

How come these Wikipedia pages say "Intervention" for USA in wars and when Russia liberates the Ukrainians from their corrupt government you call it an "Invasion?" Truth is coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.65.79 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

- This is not a forum for your opinions. Do you have any proposal for changes to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:5C01:ED01:C4F9:88E7:B541:1BE2 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

See the section above. Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

edit request

Explanatory note C: Regional capitals of Donetsk and Lugansk have been occupied by Russia and pro-Russian separatists prior to the 2022 invasion

Can we please change Lugansk to Luhansk? thanks Great Mercian (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Great Mercian: Changed. Viewsridge (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1501110702865534977

If there's a possibility to authorize me to edit the page, I'll gladly make those updates myself. P4p5 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I have updated the stats. You will automatically be given extended confirmed permission after 30 days and 500 edits or you can ask for them here. Though your request will almost certainly be denied. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrongly Identified AFV/Tank in "Southern Front"

Under "Southern Front", there is a picture of a tank which the caption labels as a T-72. However, this is not a T-72; in fact, it isn't even a main battle tank but appears to be an IFV, if I am not mistaken a BMP-3. Regardless of what it is, it is certainly not a T-72, as even casual comparison with the pictures on either T-72 or T-72_operators_and_variants. The turret is too small and centered too far forward for it to be a T-72. There is also too much hull above the top of the tracks, and the "bow"/upper front hull is completely different. I propose that the caption be changed to identify it as a destroyed Russian armored fighting vehicle until positive identification is made, or otherwise to remove the erroneous "T-72" label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parabellummatt (talk • contribs) 04:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Appears to have been done. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikilink invasion in the first sentence

To me, this seems like a classic case of overlinking a common everyday word, although I see Jim Michael disagrees, even adding "invasion" to the hidden note to instruct other editors not to remove it. Did I miss a discussion on this? What are others' thoughts on its appropriateness as a wikilink? Jr8825 • Talk 22:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It's central to the article, which means it's not an overlink. The same applies to Russia & Ukraine. The link you provide says that if it's particularly relevant to the article's context, it's not an overlink. Russia, invasion & Ukraine are all clearly extremely relevant to the article. Jim Michael (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need. We don't link war in every article about a war. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is about an invasion. Many readers will want to read that article, just like many will want to read the articles Russia & Ukraine. Jim Michael (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The “overlinking” article in question does say that a topic which is particularly relevant should be linked and is not an overlink, but it also says common terms ought not be linked-how many readers won’t know what an invasion is? 2601:802:8180:3790:89F1:EEE9:A3BC:24DD (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It says Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: Therefore, the rule of not linking common words doesn't apply when the term is particularly relevant. No-one would argue that invasion is anything other than extremely relevant to this article. Some readers won't know - many are children, or are people who aren't fluent in English. Also, people don't only read articles because they don't know what they are. The large majority of the millions of people who've read the articles Russia & Ukraine this year were already aware of those countries. Jim Michael (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of the guidance. I don't think "invasion" has any special importance in this article other than as a common English word to describe what happened, and I think it's extraneous/unprofessional/unhelpful, especially as the lead is already very heavy on more topic-specific links. "Invasion" isn't wikilinked at any comparable articles (e.g. Invasion of Poland, Invasion of Yugoslavia, Invasion of Portugal (1807), Invasion of the Kuril Islands, Invasion of the Cape Colony, Invasion of Kuwait etc.) and as much as I agree accessibility is important, it's not a technical/difficult term that a general audience will be unfamiliar with. This isn't simple English wiki after all. It would be good to hear the opinions of other editors here though, to determine consensus. Jr8825 • Talk 12:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is about an invasion & has invasion in its title. It couldn't be more relevant to the subject. Invasion is just as relevant to the title & event as Russia & Ukraine are. Jim Michael (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Bumping this to prevent auto-archiving. Could do with an extra voice here, as I don't want to revert on the basis of 2 editors disagreeing with 1. Jr8825 • Talk 15:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

^*3 editors disagreeing with 1. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• In that case, let me add my voice to saying that this is not overlinking in this case, because the terms are utterly central to the article. Overlinking generally refers to linking articles when there is a passing casual mention of the term. Here, that is not the case. Even "invasion" is not overlinked, particularly because Russia officially disputes that this is an invasion, so linking to an article clearly defining what an invasion is, is quite appropriate. Fieari (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Do note Fieari, per WP:OVERLINK: "The purpose of linking is to clarify, not emphasize." I personally do not think that the link is necessary. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Putin says it's not an invasion. This is a clarifying link to specify what an invasion is, and why his statement that it's not an invasion is utter nonsense. Fieari (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fieari: which returns to my initial objection, I don't believe our general audience, a layperson with a decent grasp of English, needs any help understanding/clarifying what the word invasion means. It has no special meaning/significance in this article beyond its normal dictionary definition, and it's not technical jargon. Jr8825 • Talk 01:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Being disputed makes it even more likely that readers will want clarification, and to read the article. Jim Michael (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference either way, but the link's tooltip preview was surprisingly helpful in understanding this topic a little better even without clicking into the invasion article. There's enough information in that hover-activated summary to reveal that the term "invasion" applies regardless of the goals/intent of the action. IMO that's helpful given Fiearis point about disputed terms. --N8 20:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"Invasion" is a bit of an overstatement, maybe rethink the title

I know Russia's intention was an invasion, but they hardly achieved that. Maybe "Incursion" or something. I know... we need to keep the language neutral, but it's really more like an "attempted invasion" at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabhala (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

By all definitions of invasion, both on Wikipedia and on well-known dictionaries, that I've come across, the degree of success is not essential to describing an invasion. Has Russia entered Ukraine? Have they done so by force? Is there hostile intent to subjugate or otherwise take control? A pretty certain affirmative to all three questions. Describing it as "attempted" also seems to be implying its outcome. Benjamin112 ☎ 00:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Benjamin112. Had the amassed forces been repelled at the border, "attempted invasion" might have then been accurate. I don't know what news sources you've been looking at, Gabhala, but "invasion" seems perfectly accurate to me. I suspect the 1.5 million refugees fleeing from the advancing Russian forces who are bombarding many Ukrainian cities and killing their citizens would agree, too, were they to be asked. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't say that it unambiguously fits ANY definition I've encountered, but certainly most. The most restrictive definition I've encountered is the "intent to conquer or plunder" definition, which under its most restrictive interpretation would require Russia trying to take for itself new territory outside of the previously-occupied Crimea and Donbas, an intent which hasn't been made clear. I think such a definition is far more restrictive than we've been using on other articles so I wouldn't recommend it here. The next most restrictive definition would include "intent to topple the government" in its qualifying-intent aspect, which this certainly meets. –MarcelB612 (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

well, think the word is a bit weak... for me is more than invasion, but the guy we know intended to be an extermination or extinction of their culture to put them in middle ages.... with only grabbing the agriculture --90.186.249.178 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I also think invasion is fine. The US Invasion of Iraq is called 2003 invasion of Iraq. In the future we may have to rename to "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". Ilenart626 (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Obviously we DO have to justify using the word "invasion", if only because don't use the word "invasion" for dozens of other articles covering US or NATO-led "interventions" in other countries. Unfortunately the only reference given for the intro sentence calling it a "full scale invasion" is an earlier Washington Post article that literally says "analysts are debating" whether Russia putting troops in Donbas meets the definition of an invasion (the article was written before the main full-scale invasion). Because Russia's stated goal is regime change in Ukraine, I believe that it certainly is an "invasion" under almost any definition. However it would be good if we could get some better references on this. I don't think it's good enough to simply grab Western sources, even ones typically recognized as reliable on other topics, that happen to use the word "invasion" colloquially. —MarcelB612 (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Some sources for this event as an "invasion" (as in they call it as invasion somewhere).

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/2/russias-invasion-of-ukraine-list-of-key-events-from-day-seven https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-06-22/index.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/07/ukraine-war-russia-what-we-know-so-far-day-12-russian-invasion https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56720589 https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-latest-news-war-vladimir-putin-zelenskyy-ceasefire-only-50-uk-visas-live-updates-12541713 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-putin-latest-kyiv-zelensky-b2029871.html

Do we need any more? Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what I said above: I don't think that articles which just happen to use the word colloquially at some point are strong sources for this particular purpose. It's not a matter of how many articles you can find that use the word, if none of them stop to justify their use with expert opinion, then that's not a good source to justify our use. I think we should be able to find one, since most definitions of invasion would include "regime change" in their list of qualifying intents. –MarcelB612 (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And we do not assume RS have done their research and are not using the term deliberately. RS call it an invasion so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You can find dozens of articles from reliable sources referring to koalas as "bears", that doesn't mean we can use those articles as references to claim that koalas are ursidae rather than marsupials. There is a huge difference between using a colloquial term off-handedly and establishing that something fits a technical definition. – MarcelB612 (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Bear has a specific scientific meaning, invasion does not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. MarcelB612 (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

invasion noun [ C or U ] UK /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/ US /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/

B2 an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country:

C2 an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way:

C2 an action or process that affects someone's life in an unpleasant and unwanted way:

All of those can be said to apply to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could even box a copy of this somewhere in the page header, or just a link to a dictionary, apparently few are motivated enough to at least read up on the current discussions, let alone searching the archives. Or else this is bound to come up another dozen(s) of times, further repetions included. At least an interesting take is to go by whoever's (putative) "intentions", something we'll never know, instead of the indubitable facts on the ground. If this is not an invasion, there has never been one. -188.108.202.173 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Intentions are unquestionably a necessary component for any reasonable definition of "invasion". You can station military in another country without it constituting an invasion.

Even our "Invasion" article doesn't have any sources for a definition of invasion, or what constitutes a difference between "invasion" versus "intervention". We use both "invasion" and "intervention" here on Wikipedia, so we obviously have to justify when we call one hostile incursion of troops into a country an "invasion" and another just an "intervention".

It is honestly difficult to find any good definitions, I am under the impression that "intervention" is purely a propaganda term, a euphemistic softening of "invasion" for domestic political purposes.

There is a long Quora discussion https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-military-intervention-and-invasion-How-do-you-define-the-action-the-US-had-taken-towards-Iraq-and-Afghanistan with military contractors and others saying their only understanding of the difference is time-scale, i.e. "invasions" are keep-and-hold, and "interventions" are short-term to "sort out" a limited issue. Since we don't know yet whether Russia is going to keep-and-hold Ukraine, and their stated intentions are only short-term, that distinction doesn't do us any good here.

There may be other concepts that could go into a definition, such as whether the action is UN sanctioned, but in general the distinctions I think are highly problematic for a project that is meant to be NPOV.

I believe it does constitute an invasion, as I prefer a definition of "invasion" that includes "regime change" as a qualifying intent, and I think we can establish that Russia is pursuing regime change in Kyiv. – MarcelB612 (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Invasion" is an overstatement? What is this then, one of Russia's classic "peacekeeping" missions? This whole thread is absurd, it is obvious that the article's title will keep "invasion". I recommend people not to waste a single second more on this. Super Ψ Dro 14:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this seems to be slightly mirroring the debate over on Russian WP about whether to call this a "special military operation", or even the "liberation of Ukraine"(!) While I understand that there may be concerns over colloquial, non-expert use of the term "invasion" by hasty newspaper editors, this does seem to be the term a lot of experts are using to describe it. For obvious reasons. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian nuclear weapon

According to https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-699355 , Russia accuses Ukraine of wanting to build a nuclear weapon. But I don't understand the complaint: Russians just have to bomb that facility and it is bye-bye Ukrainian nuclear weapon.

And a dirty bomb (nuclear waste) is not a threat to life, unless you choose to live there for another ten years. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

a dirty bomb (nuclear waste) is not a threat to life, unless you choose to live there for another ten years – Are you fucking kidding? EEng 19:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of my own opinions, I have produced a RS. It needs to be discussed.

And here is another RS: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-without-evidence-says-ukraine-making-nuclear-dirty-bomb-2022-03-06/ tgeorgescu (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the key is "without evidence", thus this is just more Russian misinformation to (rather late now) justify their invasion. At best we could add "anther (discredited) justification as made days after the invasion started claiming Ukraine was trying to develop WMD". But I am unsure we really need it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don't know about "without evidence". I could swear I watched Zelensky speaking about dodging non-proliferation. But I do not have a RS for it (yet). tgeorgescu (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Its what one of the source linked to here says. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Okay, it wasn't Zelensky, it was Svitlana Zalishchuk, and here is the RS: https://news.sky.com/story/russian-invasion-wouldnt-have-happened-if-ukraine-still-had-nuclear-weapons-ukrainian-political-adviser-says-12556811 tgeorgescu (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Which seems to be saying that if they had not had them they would not have been attacked, and it was a mistake giving them up. In an answer to the question "was it a mistake to give them up". Nor does this seem to say they are now going to make them, and (anyway) this can't have been used as a pretext for invasion, as this is a post-invasion comment. And (lastly) she is only an advisor, speaking in her personal capacity so can't in any way be said to represent an official policy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

A good place to start with items like these is disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, and then decide if the summary here is worth extending. There seem to be enough careful editors from different sides there to yield reasonably sourced and NPOVed text. But more !votes and editors able to build towards a likely consensus are needed for a name change proposal there. Boud (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly the vague unsubstantiated suggestions in the tweet correlated with their assault on the Nuclear power plants and being accused of "nuclear terror" following initial reports of fire breaking in the nuclear complex and concern over radiation levels. More relevantly to us, militarily, Russia capture of the power plant gains them ability to shut down a substantial portion of Ukraine's electrical grid.--Nilsol2 (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Opposed to inclusion of every single unsubstantiated accusation that seems to flow out of Russian government. Support a broader discussion of the theme when it appears in RS, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with others that this doesn't have enough focus yet to merit inclusion here. However, that Sky news reference might have some good information to review for the article about Nuclear weapons and Ukraine in general. Given the interesting history here, I wouldn't be surprised to see this subtopic start to get more attention by media coverage. --N8 15:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The claim is most likely based on that prior to the invasion, Zelensky said that Ukraine might abandon the budapest memorandum.

https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/02/19/ukraine-now-has-neither-weapons-nor-security-zelenskyy-demands-budapest-memorandum-consultations/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances 78.78.143.46 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Or not, as he does not once say they will delpe nuclear weapon, this is why we do not allow wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Again - Worth including: Russian Major-General killed in action

When I previously mentioned this, it was quietly drowned out. In his dedicated article several reliable sources are given for this senior Russian officer having been killed in action in the invasion of Ukraine: Andrey Sukhovetsky. It is notable, because officers at this level are very rarely killed in action in the modern era. The sources (see his dedicated article as given above) seem more than adequate for inclusion - RS are of the opinion that he has in fact been KIA. Please comment here on inclusion (or not), but don't simply quietly keep it out as happened last time. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the fact is reported in the page Siege of Mariupol. I don't think it has to be included here, too, because this page gives an overall overview of the war. P1221 (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn’t fit on this page. It’s just not that notable in the totality of the invasion. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I would argue that it does belong here as being extremely historically notable. I don't think any Russian general has been killed in action since World War II, and I am sure that, to compare, the US has only seen two General Officers killed since that time, one in 1970 and one in 2014. As it is an extremely unusual occurrence, having undoubted effects on operational logistics and morale, and being extensively reported by media covering the war, I think it merits inclusion - not that I am suggesting a whole paragraph dedicated to it or something like that - but I would suggest including it in the casualties info-box, or including him in the 'commanders' section with a KIA-annotation, as is usual for (for instance) generals KIA in the American Civil War, when this occurred much more frequently. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 11:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Are there sources saying that this killing is of "extremely historically" notability and that any other Russian general was KIA since WWII? P1221 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there were Russian generals killed in Syria in 2017 and 2020: [42]. Deinocheirus (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

What I’m mostly seeing about the significance of the death of the General is that he had to be near the frontlines due to the convoy being stalled. It’s not so much his individual significance. Therefore, I think it’s not necessary. KD0710 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sukhovetsky was shot near Mariupol, which is on the other side of the country. Phiarc (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

He just got joined by Major General Vitaly Gerasimov also from the 41st who got killed outside Kharkiv. 41st must be getting smoked. That said I do think it's kind of relevant, certainly more relevant than the opinions of the Archbishop of Cantebury. I mean we're 11 days in and two Russian Major Generals are already KIA, it fits a rising narrative of incompetence on the Russian side. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

First develop what is currently just one paragraph at Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#Notable deaths if you have found reliable sources discussing the significance of these two generals' deaths. If the paragraphs and numbers of sources get big enough, then a brief referenced summary inserted in this article may become justified. Boud (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Financial crisis

The lead is describing Russia as facing a "financial crisis" as a result of the sanctions. Neither the source used in the lead, nor the ones used in the lead of the main article support such a claim [see this discussion please]. Are there solid sources explicitly making such an argument? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The Economist does here. But my reading of most sources is that they aren't calling it a financial crisis in the traditional sense, yet, but rather warning of it looming. I'd largely say The Economist is saying the same thing really. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but a single source should not be the ground for wikivoicing that there's a crisis. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Alleged racism faced by Indian by African students from Ukrainian border guards

This news was shown in an article in BBC, and videos from Al jazeera and various other Indian and African sources. Some students were manhandled/beaten when trying to leave border. Is this worth mentioning in humanitarian impact section? SReader2101 (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Source? BTW, I think this is already covered in the section Discrimination and racism. P1221 (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I had heard about this as well a few days ago, and the sources are legitimate, but like @P1221 said, I believe that this is already covered in the above linked section, although maybe it could always use expansion? ~~~Stephanos100 Stephanos100 (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

and attempting to cross after being ordered by the guards to stand down and then stopped using force when they disobeyed is not "racism" 50.111.36.47 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"Russia issues list of countries, considering their 'unfriendly actions'"

Russia has adopted such a list. Does anyone have an idea where we could put such statement? Russian government adopted a list of countries "taking unfriendly actions against Russia, Russian companies, and citizens". According to a decree published on the government's website, the list includes: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Great Britain, including Jersey, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, EU member states, Iceland, Canada, Liechtenstein, Micronesia, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, San Marino, North Macedonia, Singapore, US, Taiwan, Ukraine, Montenegro, Switzerland, and Japan. Beshogur (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We're not a news ticker. I don't see the signifiance. They created a list of large swathes of the planet opposing their invasion, so...? ←ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

China's going to be furious Russia listed Taiwan as a country. Perhaps this will convince China to join in the sanctions. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't even catch that but wikipedia did. --N8 16:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing why we need this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As this topic gets more coverage, it might be appropriate in the 2022 Russian financial crisis article. Looks like it's more directly related to that topic than to the invasion proper. --N8 16:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

added to reactions. Beshogur (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, moved to reactions section. Not sure why @ProcrastinatingReader: told the insignificance, considering it's everywhere on newspapers. Beshogur (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Because we already know they are pissied at these nations, as they have been complaining about sanctions since day 1. This is nothing new, nor does it add any new dimension to the complaints. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Well what's the point of whole thing if we're not going to put their views as well? Beshogur (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We do, it may need expanding to say something like "and Russia has condemned the sanctions imposed against it calling it an act of war" or some such. But this list does not do that. Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Every little development is in the newspapers, and it won't last more than one, maybe two, days of news cycle. We already have File:United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-11 L.1 vote.svg -- we don't need to start creating arbitrary long lists of countries, and (especially in this article) need to stay focused on high level details. Otherwise we hurt readability and make the prose far more convoluted, and that means that readers (today and in the future) will find it more difficult to understand the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This list actually is important; it's the list of countries whose companies and investors russian entities must pay back using rubles instead of other forms of currency. Ie if you're an American bank that holds bonds from Yandex, Yandex must repay those bonds with Rubles instead of USD, now then if its stipulated that payment must be made in USD, which is typical, this is defaulting on debt which is one of the reasons Yandex is now looking at defaulting. I'm not sure how much scope we're going to go in to with the article but this debt repayment scheme is dramatically raising the likelihood of default amongst Russia the country and its banks and companies. Defaulting on debt is of course a great first step toward economic meltdown. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Article a bit too biased and allegations of Ukraine using Indian and Chinese students as human shields.

I see many instances of an anti-Russia bias in this article. Many claims that Putin would obviously make to justify this war are being emphasized too much and the threat of NATO and US towards Russia and Putin, not to mention it's very credible security threat if Ukraine were to join NATO, are not stressed enough. Russia is the clear aggressor here, I won't deny that, but that doesn't mean that we should be biased against Russia.

Also, There have been allegations of Russia that Ukraine is using Indian and Chinese students as hostages and human shields, mainly in Kharkiv and Sumy. Ukraine has denied this and said that the students are unable to leave because of Russian shelling. Both scenarios seem possible as this is a war and both sides are desperate. Here are a few articles I found Dev-is-a-name (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed the heading and comment above as there is no need to use the term "meat shield"; referring to people as "meat" is disrespectful. No comment on the merits of the content issue. Levivich 17:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"Alleges Russia, so at best we could say "Russia has alleged". Nor do I agree we are biased agasint Russia, as (for example) NATO has refused to admit Ukraine (more than once), so RS do not take that claim seriously (as such neither do we). And we do mention the Russian fears. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2022 (5)

Remove claim of Finland being a neutral country, but keep claim of a major policy shift. Finland has long been in the EU and a NATO partner with a modern and NATO-compatible military. 46.173.225.164 (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Melmann 19:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Z symbol

I think we should include a section on the Z symbol used in the invasion, or make a separate article on it. I added some content to the article on the letter but I think it needs to be better done Z#Usage_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't really support it there, the same way I don't support every usage of the Greek letter Alpha being listed on that article. Nor do I think it's really appropriate for this article, maybe as a brief mention in a section somewhere, but it's not really that surprising that symbols would be used to prevent friendly fire. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it constitutes due weight at Z, since other uses as movement symbols are not discussed among our Latin letter articles, but it may be acceptable in this article. The grammar was poor, and New York Post is considered to be unreliable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI there is the page Z (military symbol). Rinbro (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Update the map or remove it

The whole thing is about 4-5 days out of date. Goggo2022 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless my timezones are misaligned, File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg was last updated about 4 hours before this message was posted. It also has a dedicated discussion page if you have specific requests you'd like to raise. --N8 21:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Current map I'm seeing on the BBC is exactly the same as what we have. Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

you need to look again. Goggo2022 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the file history over on commons:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg, the image was last updated at 00:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC). At the time this discussion was opened, the most recent update was 16:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC). The file appears to be receiving between 5 and 10 updates per day over the last few days, though some days like 2 March (20 updates on that day) have substantially more. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I would rather it was, we are not a live news feed.Slatersteven (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

well... at least we know you don't have the best eyesight, and no. we're not a live news feed but we're 4-5 days out of date. most amateurs on youtube do a better job. lame Goggo2022 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please help us promote civility and be mindful of your choice of words. --N8 22:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

OK then, you change it Great Mercian (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the fog of war, I think the current Wikipedia map is remarkably accurate (based on the OSINT and knowing its limits). The editors who maintain it are doing a good job. --Mindaur (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple WP:RS dispute the idea that Russia "controls" regions where its forces have been seen. [43][44][45]. In the German one, "Vormarschgebiete" might be translated as "zones of advance". Not "zones of control". Adoring nanny (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Support for Ukraine

Since Belarus is included as a supporter country on the Russian side, why shouldn’t we include US, EU countries that sent arms to Ukraine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:A7F:75E0:29B3:56BB:C584:79D4 (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, shouldn't drag Belarus and the rest of Europe in the conflict, because it might escalate into World War III. Takeshi Ishii 02:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

See archives for recently closed RfC on inclusion in infobox of others. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Belarus is different. See here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

International legion of territorial defense of Ukraine should be added to the belligerents on the Ukraine side.

International legion of territorial defense of Ukraine should be added to the belligerents on the Ukraine side. Not members of the armed forces of Ukraine. I think that change should be made. Cheers 174.97.35.179 (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

One would need some significant info about actual military operations by such legion described in multiple RS. Same about Syrian fighters recruited by Russia to kill Ukrainians. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Air and naval engagements

Looks like only Russia suffered great losses in aircrafts and helicopters. Ukraine not.--109.93.67.114 (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Your point is? Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Point? One-sided stories are misleading. We have to look for complete and impartial information about this issue.--109.93.67.114 (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

F-16 deal and the no fly zone controversy

Can we have a post about the new jets going over to ukriane along with the President wanting a no fly zone and the reaction to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"If you're requesting an edit be made to the article, please provide reliable sources to support your change." Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest holding on that regardless. A promise of "we'll deliver you jets" has been made before and that fell apart completely in less than 2 days as nonsens and despite having been reported by what is usually RS. Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news. And this time it's not even a downright promise of jets to the Ukraine either, but US considering to give some eastern european states such as Poland F-16:s in exchange for sending Ukraine their stock of Migs. There seems to be very many ifs and buts and considerings to this story so far.

https://www.ibtimes.co.in/poland-willing-give-mig-29-fighter-jets-ukraine-exchange-f-16-jets-us-details-846341

"Poland is willing to give Ukraine its MiG-29 fighter jets if US can fill its fleet with American F-16 fighters. The White House is considering assistance to Poland if it hands over its warplanes to Kyiv." 78.78.143.46 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just happened. I added it to the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Who broke the ceasefires?

The article in the Ceasefire section currently states the wording below. I've seen a number of sources state that the Russians claim that Ukraine broke the ceasefire, for example. I think at this stage it would be very hard to determine who was at fault. Suggest we include Russia's claims as well. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian forces repeatedly broke the ceasefire by shelling the two cities,

Have updated as per above. Have also included a better reference for both claims Ilenart626 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, the representatives of Russian Army lied as they always do. We have absolutely no obligation to include falsehoods in WP pages. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any independent sources that confirm Russia is lying? Otherwise Russia's claims of who broke the ceasefire are no different from Ukraine. If their are no independent sources, to comply with wp:npov we should include both claims Ilenart626 (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

refer comment above Ilenart626 (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have reinstated it as the ABC acknowledges the Russian counterclaim: Moscow media outlet RIA Novosti carried a Russian defence ministry report that the firing came from inside both cities against Russian positions, a claim Ukraine's foreign ministry denied. We must summarize sources faithfully. More importantly, it does so without suggesting that the Russian claim is false. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

References

the talks (negotiations)

met 3 times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.30.38 (talk • contribs)

I think the IP is trying to suggest we add content on the negotiations, which seems like a good idea. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.30.38 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I added a very bare recap to the ongoing negotiations in the section Negotiations P1221 (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

What the heck is the map

Map is so outdated like update it ,go and get the updated map from volgoda mapping 103.211.112.85 (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Please feel free to provide your constructive feedback at File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg. Melmann 08:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The map is not outdated. It shows the situation accurately. Also, Volodga's map is inferior to Viewridge's. Mappers have a tendency to fill in the blanks and generalize troop positions. Viewridge did not, and his map is informed solely by real data, not inferences. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User:103.211.112.85, Wikipedia volunteer map makers are doing an impressive work on those maps, reviewing sources one by one for each village, town, road, before changing its status on the map. This process results in about 4 updates per day. There is a possibility your source isnt as careful with map making and gives you a different view. Yug (talk) 🐲 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"Not one inch" statement from Feb 9, 1990 conference

It would be helpful for this article to either include, or link to a source that includes a description of the Feb. 9, 1990 conference on German Reunification where Secy of State James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev that Nato would not advance one inch east of the Elbe River. It would also be helpful to note the historic assessment of Russian leadership as being paranoid during the cold war. Together, these suggest that the Clinton and Bush administration neglect of the earlier informal commitment has led to the distrust that Yeltsin and later Putin have for US officials. Yes this was not a signed treaty or agreement, but it was revealed when records were declassified in 2017. Russia also views the color revolutions as being US CIA instigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.23.214 (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Secy of State James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev that Nato would not advance one inch east of the Elbe River: not true. Baker suggested this as a possibility to Gorbachev, and George HW Bush shot it down.[46] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

See the sections Enlargement of NATO#German reunification, Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany#Claimed violations and Ukraine–NATO relations#Russian opposition to Ukrainian NATO members. We might need a better pointer to the first two sections - maybe a FAQ? Or maybe even a split into a standalone article, since the various forms of the "not one inch" statements in various forms, and their evolution, are to some degree an individual topic, even though they overlap with the existing articles. I repeatedly come across people claiming that the issue is clear-cut one way or the other, while the actual sources and text are more nuanced. For the moment we could at least point to these, rather than have the info on essentially the same topic copy/pasted into a zillion different articles with different qualities of NPOV completeness and WP:RS. Boud (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This is Putin's erroneous belief. He has been accusing the West of breaking the promise not to expand NATO into new countries in Eastern Europe since 10 February 2007 (Munich speech). According to John Lough, associate fellow of the Chatham House, Putin's statement was based on the myth that the West deceived Russia by reneging on its promises at the end of the Cold War not to enlarge NATO and chose to pass up the opportunity to integrate Russia into a new European security framework and instead encouraged Moscow back on to a path of confrontation with the USA and its allies. In fact, USSR neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany and, in addition, the USSR signed the Charter of Paris in November 1990 with the commitment to ‘fully recognize the freedom of States to choose their own security arrangements’. K8M8S8 (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

According to one man's opinion is possible to prove even that the Earth is flat. Here you have far more serious analysis of this issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqSjiwfO4Xo 109.93.67.114 (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Youtube is not reliable source. The signing of the Charter of Paris in November 1990 by Soviet Union is the fact. If you believe that NATO gave any legal guarantees, you should present proofs of this fact. K8M8S8 (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Informality of parts of the current article

>Putin also began to float various purported casus belli; for example, he baselessly accused Ukraine of committing genocide against its Russian-speakers.

Isn't this a bit too informal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

How do you propose it be changed? Benjamin112 ☎ 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Among the reasons for the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was the alleged repression of Russian minorities in the Eastern parts of the country.

Or something like that at least. To me, words like "began to float" and "for example, he baselessly accused" seem like something you'd see in a twitter argument than a more formal write up, Genabab (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I like float. It's definition is: "to put forth for acceptance." I think that that word well encapsulates the meaning that the sentence is attempting to convey. I guess the more plebeian way of putting this would be that he's throwing it at the wall and seeing what sticks. As for "baselessly accused", the New York Times has "Putin's baseless claims" which is pretty similar and while the NY Times isn't as high brow as The New Yorker its prose are certainly on par with Wiki. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've modified the sentence. We're stating that the justifications are baseless, so we can simply state that he's fabricating them. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

2600:1700:3F79:8050:70A1:693B:859E:B1B3 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

World War 2 is going to start

World War 2 is over. --N8 02:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Change name accordingly

For coherence and consistency purpose with all the previous and following pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%932021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war

The title of the article should be inmediately changed. Failing to do so will unfortunately reveal the bias in presentation of information, and factual inaccuracy, misleading by the editors.

A suggestion based on the previous titles could be: - "2022 Military intervention in Ukraine" - "Russian-led intervention in Ukraine"

On the contrary, if felt more appropiate, the previous titles should be changed accordingly, as for example: - "American invasion of Libya" - "American invasion of Iraq" - "American invasion of Syria" 188.26.214.116 (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the discussion under the section Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § "Invasion" is a bit of an overstatement, maybe rethink the title and consider reviewing the talk page archives for further discussion of the title. Since this would actually need to be done through a page move proposal anyway I'm closing the edit request here. FWIW, WP does have articles named after US invasions. --N8 02:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion has been archived now, so here's a new link: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 7#"Invasion" is a bit of an overstatement, maybe rethink the title Have a good one everyone! DirkJandeGeer (щи) 09:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (2)

Please add "1 frigate scuttled" and "1 patrol boat sunk" under the Equipment losses according to Ukraine in infobox. The frigate in question is Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaidachny and the patrol boat is Ukrainian patrol vessel Sloviansk.
Source for frigate: The Independent, Interfax, The Times.
Source for patrol boat: The Maritime Executive

The proposed change should be something like this:
Equipment losses:
Acc. to Ukraine:
1 frigate scuttled
1 patrol boat sunk

Thanks in advance. AlphaTangoIndia (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Thanks for sharing all the information, but please read Q3 of the FAQs at the top of this page. P1221 (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

P1221 - So your reason for denying this request is that... someone else will do it eventually? There has to be a better reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Updated as requested. I used the Independent and the Maritime Executive. I don't think three citations are necessary for this. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the point is people are meant to read the FAQ, and not clog this talk page up with indeed edit requests. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware. That's a good reason to let editors know not to make edit requests in the future with this sort of information. It is not, however, a good reason to deny the one already requested with reliable sources appended. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Noting your point, I'll avoid to close the requests for such reason P1221 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Appreciated. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct, my answer was meant for avoiding clogging the talk page with requests for updating the claimed losses every time a new report is issued. I know it is an easy task, but half of the edit requests received in the past days are opened only for this reason... P1221 (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As we have a FAQ, and people are supposed to read it, I think we can just delete them, rather than respond. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk page banners are read by a minuscule proportion of veteran editors, let alone passers-by, like IPs, with edit-requests, whom likely know nothing about our procedures. Deleting talk page threads without even acknowledging them seems discourteous at best. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So what is the point of it then, if not to stop people asking the same question over and over again? Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That is the point of the FAQ, it's just not particularly effective. Consider a new(er) editor wanting to edit this article and add some information. You know what they're going to do when they find they can't edit the mainspace? Click on the talk page, look up at 'edit source' and 'new section', click 'new section' (probably), and post their query. If you just delete their requests without reply you will either 1) cow them into never editing the encyclopedia again (WP:BITE), or 2) prompt them to open another new section to ask 'why was my edit-request deleted?' You're looking at this from the perspective of an editor with tens of thousands of edits across years of editing experience. We're a tiny minority. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

But they will ask the same question unless we enforce the FAQ, either by removing posts or doing g what was done here, responding with just "see FAQ" and not doing the edit, you are rewarding them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am rewarding an editor for spending the time to search for and provide several reliable sources alongside an edit request that took – check the timestamps of my first two comments – less than ten minutes to implement. This is in preference to 1) denying the request because of some FAQ and 2) deleting the request without comment because of some FAQ. If such requests bother you, ignore them. We're volunteers not obligated do anything - all expectations on this encyclopedia are to not do something (don't edit-war, don't cast aspersions, don't vandalize the encyclopedia, etc). On any other article, this specific edit request would be considered exemplary: it is specific, uncontroversial, necessary (the editor can't implement it themselves) and well sourced. The only thing that could have elevated it any higher would have been for the citations to be formatted so that it could be pasted directly into the article. Personally, I'm not going to be punishing editors for lacking the extended-confirmed flag. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Invasion reasons & claims

No mention of Russias Nazi claims & others.

Since 2014, global and European news outlets have identified the legal & now government-supported Neo-Nazi force Azov, which act as a division of the National guard.

The Neo-Nazi group Azov fall under the control of the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, funded by the Ukrainian Government.

The Neo-Nazi group, also called the far-right group has been directly involved in the conflicts leading up to the invasion of Russia.

News outlets have reported this group have been oppressing, fighting and engaging within conflicts in eastern Ukraine before the invasion, self-proclaimed anti-communists.

Putin used this as an example based on the key points the Neo-Nazi national guard group are part of Ukraine's government payroll, parade legally within Ukraine's capital and have the president's consent.

Therefore it should be identified as all are reasons that escalated the conflict into a war. 2A02:C7F:C7A:4A00:FF:4837:FC68:18AC (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Sd

Yes we do mention this claim, and put it in context. By the way. Russia has not been inaded. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely hasn't been inaded. EEng 14:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

nor Invaded. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Svoboda (political party) has 1 out of the 450 Verkhovna Rada (parliament) seats (popular support of about 0.2%). If you have a source to say that Putin+Lavrov described the invasion of a whole country as being aimed at removing just one member of the Ukrainian parliament out of 450, then please provide that source. Boud (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"per" is confusing

I note that the casualty figures have been changed from "acc to" to "per". This is confusing. Per is not a common English word. It could be misinterpreted to mean "caused by". The clearest way to state these uncertain casualty figures would be to prefix them with "according to".

Would someone with more editing experience please make this suggested change? Thank you. Dom.uk.1 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dom.uk.1 IDK, what you're talking about but ok... I guess... Takeshi Ishii 06:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

no, commonly "per" means "for each"War (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The use of "per" looks fine to me.[47] WWGB (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. War (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Dom.uk.1 has a point, since "per" also means "by the means or agency of" (see Merriam-Webster 1). I would prefer "acc. to". Sjö (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Many words have more than one meaning, and which is intended can determined by context. Per UN (5 March): 1.7 million+ refugees, for example, could not reasonably be misinterpreted by anyone to mean that the UN has created 1.7 million+ refugees. The meaning is clearly 'according to', not 'caused by'. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that, as shown above, it is not clear what "per" means here. Maybe this is an WP:ENGVAR thing. Per states that the word has three meanings: "for each", "by means of" (archaic), and a term used in heraldry. There has been a discussion on this already and the infobox in question includes an instruction to avoid "per". I have boldly changed it as suggested in that template. (native British English speaker) Bazza (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The usage of "per" is an issue. It's used a ton on Wikipedia, to mean "according to", which is a valid definition but not the most common usage of the term in non-Wikipedia circles afaik. See Cambridge Dictionary. Same in Oxford afaics. I understand those are some of the most respected dictionaries. I'd encourage fellow Wikipedians to consider how many non-active-editors have posted here taking issue with the phrasing being confusing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Observation: It was changed yet again, this time from "Source:" back to "Acc. to" in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3A2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_infobox&type=revision&diff=1075966819&oldid=1075964490 by User:EkoGraf Phiarc (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Changed in line with the discussion that was linked in the infobox [48] where editors agreed it was better to say "According to" of which "Acc. to" is an abbreviation. EkoGraf (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I would contend that 'acc.' is even more confusing. There are so many words starting with 'acc' letter combination and it is not obvious to me that the primary meaning of 'acc.' is 'according to' for most people. I would support reverting back to 'per' or 'source' or maybe even 'src', but at very least, we should use Template:Abbr in addition. Melmann

That's why it says "acc. to" and its simple English. If needed be, agree to reverting back to "per" as well. Oppose "source" or "src" because its un-encyclopedic language/style and also I would think that people don't actually know what "src" means (first time I myself hear of this abbreviation). EkoGraf (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Try something like "Russian claim:" "Ukrainian claim:" etc. -- switch the structure around, gives more options. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

POW

Hello the team. There could be interesting to add content about prisoners of war. Ukraine is doing some public relations, and has a hotline for Russians families to enquire about possible family members held by Ukrainian forces.

Please forgive me if that content is already in this article. I searched via mobile phone so i may have missed the relevant section. Yug (talk) 🐲 08:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: Territorial changes

Russia take not one of the 22 regional capitals (as of March 8)but whole 3, these are Donetsk and Luhansk, although they have long been part of the separatist republics, but according to the constitution of Ukraine the country claims these cities, although it has not controlled since 2014 , and should be counted as another regional capital taked 176.59.56.90 (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

So, I have to voice agreement here having noticed this earlier today and having had qualms with it myself. By stating 1 of the 22 regional capitals of Ukraine we are implying that Donetsk and Luhansk are not part of Ukraine. They are, they were just occupied prior to the invasion. The footnote doesn't help to clarify this, as one could interpret it to mean that 3 of the 22 administrative capitals have been occupied, 2 prior to invasion. In which case, we're just straight up missing two oblasts. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't checked the precise wording you're discussing, but just wanted to note that Donetsk and Luhansk weren't taken in the 2022 invasion – if the wording is "Russia has taken [since]" rather than "controlled" it'd be fine? Jr8825 • Talk 12:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's in the infobox "Territorial changes Russia occupies Kherson, 1 of the 22 regional capitals of Ukraine[c]", this needs changing. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I read that as a description of Kherson. Jr8825 • Talk 13:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The explanatory note explains that Luhansk and Donetsk were occupied prior to the invasion though.Phiarc (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the running count of regional capitals is kind of strange, I probably wouldn't include. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it feels kind of like a quest log in a video game something. Like a list of things for Russia to achieve. I would support removal. Melmann 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

haha, that's exactly what I was thinking. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of oblast capitals occupied in the territorial changes, but it really should be occupied and not controlled given the definition of Military occupation fits it more accurately than controlled. KD0710 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Battles missing from the Invasion section

Here are a few events listed on the List of military engagements, but are not linked into the invasion section:

• Battle of Okhtyrka
• Chuhuiv air base attack - Added
• Battle of Berdiansk
• Battle of Zaporizhzhia
• Battle of Irpin
• Kruty skirmishes
• Battle of Sievierodonetsk - Added
• Battle of Bucha
• Battle of Volnovakha
• Northeastern Ukraine offensive
• Chernihiv massacre

So, could someone go through and add them into the invasion section? Elijahandskip (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Kruty skirmishes probably shouldn't be added until the proposal for deletion is resolved. The others except for Battle of Irpin mostly look like stubs to me. Their length and use of Ukrainian-language source material might be part of the reason they don't have passing mentions yet. --N8 06:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

While they might be stubs, that doesn't mean they aren't important. Myself as well as a few other editors have been working on these battle articles and have merged ones that weren't notable. A stub that is mentioned in the invasion section is the Battle of Vasylkiv, so stubs are ok to mention. I agree they Kruty skirmishes probably shouldn't be mentioned due to the ongoing AfD and I might say the others should probably be listed, at least until merge or deletion took place. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on their importance here, just offering a possible explanation of why they haven't been added yet. Stubs are fine to mention but it's easier to figure out what to say when there's more information available. --N8 01:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Add date to maps?

For maps, charts, etc. of events-in-progess, should a clear ‘last updated’ or ‘end’ date appear on the image itself?

These images are likely to be shared and re-used around the world, quite likely stripped of some/all metadata.

Would a simple (and unobtrusive) date in the corner or legend stating when the image was last updated (or the newest date’s data on which it was based) be warranted?

(posting this here, as image files don’t have ‘talk’ pages) Jim Grisham (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

posting this here, as image files don’t have ‘talk’ pages You're in luck, as they do! BSMRD (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian 2 million reserves

Hi.

Why aren't the Russian 2 million reserves added into this article as well? They used to be part of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War article. I don't have a source, but, it's probably in the history of that article.

Russia's army is much larger than just the ~175,000–190,000[10][11] numbers displayed.

There are reserves mentioned for Ukraine, but not also for Russia, why?

People need to know how large the russian army is.

The goal of the strengths section of this article about the invasion is to present the forces currently partaking in hostilities. Russia may have 2,000,000 reserves but they are neither in Ukraine nor on its border so they are beyond the scope of the article. The reserves are mentioned for Ukraine because they have been called up to fight and are present in Ukraine. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

All three sources of Russia enacting a ceasefire on 7 March are Indian sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All three of the sources claiming that Russia has enacted a ceasefire on 7 March are Indian sources. In light of India's position on all of this suffering in Ukraine, I would argue that these are not necessarily credible sources. Either include sources from more varying and trustful sources if they exist, or remove this claim from the article until it is otherwise confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanos100 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

If its official media from any nation, then it has some importance. Its worth mentioning India has stayed neutral. If it would be from Iran or somewhere else, I'd be sceptical. Anyway, we can make that part, 'as alleged by few sources'. SReader2101 (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not denying that it has some importance. I would also question how neutral India has really been on this matter. Officially, they refused to vote on whether or not to condemn the Russian invasion; however, how neutral Indian media is in all of this, is a different matter. Stephanos100 (talk)Stephanos100 Stephanos100 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

THis may be relevant [[49]] [[50]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

To restate my position, I am not saying that the reporting by Indian sources were false, rather just that there may more credible sources to use in addition or as a replacement. ~~~Stephanos100 Stephanos100 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

we do this with American sources all the time and nobody bats an eye. I'd say Indian sources are actually more neutral on this than Western media outlets given India's neutrality. The Indian government not being anti-Russian does not make the sources biased. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on the pro-Russian comments made by Indian people in chat/comments of UN videos and social media in general, it seems Indian people are pro-Russia, so I am inclined to believe their sources to be biased. Comments by Indian stated multiple times how Russia helped India in the past, so India supports Russia in the hopes of getting help again if China will go against India. The official twitter account of the Russian Embassy in India (RusEmbIndia) continuously posts propaganda, post from March 2 stated Putin had a phone call with the Prime Minister of India, stating Indian students are taken hostage and used as human shields by Ukranian forces, who also supposedly try to prevent the students from leaving for Russia. This, along with other propaganda, brought a lot of hate towards Ukraine. Senzanm (talk) 20:52, 9 March 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.