Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Stephen Harrison (1 March 2022). "How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is Playing Out on English, Ukrainian, and Russian Wikipedia". Slate. On Thursday, President Vladimir Putin issued the order for Russian forces to invade Ukraine. Since then, Russians have killed 352 Ukrainian civilians, including 14 children, according to Reuters. That information is now reflected on the English Wikipedia page for the "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine," an article that sprang to life mere minutes after Putin's televised address and has been collaboratively written by nearly 740 distinct authors as of Tuesday morning.
Jenny Nicholls (12 March 2022). "History is written as it happens by Wikipedia editors". Stuff (website). Retrieved 14 March 2022. It has been fascinating to watch two very different Wikipedia pages emerge in recent weeks – 2022 Wellington protests, with 151 referenced sources and seven images; and the page 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, with, as I write, 626 references and 33 images.
Ina Fried (15 July 2022). "Wikipedia blazes a trail to agreement in a divided world". Axios (website). Retrieved 17 July 2022. The Wikipedia article (at least the English language one) includes some of Russia's most outlandish claims — such as the idea that the Ukrainian government included Nazis — but authoritatively debunks them as false.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Would it be useful to generate an RfC for infobox inclusion of the UDCG as a supporting belligerent? News outlets have recently reported that members of this group are supplying Ukraine with weapons that have or will be used to strike targets inside Russia. Chino-Catane (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notion of adding arms suppliers to the infobox has been flogged to death. It is an ex parrot. It isn't going to voom if you 40,000 volts through it (that's been tried) or if you call it a donkey. It's still dead. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the the main points of opposition and their resolutions:
1. The West only provides hardware
In addition to having received military intelligence, combined arms combat training, analytical exercise preparation, and war games planning, Ukraine is now receiving fighter jets along with many months of NATO-provided training on those fighter jets.
2. Infobox creep
There only needs to be one entry - either UDCG, US or NATO.
3. Infobox inclusion of Ukraine support advances Russian propaganda
Omission is "Western" propaganda.
4. Distinguishing between aid type is complicated
The types of aid we care about are (a) lethal military aid and (b) the most severe economic sanctions possibly in the history of modern civilization. A single "Supported by" entry - UDCG, US or NATO - would encompass those two types of aid, and only those two types of aid.
After more than two years of conflict, it is far past time for that infobox to present an honest assessment of who is engaged in this war. Without lethal military support from the leaders of the so called rules-based international order, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this confict long ago. This truth reasonable inference should be reflected in that infobox. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am with the dead parrot analogy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But say your suggestion goes through somehow, are we also then adding North Korea, Iran, etc to supporting Russia? These requests interestingly always seem to leave those countries providing aid to Russia out of the equation.
Osraige shared sources[[1]] demonstrating evidence of intelligence delivery, combat training and war planning.
"...are we also then adding North Korea, Iran, etc..."
If you accept the proposition that transfers of non- dual-use lethal weapons constitute belligerent support, let's go ahead and add North Korea and Iran to Russia's list of supporters. However, even rejecting that proposition does not exclude the U.S. and our allies from consideration as belligerent supporters of Ukraine. We have contributed substantially more than just lethal weapons, contributions without which Ukraine could not possibly continue its belligerence. Either way, inserting one or three entries to the infobox would not constitute unnecessary or inappropriate "creep". Chino-Catane (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Without lethal military support from the leaders of the so called rules-based international order, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this confict long ago. This truth should be reflected in that infobox"
I was referring to this "truth". Saying "we" also doesn't make your arguments mean more, where you claim to be from is irrelevant. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden You're right, I should not have used the word "truth". Thanks for the criticism. Your interpretation of my use of the word "we" is interesting. Do you have any substantive objections to any of the points I raised? Chino-Catane (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Avdiivka, Russian naval and aviation losses, second Kharkiv offensive (1 December 2023 – present)[edit]
The section title was changed from Battle of Avdiivka, second stalemate and continued air and sea operations (1 December 2023 – present) with this edit, which was inturn changed from Battle of Avdiivka, Russian naval and aviation losses (1 December 2023 – present) with this edit. MOS:SECTIONS tells us to apply similar consideration to section headings as we would use for an article title (ie including concision) and to avoid wrapping. The heading for this section is ridiculously long and at risk of wrapping on mobile devices. We really should consider a more concise heading. I had changed it to just the date range but this was reverted back to the current. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the titles of the earlier timeline sections, I support immediate removal of "Russian naval and aviation losses". This may be a case of undue weight, as the naval and aviation losses in question don't seem notable enough to warrant such a prominent mention here. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m mot sure whether I’ve said this before, but it seems pretty clear that yes, it’s a due weight issue and probably based on someone consuming too many David Axe articles. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the seven sources cited for Russian naval and aviation losses, a solid single one of them is by David Axe. I don't see why he would be a problem anyway, since he is Forbes staff, last I checked WP:FORBES staff was WP:RS. So what's the point of your comment exactly? TylerBurden (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria of being natural, sufficiently precise, and concise suggest that unnecessary verbiage should be excluded. Why is it useful and necessary to include anything other than "Battle of Avdiivka" and dates? Chino-Catane (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's shorten it to Russian losses then. On top of the naval and aviation losses, in the same section we also describe the high manpower and vehicle losses during the battle of Avdiivka. TylerBurden (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Russian naval and aviation losses" gets reduced to "Russian losses". This is a step in the right direction. However, "Russian losses" is not useful information to be included in any section header of this article because Russian Forces have been suffering losses since the beginning of the invasion. The author of this heading appears to be over-stretching to highlight Russian naval and aviation losses that are neither strategically nor politically significant. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russian losses, including those of expensive military equpiment, are widely covered in WP:RS, hence why there are many references available to use when covering them. It's not your job as a Wikipedia editor to determine if they are "tactically" or "strategically significant", more WP:OR. The idea that covering Russian losses is WP:UNDUE is.. questionable at best and POV at worst.
I guess when you take massive losses for proportianally little gains, it tends to be reported on by media that is allowed to. TylerBurden (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in question fall to WP:NEWSORG, which means they are an RS with caveats. We are expected to distinguish per WP:NOTNEWS what is encyclopedia content (not everything). This is particularly important when dealing with a high level (overview) article. WP:VNOT applies and so may WP:DUE. These sort of editorial decisions fall outside of WP:OR, which is about writing an editor's conclusions into content. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we can sit and WP:WIKILAWYER all day, what would be more useful is concrete suggestions on how to improve the article that isn't just "remove Russian losses". TylerBurden (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as the notice of original research contained within the article heading identified by Chico-Catane (@ 05:51, 14 June 2024) that should be removed? The 'second Kharkiv offensive' is a non-extant topic within reliable sources. I receive 9 results when searching for the topic: two are Wikipedia, two are Reddit, one replicates Wikipedia content, one is YouTube, one is a 'study guide', and the remaining two are other non-RS (one forum post and one blog). The article linked within the body that is being referred to by that name is 2024 northeastern Ukraine offensive. That too is another editor fabricated title created by synthesizing titles across disparate sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Russian losses ... are widely covered"
Russian losses have been widely covered since the beginning of the invasion. Why do "Russian losses" merit inclusion in any section heading, let alone this one?
"not your job..."
The topic under discussion is the appropriateness of a section heading. You have made it your job to determine that "Russian losses" in the period (1 Dec 2023 - present) are somehow more significant than "Russian losses" at every other time during the invasion. That's "not your job".
″Why is it useful and necessary to include anything other than "Battle of Avdiivka" and dates?″
Because readers might want an idea of what they are going to read about? --TylerBurden (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Avdiivka was politically significant. Its strategic significance is questionable. The Russian naval and aviation losses discussed in this section are neither strategically nor politically significant. When I google with quotations included "second kharkiv offensive", three results appear. One of those results is this article. Neither of the other two results linked to published news articles. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gennadij Židko is dead, however there has been no cross added next to his name, unlike with pages for many other wars. Update? ReelmsyWiki (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't killed in action. He died in Moscow. There shouldn't be a cross. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the map does give a generally good view of how the frontlines change, it’s often hard to tell how much it’s changed or if the change is significant or meaningful in any way. As such, I think it would be neat for there to at least be some way to view the previous maps from previous days in the war. (At the absolute minimum, there should be a new day-by-day timelapse that goes to the current date.) LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that we now know that the maps from February-April 2022 are wildly inaccurate, so it might be best to create new revisions with the benefit of hindsight, depending on what exactly it is you think should be added to the page. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding revisions before putting the maps in a visible archive would be a good idea. (Also, in what ways are the old maps inaccurate?) LordOfWalruses (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the benefit of hindsight and higher-quality retrospective reporting we have the potential to create far more detailed and accurate maps of the early war. Examples of what I would consider inaccurate in the maps/gifs on this page would include depictions of Russian control over Vyshhorod, over areas between the Dnieper and the Desna, over Slavutych prior to 26 March 2022, over a bridgehead southeast of Chernihiv rather than southwest of it, over Bohodukhiv and Derhachi, over certain areas in Zhytomyr and Dnipropetrovsk Oblasts and countless dozens of other small obscure details where the "accurate" alternative is now verifiable through reliable sources. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Russian invasion of Ukraine#Naval blockade and engagements: Ukraine closed its ports at MARSEC level 3, with sea mines laid in port approaches, until the end to hostilities. The source cited failed verification and has been tagged. I was unable to find an alternative source - particularly in respect to mines. Can anybody else?
Further down in the section: On 1 June, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asserted that Ukraine's policy of mining its own harbours to impede Russia maritime aggression had contributed to the food export crisis ...
The first text might be deleted on the basis of the second passage if no source is found for the first? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On migrating the infobox map, File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg, from Commons to Wikipedia[edit]
The users @Mr rnddude and @RadioactiveBoulevardier raised an interesting proposal at this recently archived discussion, suggesting that the map image in this article's infobox be moved to English Wikipedia's "jurisdiction", so that it can more strictly adhere to en.wiki policies (namely WP:V and in some cases, WP:SYNTH) in its capacity as a prominent image on a frequently viewed article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with the policy based rationale. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear there are issues with the current version of the map despite the strong "consensus" it has. I have tried to say this several times, so any step towards actually making it more in line with WP policy is a step in the right direction. TylerBurden (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An elaboration on the issues you have with the map would be appreciated. I only recall your WP:NOTNEWS concerns from previous discussions on this talk page, which I share to an extent. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I’d mention that next week I’m planning to do a fairly thorough survey of the way in which uk-wiki and ru-wiki handle the whole “what counts as a discrete battle” thing. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is significant biased framing in the article. Sentences are containing statements of subjective judgement next to statements of fact (eg. "falsely claimed" instead of "claimed" on issues that can not be proven or disproven). It also applies subjective moral judgments and fact checks next to citations of opinions which in their nature can not be either true or false. This is applying misleading framing with the intent of provoking emotional reactions in readers. For a platform presenting itself as an encyclopedia this is unacceptable and I urge you to allow the edit of emotionally, morally and ideologically biased content to preserve the objective credibility of the platform. 178.148.159.134 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit requests are for specific changes (such as) A to B, not general requests or discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
