Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

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.[2] 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 nom.--BlackShadowG (talk) 14:19, 1 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. [3] 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

PROPOSED INFOBOX
Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War
Date 24 February 2022 (2022-02-24) – present (2 years, 6 months, 3 weeks and 6 days) 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

Note: Discussion continued below the notelist & reflist.

---

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

Notes

References

---

• 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)

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)

Why British English?

Why does the page use British English (and the talk page has the banner saying so?)? The first instance of the article used American English and according to WP:ENGVAR and MOS:ARTCON, this should not be changed without a reason. This should be reverted back in compliance with Wiki policy. Eccekevin (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The initial revision was a WP:SPLIT from 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis which uses British English (see Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wether or not it was a split does not matter. The original page as written/split contained American English. And WP says that there should be a socifci reason to change styles, which in this case there is not. WP don’t say anywhere than the style or English should be inherited from other pages. Eccekevin (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It isn't American English. The original revision contains the word "recognized", yes (currently present in the original article too), but it also contains "authorised". Clearly the issue is just that we've moved past the days where people spend extortionate amounts of effort standardising English varieties within articles, so you end up with inconsistencies. Regardless, the original revision can't be called American English, both in isolation and by considering the fact that it copies content from an article explicitly labelled as being BE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Consistency is one thing, but the template should be removed because, even if the article is written in BE, there is no requirement nor strong reason why it should,. That template is reserved for articles that have a clear reason for being AE or BE. Eccekevin (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

What argument would there be for US English? Precedent seems to be the only reason applicable either way.Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

And in support of BritEng there is the geographical argument that when European countries (like Ukraine and Russia) use English, they use British English. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

[citation needed]. EU does use British English. These are not it. —Michael Z. 05:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to conclude that first revision is in American English. The -ize ending is called Oxford spelling, and is a valid way to spell British English. I can also see use of -our in 'favour', so it seems quite evident that the first revision is in British English. Melmann 17:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Well for God's sake let's not start World War III over it. EEng 05:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks pretty much like Canadian English to me. —Michael Z. 05:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because the -ize endings are used in Oxford spelling, which also complies with Canadian spelling too or pretty much any variety of English except NZ English. SHB2000 (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Meanwhile in Ukraine children are being blown to bits while we argue about grammar.Larsobrien 20:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia taken down?

I'm watching NBC News Now after the 2022 state of the union right now, and a reporter on location in what appeared to be Ukraine said that Wikipedia was being taken down in Russia. I did a quick search and the only thing that comes up is Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia which took place in 2012. Keep an eye out for RSS about this.

I was also wondering earlier today if we should be making lists of reactions/sanctions on Russia by individuals and private companies. Apparently the pornhub ban was a hoax, but I've heard legitimate stories about Visa and Mastercard, semiconductors, BP and Shell, ice skating events, Warner Bros. film releases and others. I also see that Russia itself is blocking twitter and Facebook, and facebook and tiktok are blocking Russian media.

I just think at some point this project can expand to include lists of such actions in the same way that these three lists were made about the George Floyd protests. Something to think about. Hope it helps. Kire1975 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is this article on RT Russian media watchdog warns Wikipedia over ‘Ukraine invasion’ entry, a deprecated source WP:RSP. Rusty5231B (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps that's it. I seem to remember the reporter stating it was the other way around. Wikipedia would be punishing Russia by taking itself down, but that really wouldn't make sense after some contemplation. Hopefully, that's all it is. Thanks much. Kire1975 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We discussed it on current talk page (see "Blocking Wikipedia in Russia"). Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media is furious about Russian version of the article and wants to block Wikipedia. The technical aspect is that blocking of one article means the blocking of whole Wikipedia (Russian, English, Ukrainian, Spanish and others Wikis). K8M8S8 (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything recent on Talk:Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia. Kire1975 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems we should update the article Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by We discussed it on current talk page (see "Blocking Wikipedia in Russia")? Perhaps provide a link pointing to this discussion? Kire1975 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It was moved to archive Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 5. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Should Lukashenko be added to commanders?

Seems like he should be, even if Belarus hasn't 'officially' joined the war. He seems at least as important as the separatist commanders. 2003:C8:CF04:6389:FC8D:D71:3CC8:14AF (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As you "Belarus hasn't 'officially' joined the war", so he is the commander of a combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would concur with the above opinion, but if Lukashenko formally announces he's sending troops to fight in Ukraine or if it's discovered that Lukashenko and Belarus is in a more active role than perviously thought, I would not oppose his addition. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:20, 3 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)

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

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.[4][5][6][7] 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 [8]

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)

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 [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Is this other source considered reliable? [10]. 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 [11] [12]. 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)

Existing article content is not essential, Read/listen Chomsky

https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.222.125 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, it's not clear to me what you are asking for... Please remember that this page is used for improving the article, it is not a forum. P1221 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia is not a forum. But, the world is in a major crisis. Thank you for the link. I am hoping to put online the above synthesis during the night. BR Maxorazon (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Maxorazon: A concrete place to start editing would be to create the article arms control in Europe, as suggested at the draft WikiProject Peace page. I'm sure Chomsky would agree that an article about Chomsky's own analysis is a lot less useful or interesting than an article about one of the core topics that he discusses. Arms control mechanisms, and the multi-decade European construction of security agreements+institutions, and its decay during the last decade or so, have plenty of sources, and Chomsky's analysis is highly relevant to that topic. Boud (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The root cause analysis of this conflict is blurred, sidelined, and politically correct ie. it follows strictly Western media disinformation - in this article. Chomsky is quite clear: Russia's concern about its security is understandable: US with Ukraine in NATO, what was vetoed earlier by France and Germany but ignored by US would give US possibility to further encircle Russia putting its ofensive missile systems too close to Moscow and other Russia's vital centers--109.93.67.114 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, Obama funded the regime change in Ukraine in 2014 https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/--109.93.67.114 (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The link that anon intended to post literally says that is a complete lie.[13] Chomsky’s is a minority opinion, possibly WP:FRINGE. Anyway, do conspiracy and other theories exonerating the Russian Federation for its aggressive stance and actions (including the Munich speech, Russo-Georgian War, etc.) belong in this article? Isn’t this topic covered somewhere in detail? Maybe Russia–NATO relations or Foreign relations of Russia. —Michael Z. 18:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I read that post - just a clumsy denial of the facts, far from the "complete lie". An illustration of a "manufactured consent". As to Chomsky it's laughable to mark his analysis as a "minority opinion". Now, a bit more about true nature of this issue: "US wages global color revolutions to topple govts for the sake of American control" https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240540.shtml-109.93.67.114 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. This is not the place to carry out exegesis of a 4 Feb 2022 interview with Chomsky, which is mostly off-topic for this particular article, but mainly related to arms control in Europe, a much broader article that none of us (including me) have made the effort to start writing. I would recommend someone start that article (properly, which would require some intellectual work; start looking at arms control first) and then argue about whether Chomsky's text is mainstream, fact-based or fringe on the talk page over there. (In fact, the discussions would hopefully focus on improving the article.) There is a popular tradition of exegesis of anything that Chomsky writes (or says), but this is not the right article. Boud (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how many ways one can interpret “pants on fire.” —Michael Z. 02:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the issue -in the Backgound section we read: "American historian Timothy D. Snyder described Putin's ideas as imperialism.[92] British journalist Edward Lucas described it as historical revisionism.[93] Other observers have described the Russian leadership as having a distorted view of modern Ukraine and its history.[94][95][96] Ukraine and other European countries neighbouring Russia accused Putin of irredentism and of pursuing aggressive militaristic policies" This is a logical falacy - the truth is: Russia is fighting the US in Ukraine. The US has no friends, only enemies and subjugated. (or Henry Kissinger — 'America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests') The US, using printed greenbacks, subjugated Ukrainians, installed its "friendly" regime ready to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. --109.93.67.114 (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Information

The casualties of Russia and Ukraine are not right Russia has actually lost 6000 men as dead, wounded and captured, not all dead. Ukraine states that it's losses are low but actually it's losses are really high, not as army loses but as civilians, materials, buildings, equipment and what not. About 4000 Ukrainian civilians have become casualties. 2409:4052:98A:8FDC:7B10:1CBB:6AB9:3C88 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox contains up-to-date estimates from the various governments and media (WP:RS). Phiarc (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Civilian casualties according to UN should be 136+ not 136 (by the reference). 2001:7D0:88F8:ED80:BC36:DE8F:D407:D413 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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." [14] 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)

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

"Supported By"

If Belarus is noted as supporting Russia in the sidebar under Belligerants because they are providing materiel and passage, then shouldn't the list of states providing military arms to Ukraine be listed? As noted in the introductory paragraph of the article:

>Both prior to and during the invasion, various states provided Ukraine with foreign aid, including arms and other materiel support.

Shouldn't these "various states" also be listed? Asking because I don't know what all constitutes needing to be under the "Supported" listing in the sidebar. Fephisto (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It's listed as supporting Russia because Russian troops are entering through, and firing missiles via, Belarusian land, and potentially now we have Belarusian troops involved in the invasion too. That's a significant tactical advantage, indeed it's the quick route for Russia to get to Kyiv. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader:I'm not questioning why Belarus is listed as a supporting party, I agree with you there (obviously). I'm questioning why other countries are not listed as a supporting party. E.g., the U.S. has provided sat recon and Estonia has given Ukraine a lot of Javelins, while the U.K. has offered volunteers, material, and recon so why wouldn't they be listed as supporting Ukraine? Is the ruling condition for "supported by" in the sidebar as used in other, similar military articles just "right-of-way?" Fephisto (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I now see the above talk on this, sorry. Fephisto (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Letting another state use your territory for aggression is aggression, according to the UN’s definition (Article 3f).[15] Sounds like a belligerent to me. —Michael Z. 05:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I'm not questioning why Belarus is listed as a supporting party. I'm questioning why other countries are not listed as a supporting party. Fephisto (talk) 12:48, 3 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)

Ukraine military to murder prisoners of war ??

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.

---

It would seem the ukranian military are losing their head in more ways than one. :S They are saying on their offical facebook that they're going to murder any russian prisoners of war: https://www.facebook.com/usofcom/posts/3212999028931719

"Отныне никаких пленных русских артиллеристов больше не будет. Никакой пощады, никакое "пожалуйста не убивайте, я сдаюсь" уже не пройдет. Каждый расчет, не важно: командир, водитель, наводчик, заряжающий - будут зарезаны как свиньи. Ссыте в штаны, мы за вами уже пришли."

Google translate: "From now on, there will be no more captured Russian artillerymen. No mercy, no "please don't kill, I surrender" will not pass. Every calculation, no matter: commander, driver, gunner, loader - will be slaughtered like pigs. Piss in your pants, we've already come for you."

Seems like an insane decision, this is textbook war crime. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

1) it would have to be reported in RS for inclusion; 2) it would have to actually happen for it to be a war crime (as opposed to just being Facebook venting or a hacked account, neither of which would make a strong case for inclusion). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly think it should be added to the article (it's rather extraordinary after all) but no, I would not argue that it should be added as "Ukraine are murdering prisoners of war" unless there is any confirmation of that actually happeing. It could just be a mere threat (I have no idea about the legality of threathening war crimes) but it certainly does deserve mention as what it is, "the Ukraine military said on its official facebook that it would execute any russian prisoners of war". Could also give their stated reasoning, "due to claimed russian shelling of civilians" etc. Much like other claims of war crimes under the same section.

Also, here are some RS for it. Ukranian media are not making any secret of this. It's not a hack.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/03/2/7327569/

https://ukranews.com/news/838284-za-bolnitsy-i-detskie-sady-spetsnaz-vsu-obyavil-ohotu-na-rossijskih-artilleristov-v-plen-brat-ne

78.78.200.165 (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Pravda isn't [online_an_RS... considered a reliable source]. Misread this as Pravda.ru. I couldn't find an entry for Ukrainian News Agency. Given the rampant misinformation in and around the invasion, ideally I'd want to see stronger sources before considering adding this.

As for it being added because it's extraordinary, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If there are reliable sources stating this, then it should be added. But right now the sourcing is thin. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Struck comment about wrong Pravda Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This is Ukrayinska Pravda (ie literally "ukranian pravda"), not the russian one. Ukranews is a ukranian paper as well. Both are pro-ukraine, not pro-russia. Why would they be unreliable exactly? (the "reliable sources" page mostly just discuss why certain sources should be regarded as unreliable btw, yes?) The sourcing is not thin I'm afraid, I can provide more if you want. See below. Yes, I know this seems kind of a crazy thing to say. But are we really going to say that everyone saying this, from newspapers (pro-ukranian newspapers), to the official bluemarked facebook of the military itself.. thats just some.. what exactly? The russians have taken over large parts of the ukraninan press? The pro-ukrainian press no less? (and they're still pro-ukranian..) The evidence is quite extraordinary (of the claim/threat, not of them actually doing it, mind, but I don't suggest writing that either). If any claim seems extraordinary, it's the claim that this is not a real statement. There's absolutely nothing to support it but that we don't want it to be real. Should really stick to NPOV here, not wishful thinking.

https://newsmedia.com.ua/mainstream/59148-plennyh-ne-budet-sso-ukrainy-obyavili-ohotu-za-russkimi-artilleristami/

https://ua.tribuna.com/others/1107350870-komandovanie-sso-ukrainy-rossijskim-artilleristam-nikakoj-poshhady-nik.html

78.78.200.165 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

With regards to extraordinary, respectfully, you said the following I certainly think it should be added to the article (it's rather extraordinary after all). As such, you've already said that this is an extraordinary claim. I agree that it is, and as such requires strong sourcing.

With regards to Pravda, I apologise. I had misread the domain name and confused it with Pravda.RU. I've struck this above now.

As for the claim potentially being false. I would draw your attention to the following; Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, The Guardian, ABC News, Reuters, the US Department of State, and the European Commission. As I said, there is a substantial amount of Russian misinformation being spread currently. Given the circumstances I hope you can agree that such extraordinary claims require stringent verification and sourcing. The more reliable sources that can be provided, the easier it is to show that a piece of information is verifiable and DUE for inclusion.

At present, I don't have an opinion on whether or not this is due. As it's now 2am in my timezone, I won't be able to check the sources linked thus far in detail until tomorrow. That said, I am open to be convinced to add some of this information; that what appears to be the Ukrainian Special Operations Forces has made a (put mildly) controversial statement. However unless they actually undertake this action, we cannot say they will commit a warcrime. As Wikipedians we state what happened, not what may happen. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I will agree absolutely that we need to be careful of disinfo. Unfortunately, it is really quite the stretch that both the pro-ukrainian press and it's own military is spreading russian disinfo. (though I assume that's not really what you're suggesting either) As for mention.. I'll repeat that I'm certainly not suggesting saying this has happened. Or even necessarily will. We have no confirmation of any action, only the threat of them. But the statement itself is certainly warranted to include, because as you say it is very controversial (and maybe I should have used that word instead of "extraordinary", I am no expert on wiki terminology but I don't think my choice of word is the issue either. And I would also say that several news outlets, all of them pro-ukranian, and the bluemarked account of said military, is quite alot of RS?). Further, to consider NPOV here: Would there be a discussion about whether to include this if it was the russian military saying it? (and they might reply to this with some nasty statement of their own so should probably be on the lookout)

The war crime section is already about various claims, accusations (or comments if you will) about potential war crimes so far so it certainly belongs even if just a statement/threat. There is very little confirmation of any warcrimes, including russian ones.. yet. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Against. Needs several Reliable Sources. The talk has been over Pravda and a Facebook page, if it were to be included then the sources being discussed should be the NYTimes, BBC, Economist, etc.: sources of unquestionable journalistic integrity. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

What an absolute piece of fluff. This discussion is as serious as Mike Tyson asserting "I want to eat his children". Cheap talk is nothing more than bravado. WWGB (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This (assuming it is true) appears to be the orders given by the commander of one formation, so its inclusion would violate wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979 "The talk has been over Pravda and a Facebook page". As stated, Ukranian Pravda is a different newspaper than russian pravda. And I had provided 4 ukranian newspapers so far (I can likely provide more but I don't see why it's not enough) along with the facebook page, which is confirmed by facebook (bluemarked), ie it is not some random account. So that's simply wrong. If you want to argue that it's not RS, that's fine of course. But you should provide a reason why the ukranian (let me also reiterate, this is pro-ukranian) press is to be regarded as wholesale unreliable on this matter. Realiability can't just be a matter of mere opinion, there's nothing under the rules of verifability (section sources that are usually not reliable) that seems to apply here about why these sources would not be RS.

@WWGB. Hardly. That (even) Tyson is very unlikely to really eat children in a boxing ring does not need to be said, whereas a military (or usually parts thereof) at war killing prisoners is not exactly unheard of but something that has occured repeatedly throughout history. So the analogy is near bizarre. Yes, this can be cheap talk, but it can obviously be much more than that and the very statement is, as already said, a very controversial one to make given that it would be a clear war crime to actually do it. It is hard to argue that open threats of war crimes being made on through an offical military channel is something that should simply be ignored.

@Slatersteven. It is undue that the ukraninan military, on its offical page, is posting a threat to kill prisoners of war? How? This is not some individual soldiers private social media account, if it was, then I would agree with you. But this is coming through an offical channel and from a large and important part of the military, and that it is posted through an official channel means that others also stand behind it. Would this be regarded as undue if it was the russian military saying it? And that "formation" as you call it is the command for the special forces of Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_forces_of_Ukraine This is not some random nobody platoon commander. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to clarify "They are saying on their offical facebook that they're going to murder any russian prisoners of war" is not correct. What they said is they will no longer take prisoners of artillerymen because they have killed innocent civilians. they did not claim that they will kill prisoners of war, they will kill artillerymen when in combat. Also there is no evidence that this is more than a threat.

(Please sign your posts; text above is another user.)

Post has been updated: The text in question appears to have been removed from the facebook post. I think it's fair to leave this alone unless other WP:RSs turn this into a significant story. --N8 16:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven

Since the other discussion was locked for "original research" (despite 5 different secondary sources.. can't see the originality in that and would ask the editor who locked it to explain what was original research) but you asked about what "SSO" means, I'll simply reply what it means here. This terminology could also be good to for everyone to know if any future reference to SSO is made somewhere.

SSO simply means the Special Operations Forces (in this case, of the Ukraine. In other cases it could also mean Russian) First, please refer to the page here on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Forces_(Ukraine) Search the term "SSO" on that. Then switch the page to ukraninan and note the term "CCO", that's cyrillic for SSO.

Here's the text from the Ukrainian language version of said page. "Сили спеціальних операцій Збройних сил України, ССО ЗСУ — окремий рід сил Збройних сил України, до складу якого входять частини спеціального призначення і підрозділи інформаційно-психологічних спеціальних операцій, що комплектуються спеціально навченими фахівцями, які мають спеціальні можливості у сферах розвідки, прямих акцій та військової підтримки для виконання складних, небезпечних, інколи політично чутливих операцій, що проводить командування ССО."

Here's the google translation: "Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine support for complex, dangerous, and sometimes politically sensitive operations conducted by the SSO command."

So the ukraninan special forces uses the acronym "SSO", which the russian one do as well, and for the same reason. But the english page for the ukranian SSO does not make this acryonym clear at all for an english speaker (it is not derived from english) and only uses it once on the page. The english page for the russian SSO does explain this acronym however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Forces_(Russia) "The Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, commonly known as the Special Operations Forces (Russian: Силы специальных операций; ССО, tr. Sily spetsial’nykh operatsiy; SSO)"

Hope that helps clear this terminology up.

78.78.200.165 (talk) 18:08, 3 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.

Day by day - too much

I don't have any specific changes in mind, but prior articles like the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq don't give a day-by-day account of the war. This article will get extremely long if this continues; I suggest a lot of that content be moved to a "timeline" article. Although we aren't deep enough into the future to know what will be relevant to people 10 years from now, so I'm not sure. 162.200.70.94 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly do agree with you. I went through only one day and there was way too much detail. I suggested a cutback of the first paragraph a day ago and was ignored. Now I suggested a few more paras that could be cut but will perhaps again be ignored. Sectionworker (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs to contain the most important things only. Everything else can be moved to a subpage or cut entirely, if it's too minor. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, its clear this wont be over in a few days, a day-by-day is already too much, and is only going to get worse. Perhaps a week-by-week summary may be more appropriate as it goes on, and potentially month-by-month if we reach that stage. BSMRD (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine might be a good place for specific details that don't belong in this article. It might be helpful to add content there and then specifically request it be removed from here. At least then cautious editors know it hasn't been lost entirely. I've also updated the tag in the section to {{Overly detailed}} to reflect these concerns. --N8 03:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I may just be a filthy IP ;) but yeah.. I absolutely agree.

There's just so many claims being made about this conflict that this article is going to go on forever if every supposed little engagement is to be reported separately. Of course, there's also a problem of picking what to report and I don't know whether a good job has been done so far... and I don't really think anyone who's not there can say that much about the military action at this pont. Unfortunately, almost everyone who is there is pretty much aligned with one or the other side. There is very little to prove the various claims being made: The only thing that seems somewhat certain is where there's battles going on and whom holds what.

Not to soapbox too much but having followed some other conflicts.. the "fog of war" here is downright insane and I think social media is a really a big contributor to it. Unlike most wars where the reporting is done by people with some actual clue (and people in general stay out of it) people who are on the ground. Here everyone is cheering for a "team" (mostly Ukraine of course) and while understandable, it also becomes a real problem for verifiability and trying to keep some neutrality in terms of, let's call it reporting. Various claims instead go viral near-instantly and is even picked up by the media. And obviously, especially when they're good news for the popular team so to speak. (See ghost of Kyiv etc) I think denialism and echo chambers is going to be - likely already is - a real problem here. I don't think this is going nearly as bad for Russia as some claim (no food, no fuel, enormous casualties etc) and I don't think it's mostly smooth sailing for Russia either as its supporters in turn seem to believe.

Basically, I'd say we know very little. We want to know more than we really do.

I'd suggest day by day summaries of the major, undeniable, changes (and lack thereof) for now.

Might need to be weekly summaries, even monthly if it drags on.

78.78.200.165 (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I definitely support moving the day by day stuff to a new article, and Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine looks like a good fit. I strongly oppose simply deleting any of the text... it might be overly detailed for the main article, but I think the content is well sourced and useful to keep. However, when splitting off an article, we usually leave a summary in the main article. What should go here to replace the day by day stuff? Fieari (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that putting a summary on top of the timeline is a good idea. I did something similar for the Italian Wikipedia (still a draft), which doesn't like very much the timelines. P1221 (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have moved all of the content to the timeline article. This should hopefully spur on the creation of an appropriate summary of that content here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much RandomCanadian! I wasn't able to finish the task. P1221 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Mind reading

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.

---

"Before the invasion, in an attempt to provide a casus belli, Putin accused Ukraine of committing genocide against Russian speakers in Ukraine; accusations that were widely described as baseless."

This assumes to know what Putin was thinking and what motivated him to say this. Barring some kind of mind-reading device in Putins head that I'm quite sure we do not have (though it would likely be highly interesting) this is actually unknowable and hence unverifable. Yes, it might be "my source is that I made it the f*ck up", but he might believe this too. It's not really for us to speculate on. And apart from not being verifable, it would be original research. (atleast as fas as someone can call speculation "research")

This also (fortunately) seems to be the only place in the article that attempts this mind reading, whether on Putin or anyone else.

So that part should really be removed. Just that he said it and that it was dismissed. Ie "Before the invasion, Putin accused Ukraine of committing genocide against Russian speakers in Ukraine; accusations that were widely described as baseless."

78.78.200.165 (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If the source stated the goal of cries of genocide was to provide a justification for war, and that is clearly the objective (which it is), then it is to be written in the article. Unless, of course, contradicting info arises.Mebigrouxboy (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the sources doesn't really state such. The first one, being a news outlet (BBC News), reports the respective statements. (Putin said X, this was rejected as baseless by Y) The second source does some speculation on motives as it is analysis / expert opinon by a commentator. (Source is the conversation) But it does not state as fact what Putin is thinking or not.

And obviously, it couldn't. It's not even an issue of sourcing, it's an issue of verifability. If something by its very naure cannot be verified, then it cant, even the most reliable of sources cannot work magic. (And if they claimed to, that would render them unreliable)

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable."

Ie expert opinion/analysis (such as in the conversation) would be free to speculate on what goes on in someones head, though do note they don't statet this as a matter of fact. Wikipedia isn't.

78.78.200.165 (talk) 15:19, 3 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.

"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)

This Man is Now In Charge of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine (and is under orders to intensify / accelerate it)

From the BBC (source link at bottom of this post)--

"Viktor Zolotov

...he runs Russia's national guard [strength 400,000 troops]...

...Vera Mironova believes the original Russian plan was to complete the invasion within days, and when the military appeared to be failing, Russia's national guard [led by Victor Zolotov] took the lead. The problem is that the national guard's leader has no military training..."

SEE CITATION / SOURCE LINK HERE: Ukraine conflict: Who's in Putin's inner circle and running the war? (See section near bottom of article-- "Victor Zolotov")

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

How would you like to have Zolotov added in the article? As a commander in the infobox or as a sentence somewhere in the article? However, to me, the source seems to state an opinon rather than a fact... P1221 (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add 3 to Russia aircraft shootdown. Which is 2 Sukhoi 35 (Kyiev) and 1 Sukhoi 30 (Irpin)

Please add 3 to Russia aircraft shootdown. Which is 2 Sukhoi 35 (in Kyiev) and 1 Sukhoi 30 (in Irpin). 103.47.135.149 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Source? P1221 (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Naming of article as “invasion”, should other articles be renamed?

Hi

With regards to previous articles including Iraq, Syria, Lybia, they are regarded as “interventions”, this article as “invasion”.

I think and worry that the naming of those articles creates a “white knight” subconscious bias, thus I raise this discussion.

Those interventions, especially Iraq, are not widely regarded as invasions, and illegal.

Eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_%282014–2021%29

Thanks 2A04:4A43:45EF:E03F:1908:6E10:9B91:2551 (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please address the titles of other articles on the talk pages of those articles, and offer any reliable sources that use the terminology you feel Wikipedia should use. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This is widely regarded as an invasion, like – for example – the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:04, 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)

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)

Russian media attention previous to the invasion

Should the treatment of the issue by private and state-backed media in Russia in the days prior to the invasion be included? Anton Krasovsky#Premonitory comments on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (wiki article with external references) 190.192.176.38 (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is particularly notable, in my opinion. Other analysts foretold that an invasion was probable. P1221 (talk) 12:28, 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

support for Ukraine in the infobox

The US, the UK, Germany, Czech, Finland, France for example have donated arms to Ukraine. These countries should be listed in the infobox under support for Ukraine.

38.121.70.49 (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

See FAQ #2. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian nuclear arms

Russia has stated that they are willing to use nukes should we address this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.7.4 (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

In what way (that we already do not do)? Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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: [16] , [17] , [18], 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)

War crimes

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.

---

The Command of the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine stated via Facebook that Russian artillerymen would not be taken prisoner in case of their surrender, but rather 'slaughtered like pigs'; the war crime of no quarter has thus been officially encouraged, although to my knowledge no specific incidents have hitherto been confirmed. Adding a mention of the aforesaid to the 'war crimes' section is hereby suggested. Maciuf (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Yeah, I brought this up too and suggests the same, see 31 of this talk page: "Ukraine to murder prisoners of war??" And with this polish source, that's now a total of 5 different sources and the bluemarked facebook account. (I linked to the facebook page and 4 ukranian newspapers). But so far there seems to be little support here to include this statement in the article for some strange reason. Reasons given has ranged from outright dismissal of the ukranian (pro-ukranian!) press as unreliable on this matter (though no clear reason has been provided why it is unreliable) to suggestions that the command of the special forces of Ukraine (cited by a military channel representing the ukraine armed forces) is just "some formation" and therefore somehow wp:undue. :S There is understandably alot of shock and disbelief at such a statement, but we probably should not pretend it wasn't made or that it's actually irrelevant, simply because we hate the fact it was. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason is this is just one formation. Also, until a crime has actually been committed it has not been committed. In addition I am ha8inv trouble finding any official body called The Command of the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but this may be a translation issue. So we need to wait until mainstream western media takes this up, so we know what was said by who. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

On what basis do you dismiss the entire special forces of the Ukraine as "just one formation" and what is even the relevance of such a claim? That reason you keep giving here is simply your say-so, not some sort of fact. I have also never said that they have actually done this, but consistently said that the statement/threat should be included because it is certainly relevant. I would appreciate if you could stop leveling that accusation now and go by by what I'm actually writing. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

See User:N8wilson below. The post has been edited to remove key words and does not appear to be official policy. KD0710 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Saw and replied to it. Official policy is not the question and his comment does not in any way, shape or form, somehow reduce the special forces of the ukraine to a "mere formation". That's not a matter of opinion, there's an article here on wikipedia about them. I suggest people read it and go by that, not their own opinions of what they are. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm of quite the opposite on this. I think the article should remove all references to war crimes that are not actively being investigated or acknowledged by a third party, such as the UN. Both sides are using the accusation of war crimes as propaganda. There is a difference between an actual war crime and a horrible side effect of war. KD0710 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, a crime is not a crime until it has been persecuted. wp:blp applies even in war. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

To an extent, I agree. But none of us are actually able to determine if something could be considered a war crime, outside of having an opinion. KD0710 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"none of us are actually able to determine if something could be considered a war crime"

Lol. Really? Yes we are, there's a clear definitions of war crimes, right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime "A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by the combatants, such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war" 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A trial is required to ascertain whether a crime has been commited. However, it does not appear necessary when a crime has been directly encouraged in written form. Maciuf (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. If it has been commited, not what constitutes a war crime. Ie the definitions are still quite clear. I am unsure about every one of them though, such as whether threats of war crimes are by themselves war crimes. But the statement is simply so jaw-dropping (especially since it is from the actual military, the command of a whole branch thereof and not some random soldier) that trying to argue it is "undue" etc, frankly, seems absolutely bonkers and hardly anywhere close to NPOV. I mean if this was a branch of the russian military? It would not be included? Come on. :) 78.78.200.165 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The original facebook post has been edited to remove the lines referencing the "no prisoners" claim. It seems clear this is not official policy of the combatants. --N8 16:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The said addition, if rendered properly, does not seem to be invalidated. Maciuf (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Without documentation of official policy or proof that the said actually occurred, a rant on social media is not actually proof of a war crime nor does it seem to meet the level of significance that should be included in the article.KD0710 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an official channel and a statement made by a branch of the military. "rant" is mere POV. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The only thing an edit proves is that it has been edited. You interpret this in a benign way ("so they dont support this, maybe it was just some angry hothead"), someone else may interpret it in a malignant one. ("so they're trying to hide their call for war crimes") These are mere interpretations, not fact. We don't know motive, we are not inside peoples heads.

And whether or not this is official policy is hardly the question. Because we do not know if this was ever going to be carried out, has been carried out, or is a mere empty threat. And we obviously shouldn't state that they have actually done this without confirmation and I don't think anyone has suggested that. I would like to believe it is mostly just a threat but it is the statement itself that's the issue and there's no problem with including this edit either. Indeed it should be included. For instance "in a facebook post on the official facebook of the ukraninan military, the command of the special forces of Ukraine threathened to execute russian prisoners of war, but this statement was later removed". There. What actually happened and certainly relevant. If there's some sort of explanation and consequences for it coming (such as somebody getting fired for it along with some official statement etc) then that can be included later as well. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines/policy points here are WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:DUE, and WP:NOR.

With regards to whether or not this was a threat, or was actionable, it is not for us to speculate per CRYSTALBALL. Doing so would be original research (OR).

As for the original form of the Facebook message, at the moment sourcing is still pretty thin. We'd be straying into NOTNEWS territory by reporting on it. That the post has since been edited to remove the most egregious parts of it has not been picked up by any RS as far as I can tell.

On the whole, without stronger sourcing, I don't think this is DUE for inclusion. The statement was edited several hours after publication, per the original reporting of it in Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Ukraine military to murder prisoners of war ??. Whether or not in that time it was actioned by that group is unclear. In lieu of stronger sourcing, I would be inclined not to add this to the article at this time. Per WP:RECENTISM will this statement be relevant when analysing this war in ten years? Short of Ukraine being brought before the International Criminal Court for documented warcrimes, I suspect not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere have I stated that a crime has been commited. To my mind, however, advocacy of war crimes by a division of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, even if later abandoned, deserves a reference within this article. Maciuf (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Though to be pedantic, it's not a division anymore than a "formation", it's a branch of the Ukranian military.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Forces_(Ukraine)

"The Special Operations Forces are one of the five branches of the Ukrainian armed forces, with its headquarters in Kyiv, Ukraine."

This is not exactly some individual random nobody private from the national guard. (like that "Azov is greasing bullets" thing) 78.78.200.165 (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it not? who wrote it then? It is marked as a statement by The SSO Brotherhood of Ukraine, who are they? Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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.

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)

Russian space chief suggests ISS could crash into US or Europe as a result of sanctions

Source: https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/02/25/ukraine-russian-space-chief-suggests-iss-could-crash-into-us-or-europe-as-a-result-of-sanc

It's so exceptional of a claim, and not really being taken seriously by the rest of the world, that I don't think it warrants inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an article (in Italian) which demystifies this claim [19] P1221 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

March 3rd on timeline

The timeline hasn't been updated to include events on March 3rd, but the March 2nd section keeps being updated. I don't know whether more information about March 2nd is becoming available, or if people are putting March 3rd information a day behind, but there should at least be a March 3rd section.

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 [20]. 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" [21];
2nd report - 3,500 killed [22];
3rd report - 4,300 "lost" [23];
4th report - 5,300 losses/killed and wounded [24];
5th report - 5,710 lost/killed and wounded [25];
6th report - 5,840 lost [26];
7th report - 6,000 killed [27];
8th report - 7,000 killed [28];
9th report - 9,000 killed [29].

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)

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)

The definitions of original research

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.

---

EverGreenFir, you seem to be locking sections as "original research". Those two sections included five (5) different secondary sources confirming a certain statement and the discussion mostly revolved around whether to include it or not. Would you please explain out how that constituted original research. Here's the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research If you wouldn't mind, point out the violations, the original research, using actual quotes. Thanks in advance. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The OR is that this constitutes a war crime, which none of those sources (as you were told) support.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I closed sections that were not about improving the article and were discussing opinions of "war crimes" without any discussion of reliable sources. The FB post does not belong in the article. We don't need multiple sections and dozens of comments to determine that (1) it would be WP:UNDUE to mention it and (2) WP:SYNTH to say anything about war crimes.

Please keep this talk page to discussions about the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition, this was a social media post (not a method usually used to send orders to special forces). So there is no indication this was an official order (and in fact no indication it was anything more than the person typing it geeking off). Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"The OR is that this constitutes a war crime, which none of those sources (as you were told) support."

That what constitutes a war crime? Killing prisoners? Yes, that would be a war crime and is not OR but what would be generally referred to as well known fact, much like that the capital of France is Paris. (direct example from here of such facts) But again, no confirmation of that occuring.

The statement? Nobody has claimed that the statement itself is a war crime, or atleast not me, I said I don't know if the threat of war crimes are a war crime. Whether the statement is a war crime was not argued as the reason for inclusion either. The reaso argued was that the statement should be included because it is an important, never mind "controversial", statement made through an official channel. Again, if you want to claim I do OR, then cite it. This "it's just one person geeking off" is mere interpretation. The simple fact is that this was stated on their official page and that several secondary sources are confirming it. Is that not the facts? Your opinions that it is irrelevant are just that, you are certainly entitled to them. But claims of irrelevance are not fact nor does it make claims to the contrary OR.

"Please keep this talk page to discussions about the article."

We were discussing the article, as in the content of it and whether to add content. Then you locked the discussion for OR. And you have still not pointed out anything that actually was OR. You keep talking about the facebook post, again, there are 5 secondary sources. There are more, but really, why is 5 not enough now? Most claims here do not even have 2.

I ask again, please point out, using the definitions of that page, what actually was original research. Without these strawmen please, but by using what people actually wrote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research

"The definition of original research in the policy is: material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This definition is clarified in a footnote: By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. You cannot declare something to be original research merely because the current version of the article does not name a reliable source for that material. Content is only original research when no source in the entire world could be cited to support that material. If you are reasonably certain that any reliable source (anywhere in the world, in any language) says the same thing, then this is not original research."

Indeed, your definitions of "original resarch so far seems to run counter to the actual definition? All I'm really discussing is whether to include this statement and I'm in favor for reasons given. That's all. If you want to argue relevance, sure. But argue that then, in an intellctually honest way, not by own definitions of "formations" and "rants". (a) Is it a "rant" when posted by on an official channel? b) does it matter if it is? Is there a criteria about "don't include rants" even when they're clearly coming from people of some note?) And don't argue OR when it's obviously not. If you want to argue irrelevance vs relevance, then do that and let others debate the same. Don't lock it with an unsubstantiated claim of OR that you cannot back up.

78.78.200.165 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not OR to say this was said, its OR to draw any conclusions from it. Hell the original request was "Ukraine military to murder prisoners of war??", which borders on OR, as there is no indication this was an official order (as stated above). The" second was "War crimes" which this is not. All of the discussion stemmed from those two bits of OR. It was not an official order and it is not a war Crime. Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, point out where I actually drew such conclusions. That title is a question hence the question marks, not a claim they're actually doing it nor "research". It's simply to draw attention to what they themselves said they would do. If I wanted to claim they really did it, I would have written "Ukraine are murdering prisoners of war" but I don't. I have said repeatedly that we should not claim that they're actually doing it but that the statement should be included. And I now repeated it again. The other subsection title I didn't write so can't answer for, but might as well just refer to the subsection named war crimes. It's speculative on our part, neither of us wrote it. And overall, titles of subsections are hardly OR and even trying to argue so is, frankly, silly. Should say the subsection "Russian wikipedia taken down?" be locked as well? Stick to one standard/defintion, and preferably the one already laid down by wikipedia.

Let me reiterate so there is no confusion: I am not saying that the statement itself is a war crime. (I have no idea if such statements are) I am not saying they will, or have been, carrying this out. It might have happened, it might not, it might never happen. We don't know. I argue that the statement should be included in the article (perhaps indeed under the war crime subsection as that seems the most relevant place as of now but I am open to suggestions), I have given reasons why and there are plenty of secondary sources to back the statement itself. I have even provided a suggestion for how it might be formulated, which I'll quote here: "in a facebook post on the official facebook of the ukraninan military, the command of the special forces of Ukraine threathened to execute russian prisoners of war, but this statement was later removed".

That is all. These claims of OR are well, nonsensical. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 19:16, 3 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.

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)

"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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1499311646690492417 P4p5 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done, until someone decides otherwise. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:06, 4 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)

Warcrime as defined by article 40 of the protocols additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 august 1949

In regards to the statements, as verified by multiple sources under subsections 'Ukraine military to murder prisoners of war ??' and 'war crime', to the effect that the Ukranian SSO would render no quarter to Russian artillerymen;

Article 40 (https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0321.pdf#page=35)

'It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.'

78.78.143.46 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No source besides a claim and ref to icrc. Also, I believe you just refreshed your IP from the now locked discussion above. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"No source".. apart from 5 previously listed secondary sources along with the previously listed primary one. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 21:14, 3 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

¨¨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)

Supported by

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.

---

It's been said SEVERAL times before; but the countries and alliances that donated weapons and military hardware to Ukraine should be added under "Supported by:" in the belligerents section. This is the standard format for ALL Wiki articles about a battle or a war. It makes no sense what so ever that this article does not list them. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

What other country's personnel, beside Ukrainians, are currently assisting their troops? We know DPR, LRP and Belarus are directly helping Russia, but not vice versa. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Having personnel involved has NEVER been a requirement for inclusion in the belligerents section in a Wikipedia war-related article. Take for example the Wiki article "Soviet-Afghan War"; Under Supported By it literally lists quote: "India (Humanitarian aid)". And on the other side the United Kingdom is listed when their only involvement in the war was armament donations, the exact same as in this war. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The Soviet-Afghan war is far over and well analyzed, so we know whom helped who. Here even Belarus still keeps denying it is helping Russia. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You didn't debunk anything in that comment. It literally says India (Humanitarian aid) which contradicts the "personnel" statement. Also you can see in the Rfc above, a strong majority of Wikipedians surveyed agree with this sentiment. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@SouthernResidentOrca: Hey Orca, you might want to at least formally note this in the RfC above as well instead of down here. Fephisto (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S., you also might want to list some of those other Wiki articles as examples. Fephisto (talk) 02:58, 4 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.

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)

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)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

please add supported by NATO to the Ukrainian side on belligerents Orhan Mollaoglu (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

article banner portal for context

Dear fellow Wikipedians, As per WP:NORULES, I added on top of the article some contextualisation that might prove useful. It is a WP:PORTAL, made to bootstrap a dynamic. It does not really matter what this is technically, the important is to have a place for hope and not only for documenting atrocities and resignation.

I did a bad job with the NATO RfC, this time I believe that I am doing, quite a good job. I think that I am willing to die - metaphorically, as a Wikipedia account!, for this page to stay up there at least a few days. Do not, please, revert, instead open talk sections and help assembling knowledge further!

Best regards, Maxime Maxorazon (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:IAR? and WP:SOAP. Firestar464 (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I read in WP:IAR "A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities." from Solzhenitsyn? And WP:NOTOPINION. Please help me kill my god complex, and remove stupid egotistical things that would obscure the value proposition, which latter is I think well worth it. BR Maxorazon (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)