Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

RfC on Western support to Ukraine

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

Meet the new RFC, same as the old RFC. When I closed the last RFC on the topic of supporters in the infobox I said Numerically, the sides are fairly close, with no landslide in one direction or another, and the policy based arguments are not any more overwhelming for supporting or opposing. To, I'm sure, no one's surprise, there is No Consensus to include those providing military aid as supporters in the infobox. I will note that among support !voters there was some stipulations for who should be listed as providing support, lending some more weight to the oppose argument that it is a complex situation, and better explained in the article prose. That's basically where we're at now, as well. The lack of agreement on exactly qualifies as a supporter among the option 2 supporters, as well as the lack of any concrete lists of supporters again lends strength to the argument that the extent and specifics of support are better handled in prose where the context can be provided.

Also, can we not do this again in a couple months? There is WP:NODEADLINE, and there is sure to be plenty of academic studies and expert writings that will provide excellent context and sourcing for what, exactly, should be listed in that infobox parameter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

---

(first, withdrawn)

Withdrawn by opening user, restarted below. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Should the countries that have helped Ukraine during this war be included in the infobox of this article? Super Ψ Dro 08:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Recently there have been more calls on the talk page of this article to include this information. It doesn't seem strange to me, considering all that has changed since the last RfC. It was started on 27 February and closed on 6 March. Only 11 days of the invasion passed! I'm not sure if any Western weapons had even arrived to Ukraine by then, I would expect they did not. Now that eight months have passed, it is clear that Western weapons have been key in the turning of this war in Ukraine's favor. There is plenty of sources on this. American HIMARS (note that it was first announced that they would be given to Ukraine on 31 May) have been so relevant that even Zelenskyy has said that they are "changing the course of the war against Russia" [1]. Ukraine has used HIMARS to disrupt logistics from Russian-occupied Kherson to the other bank of the Dnipro, and also to hit command posts and ammunition depots deep into Russian lines. This has caused Russian artillery strikes in Donbas to decrease tenfold [2]; this was one of the few advantages Russia had over Ukraine that allowed it to eventually capture Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk [3]. And there's more apart of the HIMARS. For example, American Javelins were regarded as so valuable during the early months of the war by the Ukrainians that a Saint Javelin meme was born. Many sources talk about its role during the war [4] [5]. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a widely cited institution on invasion articles, attribute an important (though not main) role to Western weapons for Ukraine's success in at the 2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive [6]; Ukraine's foreign minister used Ukraine's recovery of most of Kharkiv Oblast as a chance to ask for the supply of more weapons, saying Ukraine would be able to recapture more territory this way [7]. Here are more sources talking about the influence of Western weapons in the war in general [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. We must also not forget Russia's displeasure at this supply of weapons [14] [15]. Western weapons have had an undeniably huge role during this war. But Western help to Ukraine is not limited to weapons supplies. American intelligence is also said to be highly relevant in for example precision strikes by Ukraine on Russian logistical targets [16] [17] [18]. Economic aid has also been relevant [19]. For this reason I would support these countries be included under a "Supported by" section and not only an "Arms suppliers" or similar section. We should include more specific information about how has a particular country helped Ukraine on notes next to the listed countries. One of the worries of editors who opposed the last RfC was that it would make the infobox too long. This can be easily addressed through a collapsible list. Others said this would imply that the United States and other countries are being listed as belligrants. Clearly this would not be the case if we list them under a "Supported by" section, they should not be included on Ukraine's level on the infobox. Still, if weapons supplies are said not to be enough to warrant inclusion on the infobox, I'd like that at the very least, the United States should be included for being the biggest supplier of weapons which have caused actual changes on the battlefield, for its intelligence support and for its economic aid. I think this would be unfair however, as British and Polish help for example has also been important. Discussion in this RfC about which countries could be included and which shouldn't may result in a list supported by consensus to include in the infobox. Maybe we could come up with a minimum threshold of support to Ukraine. I will also note that the common practice in Wikipedia is to include countries that have helped one or another side during a war in the war's infobox, see Iran–Iraq War, Vietnam War, Yom Kippur War, Soviet–Afghan War, Football War, Cambodian Civil War and Korean War as examples. There is no particular reason in my eyes for this article to be an exception. And by the way, NATO should not be included. NATO does not have any weapons of its own, it is individual countries that decided to supply some to Ukraine. Some countries in NATO have not done so and some countries outside NATO did do so. We could however include the European Union due to its economic aid as it does have large funds under its direct control, the ultimate decision on whether some European economic aid packets are sent or not reside under the EU. Apologies if the arguments on this opening comment are somewhat disorganized. Super Ψ Dro 08:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Super Dromaeosaurus, you have made a statement accompanying the RfC question which is not distinct from the question, which is "disorganised" and which is inaccurate. The most recent RfC is at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine. You have not accurately summarised the cases presented. You have not indicated why these RfCs have failed and more importantly, you have not indicated what of substance has changed in WP:P&G or in respect to the arguments made has changed that might reasonably lead to a change in consensus (noting that consensus is not a vote). You have not acknowledged the matters raise in recent discussions. These should be the basis for forming and RfC. If we must have another RfC, then we need to get off to the right sort of start. You (and others) are making much the same arguments that have already been made and expecting a different outcome when "doing the same thing over and expecting a different outcome" is the definition of insanity. If we really must do this again, get off to the right start. Make a novel (ie new) case that might succeed and not the same old stuff. Furthermore, please be accurate in representing what has happened previously. If we have to go through this again, please self-close and try again. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Circumstances have changed. That last RfC which I hadn't seen before was from late April, but most sources talking about Western weapons influencing the war come from later. For example, HIMARS arrived in Ukraine in late June. I do not believe there's a way of ignoring the role of Western weapons anymore. Super Ψ Dro 12:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Super Dromaeosaurus, circumstances may have changed to a degree but my point was: what of substance has changed in WP:P&G or in respect to the arguments made has changed that might reasonably lead to a change in consensus. I can pose this as a question. You are saying (immediately above) that the provision of military aid to Ukraine is of consequence in influencing the conduct of the war. If you look at the RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, there were arguments being made then (and probably in the earlier RfC too) to the same effect - so nothing of substance in respect to the earlier arguments has really changed. The question of the first RfC was: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? For the second, it was: Should we add "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list the countries providing military aid? (somewhat less specific than the first). This RfC would ask: Should the countries that have helped Ukraine during this war be included in the infobox of this article?. This is even less specific and very vague. Some editors have interpreted what they believe the question might mean while others have specifically commented on the vagueness of the question. It is clear to me that there will be no clear outcome as a consequence. If I appear to be shutting down discussion then I say this: the essence of history is to learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes. Frame a question that is likely to succeed where others failed. Make a strong case based on objective criteria and not opinion. Most importantly, don't rehash what are essentially the same arguments. If they weren't convincing before, they're not likely to be convincing now. While we may have wasted a bit of time now, getting something that might work is better than wasting a lot of time down the track on something that won't. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC) PS See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1085009935&oldid=1085009719[this version] of the second RfC, and the initial opening statement which was subsequently changed. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC) @Super Dromaeosaurus, that’s blatantly misleading. Just read the first paragraph of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military sales and aid for starters. I’d like you to strike the disinformation above and inform editors who have already voted based on your long intro, or better yet cancel this RFC and start again.  —Michael Z. 13:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC) I've read it and the whole section too and I am unsure of the issue. Do you mean that Ukraine had purchased the Javelin missiles before instead of having them delivered? Still, it has received Javelin missiles as a result of American weapon packages [20] [21]. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Are you planning to distinguish aid from sales? Under what headers? (And where does it fall when Germany and Israel prevented other states from tranferring weapons to Ukraine because they have contractual oversight of subsequent transfers? – is that aid to Russia?) Where to begin? Various military and security aid has been provided to Ukraine since before the start of the war in 2014, and after that in the form of joint training, military matériel and systems, and lethal weapons. The first batch of Javelins was given as aid (from memory, the second or third was purchased, although that may have been using military aid money). Also provided by various states before February 24 were small arms, machine guns, RPG launchers, various other antitank weapons, mortars, MANPADS, and attack drones. At the same time, France and Germany were trading military provisions to Russia at least until 2020.[22]  —Michael Z. 18:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Are you planning to distinguish aid from sales? I would consider that only aid should be included, unless maybe some country sold Ukraine weapons that had a relevant role in the battlefield. Which I think has not been the case so far. And where does it fall when Germany and Israel prevented other states from tranferring weapons to Ukraine because they have contractual oversight of subsequent transfers? – is that aid to Russia? that's not support to anyone. If we went for such indirect matters, we could also say Kazakhstan or Armenia helped Ukraine by weakening the credibility of Russia's international alliances. But that's too nitpicky. We should not list anything from before 24 February, as it does not go into the scope of this article but on Russo-Ukrainian War. The countries that could be listed as supporting Ukraine on both articles are most likely different so separate discussions for the individual articles are probably warranted. At the same time, France and Germany were trading military provisions to Russia at least until 2020. again, this would not fall under this article's scope. I get that you're implying Russia has probably used Western weapons against Ukraine during this war that it was given before, but I oppose taking this into consideration. What if Russia keeps at least part of these weapons in say 2100 and it starts a war with for example Mongolia? Will we say France and Germany supported Russia against Mongolia? Again I believe this is too nitpicky (in lack of a better word right now). Super Ψ Dro 21:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC) The “Belligerents” line is not about weapons. It is a category defined in international law. Why include aid and not sales? Decisions to allow sales of weapons are political. Decisions to prevent other countries from providing aid are political too, and preventing Ukraine from having Leopard 2 tanks certainly supports Russian military aims. You mention “weapons” a lot. Are you proposing including lethal weapons only, or battlefield systems and vehicles and ships too, or military equipment like cold weather gear, first aid kits, and hospitals too, or economic aid that lets Ukraine continue running an economy and sustaining its defence too, or humanitarian aid too, or reconstruction aid too, or aid to refugees too? What about opposing the war in a UN resolution? What’s the rationale for including some support but not other under “Belligerents”? —Michael Z. 21:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Survey Support inclusion in Infobox. I don't think there's any controversy whatsoever that Ukraine is being supported by NATO states. Ukraine is open about it, NATO is open about it, Russia openly whines about it, neutral countries are clearly aware of it. Sources from all countries can clearly indicate Ukraine received weapons aid from the US and whatnot. When "supported by" has been used in older wars for covert support only revealed in CIA declassifications 40 years later, I don't think anyone will ever look back in hindsight and consider the US/NATO inclusion in the article as Ukraine supporters as inaccurate. Juxlos (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Oppose First off, how? as supporters, as belligerents as allies? Secondly, why only western nations aid to Ukraine (here we go back to we need to either add everyone who is sending arms and advisors or no one), and not aid to both sides? What we rather need is an RFC on inclusion criteria. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC) If there are sources on military aid from, say, Nigeria, to Ukraine, I don't see why they shouldn't be included. Western nations are just the most visible. Juxlos (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC) That was not my point, I was talking about "aid to both sides". Slatersteven (talk) First off, how? as supporters, as belligerents as allies? this is stated on the opening comment? and not aid to both sides? because that's not the scope of this RfC. If someone wishes to open a discussion about support to Russia, they're welcome to do so. There's already a discussion for including Iran above (note that many opposing arguments there are that Western help to Ukraine is not listed, these "do not include this if we don't include that" arguments are irrelevant and it's evidently easier to discuss cases individually) What we rather need is an RFC on inclusion criteria. I made a call for discussion to this in the opening comment. I argued that at the very least the United States should be included because of their huge military, economic and intelligence support. Super Ψ Dro 12:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Which is why I oppose, the scope is too narrow and violates wp:npov, as we will only be including one sides POV. And no you do not say what kind of aid you mean, you just list some examples. Do we include financial (bit not military) aid? What about humanitarian aid? What about volunteers? Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC) I think it's far more worrying that we are currently ignoring Western help to Ukraine when it has had such a relevant role in the conflict. As for the rest, I don't know, my word is not final. Super Ψ Dro 13:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC) The generally accepted norm, from my glancing view of past articles, is that "free guns" count as support (see Nigerian Civil War), humanitarian aid doesn't (otherwise, Sweden will be a belligerent in every war since like 1900), and non-sanctioned volunteers don't (see Winter War and Swedish volunteers, or the Spanish Civil War and the volunteers that just come on their own). For "what about aid to both sides", see Iran-Iraq War. We can easily keep it as purely military aid, perhaps if given with explicit reason to "defend against Russian aggression" or something. And if sources are wrong today, well, future users can correct it. Juxlos (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Significant military aid given with the intent of influencing the conflict seems like a good criteria for infobox inclusion as a supporter, though it may need to be spelled out more precisely (such that endless discussions don't form trying to change the definition of military aid). entropyandvodka (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Support as per Super Ψ Dro and Juxlos points it should not be controversial to list western support in the infobox especially given the scale of that support and the open nature of it. As to Slatersteven an open discussion on inclusion criteria would be welcome as well as it has been constantly moved around time and time again. Additionally for Cinderella157 this is not the first time you have tried to end discussion on this talk page related to wether western support should be listed in the infobox. The points made above, wether terribly novel or not, are more than worthy of discussion by editors interested in improving the page. You are also more than welcome to join in with wether you agree or not rather than continuing to push for procedural roadblocks to discussion. BogLogs (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Support inclusion in Infobox. Belarus is already inserted, even if Belarusian forces have not directly participated (1, 2): I think therefore that other countries, which provided a similar level of support, should be inserted as well. P1221 (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC) I will attempt to start an inclusion criteria debate here. I propose we include countries the support of which is backed by reliable sources as having had a strong impact on the war. Thus, we will be examining cases individually. On the last RfC from April, there was a proposal to include a note on the infobox similar to that of German Wikipedia [23], simply stating that Ukraine has received external help from other countries. I propose the following: individually include countries with huge contributions to Ukraine's war effort, and cover the rest of support in a note similar to that of German Wikipedia. Most Western help to Ukraine has been given by the same small number of countries, see charts here [24] (source: [25]) [26] (source: [27]). On the latter chart, we can see that, by far, the United States are responsible for the majority of weapons supplies to Ukraine. Western military aid to Ukraine has turned the tides of the invasion, this is an undeniable fact. If most of it was given by the US, it means the United States has helped Ukraine change the war to its favor. This is a logical proposition we can do by ourselves, which is also backed by reliable sources. I want to ask users opposing this RfC if they're able to provide evidence reasoning that American help to Ukraine has not changed the course of the war, and therefore it does not warrant inclusion. Later, we may move on to other countries like Poland, the United Kingdom or Germany. Super Ψ Dro 13:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Western refusal to deter Russia from hostile acts against its neighbours was even more decisive in this 2014–2022 war, by allowing it to start, continue, and escalate. Maybe we should add the following to the infobox under “Belligerents” with a subheader: 2003–2004 (election interference), 2008 (Georgia war), 2013 (pressuring Yanukovych to about-face on EU AA), 2014 (Crimea invasion, Donbas insurgency), 2014–15 (Donbas invasion), 2014–2022 (European-facilitated Minsk agreement), Nord Stream 2 pipelines bypassing Ukrainian gas infrastructure (2018–22), 2020–22 (ignoring Russian invasion force). Plenty of sources support the huge effect these things had on the war. Please provide evidence that these things were not decisive.  —Michael Z. 13:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC) This article is about the 2022 invasion, which began on 24 February, so there is no reason to mention 2003/2004 in the infobox. Maybe we can go back to WWI? Mellk (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC) 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Background. None of that belongs in the infobox. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Back at you, with 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement. None of that belongs in the infobox. —Michael Z. 21:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC) It is irrelevant if those had an effect on the conflict for purposes of this discussion, as they are not entities that could be considered belligerents, or entities that could rise to the level of belligerents if they directly participated but currently only play a supporting role. entropyandvodka (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Belligerent is a category in international law. It is not a “level.” Nothing in this proposal falls within the definition. —Michael Z. 21:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Replace "rise to the level of belligerents" with "be considered belligerents" if you like, but the point stands. None of the things (election interference, other conflicts, etc) in your point that I was responding to could fit the category of a belligerent under any circumstances. Multiple entities in the proposal (countries) could be and have been considered belligerents under some circumstances, which is why your (presumably sarcastic) point was irrelevant. In essence you are arguing that if we are listing countries or entities supporting Ukraine in the infobox under "Supported by" then it follows we should list just anything causal to the conflict in there. That isn't the proposal, does not follow from it, and no one is arguing for that. entropyandvodka (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC) No. None of these states could be, have been considered, or are belligerents under the actual circumstances. A belligerent is a participant in an armed conflict, in international law. (Dunno what “have been considered belligents under some circumstances” you mean, as they have not in this conflict.) Super Dro is arguing that some states that are “backed by reliable sources as having had a strong impact on the war,” echoed by your “rise to the level of belligerents if they directly participated but currently only play a supporting role,” are belligerents. But impact is irrelevant. Other impactful things don’t belong any more than impactful states that do not meet the definition of belligerent. I am not being sarcastic. I am isolating and extending the argument that level of impact determines something should be listed here. Impact does not define a belligerent, and supporters by some other criteria should not be listed under “Belligerents.” If something else is to be added, then the template should be modified to accommodate it.  —Michael Z. 23:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC) By "have been considered belligerents under some circumstances" I mean that countries, under some circumstances, are considered belligerents. Since you weren't being sarcastic I'll address it: your argument is that if other states that are not currently considered de jure belligerents are allowed in the "Supported by" section, then other things could be as well by the same logic, even if those things are not states or other entities that could be considered belligerents under some circumstances. An election result, or a ham sandwich for that matter, is totally irrelevant to the discussion, as there are no circumstances where either would be considered a belligerent. No one here is arguing for things that couldn't be belligerents under any circumstances to be included, so that was a strawman on your part. Perhaps part of the criterion going forward should be that entities listed in this section of the infobox must have the logical capacity to be belligerents, co-belligerents, or non-belligerents, though that never seemed like it needed spelling out. I agree that a participant in an armed conflict is a belligerent. A key area of our disagreement is what constitutes participation. Since it is common in similar articles to include a "Supported by" subfield, and it is common to denote in that subfield state and other actors that indirectly participate via support, it is appropriate for the United States to be in that field given its level of participation via support. Many readers that will see this infobox will have seen the infoboxes of other conflicts similarly formatted (ie the Soviet–Afghan War, which includes the United States under Supported by) and would rightly interpret the omission of the United States as an incomplete representation of the conflict, if not a misleading or biased one. I have yet to see an argument why this article should be an exception that isn't fraught with WP:neutral point of view problems. Even if this was the only infobox on Wikipedia someone ever saw, it wouldn't be an accurate representation of the reality of this conflict as it is. That said, I'd be opposed to including the United States if it was not as "Supported by" as this wouldn't accurately represent reality either. I also agree Iran should be similarly included on the other side, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. entropyandvodka (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC) It maybe time to hear what new voices have to say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Support inclusion of any significant financial or military support to either side as reported in reliable sources. This is an important aspect of this conflict, which is why we have a large section in the article on it and an entire separate article on the topic. I would be fine with duplicating the Russo-Ukrainian War infobox and just putting "For countries supporting Ukraine, see foreign aid to Ukraine." Why doesn't the invasion article have more detail on this aspect than the wider war infobox! --Jfhutson (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Comment: Both Cinderella and Michael have requested above that this RFC be closed and rewritten in a more standard format. I'm supporting their comments to do this. The opening preface in this RFC is much too long to be useful. The Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has plainly stated that the operating principle in Ukraine at this point is that they will provide the soldiers if the West will provide the arms and munitions for them. Kuleba is a realist who understands the difference between a country sacrificing lives to defend its sovereignty as compared to countries which merely provide military supplies and money to support Ukraine's loss of soldiers in the field as casualties of war. Joining with Cinderella and Michael who have requested above that this RFC be closed, and rewritten if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC) "Should the countries that have helped Ukraine during this war be included in the infobox of this article?" is the RFC statement and the following comment is a comment in support. The RFC followed the guidance in WP:RFCBRIEF: "If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp." Super Dromaeosaurus should do a little cleanup to make the comment a bit more cleanly separated but I'm not going to touch another user's comment. Closing the RFC is unnecessarily disruptive and wastes everyone's time. --Jfhutson (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC) I did start wondering if I could have given this RfC a more concrete scope or aim, such as only discussing the US' inclusion or specifically trying to come up with inclusion criteria. But a few hours had passed and users had already started discussing, I was afraid it was too late already. I do want to rewrite the opening comment and I am open to suggestions. Super Ψ Dro 21:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Kuleba is a realist who understands the difference between a country sacrificing lives to defend its sovereignty as compared to countries which merely provide military supplies and money to support Ukraine's loss of soldiers in the field as casualties of war. this is downplaying the role of Western weapons. The opening comment includes some sources discussing their role in the war. I've also read some individuals argue that Ukraine's economy would have collapsed without Western help though I did not find reliable sources on this after a quick search. Now, listing Western countries at Ukraine's level would downplay the role of Ukrainian soldiers dying to defend their homeland indeed. But if we keep Ukraine as the main fighter and list its supporters as supporting it, what's the issue? Super Ψ Dro 21:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Support inclusion in the infobox. It is absurd, if not dishonest, to include Belarus as a supporter under Russia without including the United States (and others) under Ukraine when weighing the respective impact each has had on the conflict in their supportive capacity. While I wouldn't be opposed to a listing like "NATO (and others)" or something similar as a means of shortening the list, it makes more sense to list the major contributing nations with the rest linked, per Super Dromaeosaurus's suggestion above, as this may more accurately reflect the nature of the support and avoids other issues about what NATO does officially versus what member states do unilaterally. I also stress the need of a consistent, NPOV-adherent set of criteria of what qualifies being listed as a "Belligerent" vs "Supported by". Though not the only qualifier, significant military aid given with the intent of influencing the conflict should be sufficient to label a state as a supporter. The criteria of "boots on the ground" or "actually pulling the trigger/hitting the drone button" is more in line with being considered a belligerent, not a supporter, given the definitions of these words. It shouldn't be the case that a state supporting Ukraine must rise to the level of belligerent just to be listed as a supporter while a different standard is applied in adding supporters to the Russian side, or that the criteria be crafted to benefit either side. entropyandvodka (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Belligerent is a category in international law. It’s not “impact on the conflict,” and there are things that have had much more impact like Russian corruption, the difference between Russian and Ukrainian civil society, Ukrainian unity and motivation. The entire argument here is about “weapons” and their “impact,” but it is a very selective criterion, dare I say military-fetishistic one, to want to label states as “belligerents” by arbitrarily deciding their weapons had more impact than a hundred other factors, with no sources to support the idea.  —Michael Z. 21:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Belarus is included because it has committed the international crime of aggression by providing its territory for criminal acts of aggression. It is perfectly honest to consider an aggressor a supporter of a belligerent by the acts that create a state of armed conflict, and not to include states participating in trade and aid that routinely goes on in peacetime. You’d note that Ukraine’s supporters haven’t allowed Ukrainian attacks against Russia from their soil, either by troops crossing their borders into Russia, or stand-off weapons being fired from their territories. They immediately removed all military from Ukraine’s territory when it looked like the Russians were going to invade, and have desisted from making any deliveries of military aid directly to its soil: the Ukrainians have to go pick it up. Deliveries of jets have been scuttled by the refusal of anyone allowing Ukraine to fly fighters from their soil into Ukraine. There is no different standard for the sides. (But there is a significant qualitative difference between an aggressor and a legal self-defender in their participation in a military conflict, especially a war of conquest.) If “boots,” then Iran is more of a belligerent or supported than any of the states being considered in this proposal, and should be added first.  —Michael Z. 21:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Oppose There is much wrong with this proposal, and it comes from a strikingly non-neutral point of view. I’ll directly respond with quotations. . . . considering all that has changed since the last RfC. It was started on 27 February and closed on 6 March. Only 11 days of the invasion passed! I'm not sure if any Western weapons had even arrived to Ukraine by then, I would expect they did not. Just a few examples: Saxon armoured cars, 2015[28] Training from March 2015 of over 80,000 soldiers[29] Counterbattery radars, 2015[30] .50 calibre sniper rifles 2017,[31] 2018[32] RPG launchers, 2017[33] FGM-148 Javelin antitank missiles, 2018[34] SP artillery and IFVs, 2018[35] Attack drones, 2019[36] $141.5 million for “maritime domain awareness, secure communications, command and control, marksmanship, night vision disaster preparedness and special operations and territorial defense units,” maritime security, “airfield defense, night vision devices, radars, vehicles and tactical communication equipment,” and plenty more, 2019[37] NLAW antitank missiles, January 2022[38] Stinger antiaircraft missiles February 2022[39] Milan and Javelin missiles, before February 24[40] $100s millions direct military assistance YTD January 26, 2022[41] Now that eight months have passed, it is clear that Western weapons have been key in the turning of this war in Ukraine's favor.[citation needed] There is plenty of sources on this. No there aren’t. When did the war “turn”? The West was only providing weapons for an insurgency, assuming the Ukrainians could not stop a Russian occupation of the country. Real heavy weapons supply (in contrast to the above) didn’t begin until after Ukrainians demonstrated they could defeat the Russian Kyiv offensive. American HIMARS (note that it was first announced that they would be given to Ukraine on 31 May) have been so relevant . . . First four systems deployed June 25, four full months into the war, and three months after the end of the Battle of Kyiv. Ukraine said it needed at least a hundred. regarded as so valuable . . . the influence of Western weapons . . . undeniably huge role . . . intelligence is also said to be highly relevant If things go in the infobox because they influenced the war, let’s list Western integrated chip and other technology manufacturers without which the Russians would have no cruise missiles, aircraft, precision-guided weaponry, sophisticated gun and missile sights, military communications, and drones. Let’s also list the lack of deterrent by the West of Russian economic warfare, political pressure, election interference, and military action from at least 2004 until 2022. And let’s list states that prevented military aid to Ukraine (Germany prevented others from delivering armoured vehicles, notably Leopard 2 tanks from Spain, and Israel prevented transfer of Iron Dome and Patriot air defence systems), and states that provided military systems to Russia (Israel, France, and Germany). One of the worries of editors who opposed the last RfC was that it would make the infobox too long. This can be easily addressed through a collapsible list. WP:INFOBOX says not to write an article in the infobox. The less the better. Collapsible list subverts the intent rather than facilitating it. Others said this would imply that the United States and other countries are being listed as belligrants. Clearly this would not be the case if we list them under a "Supported by" section, they should not be included on Ukraine's level on the infobox. No. If “Supported by” is a subheading of “Belligerents,” then it directly implies that it is a subcategory. If non-belligerents are listed, then they must be under a separate heading. But the template does not provide one because that is outside its intended scope. the United States should be included for being the biggest supplier of weapons which have caused actual changes on the battlefield, for its intelligence support and for its economic aid. Other states have provided more aid in proportion to their GDP. Why include military aid and not economic support that allows Ukraine to maintain an economy during the war? In this area the EU has been huge, and other states important too. the common practice in Wikipedia is to include countries that have helped one or another side during a war in the war's infobox, see Iran–Iraq War, Vietnam War, Yom Kippur War, Soviet–Afghan War, Football War, Cambodian Civil War and Korean War as examples. There is no particular reason in my eyes for this article to be an exception. The practice is contrary to WP:INFOBOX and the docs at Template:infobox military conflict. In the case of this article, it is outstandingly important because one of the top Russian propaganda lines since before the February invasions has been “we are fighting NATO and the West.” Listing members of NATO and the West under “Belligerents” reflects a blatantly and extremely non-WP:neutral point of view. —Michael Z. 20:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC) When did the war “turn”? The West was only providing weapons for an insurgency, assuming the Ukrainians could not stop a Russian occupation of the country. Real heavy weapons supply (in contrast to the above) didn’t begin until after Ukrainians demonstrated they could defeat the Russian Kyiv offensive. as far as I know, the Kyiv offensive is regarded more as a Russian defeat than a Ukrainian victory. Russia's plans failed as Ukraine put up more resistance than it expected and withdrew. And I was implying that ever since April, which is when Russia retreated from Ukraine, things changed as Ukraine showed it was capable of fighting Russia, and then the real help started to come. First four systems deployed June 25, four full months into the war, and three months after the end of the Battle of Kyiv. Ukraine said it needed at least a hundred. how exactly does this disprove that Russian artillery strikes were reduced tenfold, for example? Note that it was a Ukrainian military official who said this, Bohdan Dmytruk. let’s list Western integrated chip and other technology manufacturers without which the Russians would have no... no, because Russia did not receive any after 24 February. Let’s also list the lack of deterrent by the West of Russian economic warfare, political pressure, election interference, and military action from at least 2004 until 2022. no, as that is not on the scope of this article. And let’s list states that prevented military aid to Ukraine that's not direct support to Russia. It is not comparable to aiding weapons to a country. and states that provided military systems to Russia if this was before 24 February 2022, it should not be included. Collapsible list subverts the intent rather than facilitating it. I disagree. Not much else to argue here. If non-belligerents are listed, then they must be under a separate heading. But the template does not provide one because that is outside its intended scope., The practice is contrary to WP:INFOBOX and the docs at Template:infobox military conflict. this has been largely ignored in, well, every Wikipedia article. Other articles chose to include Supporters under a parameter titled "Belligrants". I do not see why should this article become the focus for a discussion affecting a lot of other similar articles instead of the template's page itself. We should follow common practice. Other states have provided more aid in proportion to their GDP. yeah, I think Estonia or Latvia gave 1% of their whole GDP to aid to Ukraine, but by raw amount of support, the United States remains as the main supplier while Estonia's or Latvia's contributions are more negligible. Why include military aid and not economic support that allows Ukraine to maintain an economy during the war? In this area the EU has been huge, and other states important too. I did mention that economic and also intelligence support could also be taken into consideration here. I mentioned the EU could be included on the opening comment. This RfC has never been restricted to military aid. In the case of this article, it is outstandingly important because one of the top Russian propaganda lines since before the February invasions has been “we are fighting NATO and the West.” Listing members of NATO and the West under “Belligerents” reflects a blatantly and extremely non-WP:neutral point of view. here I understand your point but I strongly oppose that we should let reality be affected by Russian delusional propaganda. It is true that the United States is helping Ukraine. If Russian propagandists try to use that to save some face, it doesn't mean we should completely stop talking about Western help to Ukraine. Because does this implication that saying the West is helping Ukraine is the same as adopting Russian propaganda points only affect Wikipedia? Super Ψ Dro 21:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Playing fast and loose with the definition of “Belligerents” is exactly catering to Russian propaganda that depends on undisciplined arguments and lack of critical thinking. (No one is stopping talking about aid to Ukraine, because there’s a whole article to cover it in.) If you really want non-belligerent foreign supporters to be in the infobox, then please add a separate subheading and data row to the infobox. —Michael Z. 21:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC) If “Supported by” is a subheading of “Belligerents,” then it directly implies that it is a subcategory. ... In the case of this article, it is outstandingly important because one of the top Russian propaganda lines since before the February invasions has been “we are fighting NATO and the West.” Listing members of NATO and the West under “Belligerents” reflects a blatantly and extremely non-WP:neutral point of view. These points taken together seem to be the core of your objection. Though I would argue that making it a subcategory directly implies the entity listed is not explicitly a belligerent, but a supporter (hence having a subcategory), a strong case can be made for the United States specifically as being regarded as a belligerent or co-belligerent, [42] [43] [44] per @Jfhutson's point. I think a more focused discussion on that is warranted. If reasonably established that they are, and if the reason to avoid to inclusion of the United States (and others that would qualify) as belligerents or co-belligerents in a "Supported by" subcategory is not that their inclusion in the infobox doesn't accurately represent reality, but that it serves Russian propaganda, the omission would then be a violation of WP:neutral point of view. That said, I would still argue that an entity in the "Supported by" subcategory need not be a de jure belligerent, but at minimum a significant enough supporter of one to warrant inclusion, as has been the practice in numerous other articles. Making a special exception in the case of this article may be outstandingly important to you personally, but to do so would not be in line with WP:neutral point of view. entropyandvodka (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Oppose for a few reasons: The title of the section in the infobox tells Belligerents. None of these 30+ countries is currently a belligerent in this war. Nothing has changed from the previous RfCs about the same, as articulated by Michael just above. The arguments by nominator are utterly unconvincing. "We must also not forget Russia's displeasure at this supply of weapons". Yes, this is true. But is that a reason for including the entire "West" to the infobox? And what is "West" ("Western support") Some of these countries, such as New Zealand, are hardly "West". The nominator failed to provide the list of countries he wants to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC) "Belligerent" includes indirect military support. [45] [46] [47]. Using a separate subcategory of "Supported by" helps to avoid any misunderstanding. --Jfhutson (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC) I reject that referring to a country as a supporter of a belligerent is the same as calling it a belligerent. Technical issues from the infobox should not impact any informational issues. Nothing has changed from the previous RfCs about the same Western aid to Ukraine is more widely referenced as being relevant for the war than it used to in April. The point of mentioning Russia asking the West to stop supplying aid to Ukraine was meant to imply that Russia recognizes it affects its war effort because it has impacted the war. And "the West" is just a term I am using in this RfC to facilitate discussion. We should not state that "the West" is helping Ukraine on the infobox. I've argued the United States should be included, and also any country the individual support of which is referenced by reliable sources as having significantly impacted the war. That is, the US for sure, and maybe Poland, the UK or Germany. I've also argued those countries supporting Ukraine that have not had that much of a role could be grouped together in a note as in German Wikipedia. Countries should be discussed individually. There's sources discussing how American aid has influenced the war but for Bulgarian aid for example, not many sources are found. Some countries possibly are on a grey area. Super Ψ Dro 21:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Yes, one could probably make a stronger case that USA is a co-belligerent (rather than "all these countries are co-belligerents"). But this RfC was not framed such way. But I am not sure because then indeed there is a question about Poland, UK, Germany and so on. And how about Latvia that spent almost a half of its own military budget to help Ukraine? My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC) The RFC statement is "Should the countries that have helped Ukraine during this war be included in the infobox of this article?" Obviously that's a bit vague. But maybe we could get some tentative answer to the question that moves us in some direction away from the currently understood consensus which seems to be that only boots on the ground are included. -- Jfhutson (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Personally, I think that USA is a party to this war already, and that Biden administration only misleads itself and public that it is not, while talking something strange about avoiding any further excessive confrontation with Russia (and Putin certainly thinks the same). But we need some strong and clear cut criteria here. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC) I agree with @My very best wishes on the point about the United States and the need for clear criteria. Perhaps the discussion could hone in on these specifically? entropyandvodka (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Oppose and we might as well close this. No plausible result but "no change" can result from a RfC query that so completely fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Mzajac makes some excellent points that I would probably agree with if we had a viable RfC. VQuakr (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC) VQuakr, may you argue how is this RfC not neutral? Super Ψ Dro 21:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC) @Super Dromaeosaurus: if you don't see how this is incompatible with the instructions at WP:RFCNEUTRAL then you are not competent enough to edit Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC) So rather than argue your point, you're going for the ad hominem? entropyandvodka (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC) This topic can get a little heated but please remember WP:CIV and try to engage with discussion and reason rather than writing off editors with different views. BogLogs (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC) VQuakr, if you have any issues with my editing, you're encouraged to file a WP:ANI report. If you are here not to defend your case but to stir useless tensions between editors, do not leave a message in the first place. Super Ψ Dro 13:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Support inclusion of any significant financial or military support to either side as reported in reliable sources.Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Oppose per the above reasons stated, mainly the fact that I think it would play into the ideas of Russian propaganda. Johnson524 (Talk!) 23:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Whether something plays into "ideas of Russian propaganda" should be immaterial to the discussion, per WP:neutral point of view. entropyandvodka (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Support. I think, broadly, we should include some of the general nations which have sent the largest amount of military support to Ukraine (United States, United Kingdom, and so on, though I'm uncertain as to which metric it should be measured), or perhaps just a general "NATO" section with a drop-down box. Afterwards, I feel that there should be text reading "...and others" (similar to the World War II article), linking to List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Additionally, we could perhaps list the entire EU (with a link to EUMAM Ukraine in a note) with a drop-down list, rather than NATO. Broadly, I think that, as including every nation which has supplied any support to Ukraine whatsoever would be overly extensive, as was, as I recall (though I may be incorrect here), that was part of the reason for originally rejecting including Western support to Ukraine. I think in this way, we would be able to accurately show important information in the infobox, while preventing it from becoming overly bloated. In the same vein, I feel that it would be appropriate to add North Korea to the infobox under countries supporting Russia, while noting that is alleged and denied by North Korea and Russia. However, that's not for discussion on this topic. Mupper-san (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC) People keep talking about WW2 or The Korean war, this article is not about a war. It is more analogous to UN September 1950 counteroffensive, an article about a specific phase of a war, and that lists only combatants. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC) The UN September 1950 counteroffensive lasted all of a week from 23–30 September 1950. The invasion by Russia of Ukraine in ,lands beyond Crimea, has now lasted 8 months and 5 days and is likely to last a great deal longer. For most readers this is likely the one they would come to first for information regarding the conflict. BogLogs (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC) This RfC is indeed not really different from any others and is a huge mess. As I am the user who opened it, I will attempt to address the suggestions some users have provided during this discussion and try to reframe the RfC to something more concrete. This should probably have been done earlier (if not from the start), but I think it is not too late yet. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 28 October 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.

(second)

Should we include any country/organization as supporting Ukraine during the invasion on the infobox? Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Any support may be discussed: military, economic, humanitarian and intelligence, and others if necessary. The discussion will be mainly about countries but organizations like NATO and the European Union also come into debate. I suggest several options:

• Option 1: Do not include any country.
• Option 2: Do include countries.
  • Option 2A (note): Only include a note as in German Wikipedia [48] stating that Ukraine has received external help from a series of countries.
  • Option 2B (2A + United States): Include this note and also the United States separately, as it is the country that has given the biggest help to Ukraine.
  • Option 2C (2B + other important countries): Include the note, the United States and other countries. Include any country the support of which is noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion. Potential candidates are the United Kingdom, Poland, Germany and possibly others; they require individual discussion.
  • Option 2D (every country): Include every country that has helped Ukraine in any way. Thus, the note is omitted.

I propose that editors supporting the inclusion of countries make separate arguments for why should we include any country at all (Option 2) and for which countries should we include and why (defend a subcategory of Option 2 against the others), that is, what is your inclusion criteria. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment from opening user: A large number of users have suggested a change or rewrite to the RfC in order to have a clearer aim. I think it's easier to start over now that discussion is still active than to try to save the old RfC, which had gotten pretty messy and confusing. I have tried to reframe the RfC into options to make the discussion easier and prevent users supporting the inclusion of any countries by simply leaving their support and not clarifying if they think any random country should be included and why. I apologize as this means users will basically have to repeat themselves, but now I offer the chance to express their opinions directly rather than as a counterargument to my initial long comment.

With this being said, I support Option 2C. I've made my case why the United States should be included, and I am not opposed to the inclusion of any country which has managed to significantly impact the war through their support. This is only theoretically though, as no countries except the United States have been individually discussed yet. Not every country should be included, as this will clog the infobox, so we would include the rest into the proposed note. Super Ψ Dro 13:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 I was Umming and Arring over 2, but notice that the German wiki also lists a lot more countries as supporting Russia than we do. So have to go back to "if we include supported of Ukraine we must include nations who support Russia". Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

German Wikipedia only includes Belarus and South Ossetia as supporters of Russia. Belarus is included here while South Ossetia was rejected before [49]. Super Ψ Dro 15:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

And? The USA has been rejected before as well. If that is the model we use we use it in full. This should not only be about aid to Ukraine, which violates wp:npov. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

By this I meant there's not "a lot" of countries listed in German Wikipedia to add as Russian supporters here. Super Ψ Dro 07:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 I tend to agree with Slatersteven, I'm fine with mentions of the US and UK supporting Ukraine, for example, but only if Iran is added to the Russian side simultaneously. --Galebazz (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven and Galebazz, again, if the RfC is specifically about Ukraine's supporters, there's no point in discussing Russia's. There's already a discussion for including Iran as a supporter of Russia, see Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Iran should be added as “Supporting Russia”. Some of the people who have opposed it did so because we list no supporters for Ukraine. To not include one's supporters because the other's are not included is a senseless cycle that does not actually address the question of whether we should add supporters to the infobox or not and brings us nowhere. Both issues should not influence each other. And anyway, we do list Belarus as supporting Russia. Super Ψ Dro 15:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2C or any of the other option 2s that can get consensus. Option 2A also follows the Russo-Ukrainian War infobox, so it is the bare minimum. --Jfhutson (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2C this is the best option. It explains the most accurate situation of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022 Russia- Ukraine war). -- Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2C with the following proposal for inclusion criteria to distinguish main listings (ie, Ukraine, Russia) from the "Supported by" subcategory (ie Belarus, United States, Iran):

1. Any belligerent fitting the de jure definition should be listed in the main section. This includes states that participate directly in armed hostilities.

2. Any belligerent, co-belligerent, state or group that significantly participates indirectly in hostilities should be listed in the "Supported by" subcategory.

3. Direct participation in hostilities includes carrying out acts of violence against an adversary.[50]

4. Indirect participation in hostilities includes carrying out operational, logistical, or intelligence functions that are integrated into military operations conducted by an existing belligerent, or supplying an existing belligerent with operational, logistical, intelligence, or materiel assistance that directly contributes to the supported party’s overall military effort in the conflict.[51][52]

entropyandvodka | talk 20:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. I think keeping status quo is better. I do not see a consensus of sources supporting any other options, just a lot of different views. According to one of them, Ukraine is even a de facto member of NATO already, and the article 5 has been already invoked [53]. Is it a "majority view"? No. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  If there's no consensus of sources, wouldn't a note reflecting that be the most appropriate option? The total omission of any supporting party, or of a link with a note, implies Wikipedia is choosing a side in a currently debated issue. In other words, the status quo may not adhere to NPOV as it currently stands. entropyandvodka | talk 20:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Option 2C seems most accurate to the situation and best to give readers a brief understanding of the current conflict before diving into the rest of the article. That said I also agree with entropyandvodka that discussion about the criteria for inclusion in the info box in general is also warranted. BogLogs (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 2C, matching with what I stated on the first RfC (including noteworthy countries while linking the full list under an "...and others" link, similar to the World War II page). This prevents bloating of the infobox with countries that have sent little in terms of weapons, while also displaying those who have provided support in a way that makes it understandable for readers.

Mupper-san (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

:Option 2B seems most accurate RandomPotato123 (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Again (as per the last RFC) this is about including Ukrain's supporters only, not a more general question about all belligerent's supporters. So anything but option 1 only adds Ukrainian supporters to the infobox.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I would similarly like to reframe the discussion to be primarily about criteria for inclusion in the infobox. Rather than have extensive debates about each case with an amorphous criteria, it would be better if we could establish a consensus around consistent criteria first, and then subsequently discuss cases if necessary. A consistent, objective, and neutral criteria should clear up the need for these types of discussions, except when edge cases and grey areas arise. entropyandvodka | talk 18:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• 1. Military aid doesn't make a country a belligerent. We already have consensus on this BTW; see WP:REHASH. Limiting this query to only one side of the infobox also raises neutrality concerns. VQuakr (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  The previous 2 RfCs at the very start of the invasion led to a result of no consensus either way on the matter. Also, adding information about the nations supporting Ukraine does not preclude adding information about the nations supporting the opposing side. BogLogs (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with @BogLogs. If there was a consensus before, there certainly isn't one now. While this particular discussion is focused on the inclusion of Ukraine's supporters, that is likely due to complaints that the previous discussions were unfocused and too broad. Additionally, there are other concurrent discussions about the other side. As to military aid supposedly being insufficient to qualify a state as a belligerent, there are experts in international law that disagree. The scope, nature, impact, and level of involvement a state has in a conflict can make that state a party to that conflict. entropyandvodka | talk 07:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  BogLogs, please cite any such "expert" sources that would assert that military aid provided by any country to Ukraine since the invasion is of such a nature that they (the provider) are considered a belligerent under prevailing international law. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Being a supporter does not have to make one a belligerent. As shown in the these other conflict pages Korean War, Crimean War, Yom Kippur War, Russian Civil War. I'm glad you are participating in this discussion but just so I can understand your position are you saying that only belligerents, with let's the definition from wikionary as a basis "Engaged in warfare", should be listed in war infoboxs?

  Belarus gave military access for Russia's invasion but they certainly are not engaged in warfare at this point at least by any expert sources I know of. By that reasoning should we remove them from the infobox? BogLogs (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Their argument is that for any state to appear in the box, as a belligerent or supporter, they must be a belligerent in the conflict under international law (even though the term in international law is party to the conflict). They have not established why Wikipedia infoboxes must conform to such an exacting legal criteria rather than plain language definitions, though I would be interested to see such an argument with regards to the "Supported by" subcategory. What does international law have to say about a "Supported by" subcategory on Wikipedia? In the other Wikipedia pages many of the nations listed in the "Supported by" subcategory may have been legally considered neutral, albeit debatably, in those conflicts. They are still denoted because of substantial indirect participation. If the only criteria for inclusion is the legal status of belligerency, the "Supported by" subcategory shouldn't exist in any infobox in any article. That would be an unreasonable practice, however, as the current norms are informative and useful. The exact legal status of a state supporting a belligerent in a conflict is a murky area of international law, and has been for many decades, as it depends what that support entails. "Aid" can encompass many gradients of participation. The inclusion of a "Supported by" subsection is a great solution to this. A common sense reading of the infobox would be "Here are the belligerents, and here are the states supporting them." Is it Wikipedia's role to be a legal document or an informative summary of reality? Should Wikipedia only be written for IR theorists and a faction of legal experts? Why should the contested status quo here deviate from established norms elsewhere in Wikipedia? Other editors have cited their anxieties about "Russian propaganda" as a reason, but if that's the only basis it violates NPOV, and should throw the neutrality of the page into dispute.

  All that said, a strong case can be made that the United States specifically has violated its neutral status by way of integrated participation in Ukraine's military operations, notably with the near real-time sharing of intel that enabled Ukraine to shoot down a Russian transport plane carrying hundreds of soldiers[54]. Even if we concede (and we don't) that all states appearing in the infobox under "Supported by" must be parties to the conflict, by either metric the United States should be in there. entropyandvodka | talk 18:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for this thoughtful reply entropyandvodka. BogLogs (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  I was not expressing any opinion in this particular thread, I was simply asking for the sources alluded to by BogLogs - which have not been provided. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Oh yes, you wrote "BogLogs, please cite any such "expert" sources that would assert that military aid provided by any country to Ukraine since the invasion is of such a nature that they (the provider) are considered a belligerent under prevailing international law".

  But I have not asserted this in what I wrote (and I'm not sure of my opinion on the matter as it's written currently).

  Honestly I kinda thought you wrote my name by mistake and intended if for another editor. My position throughout has been that level of support is notable and having a meaningful effect on conflict making it worthy of mention in the infobox. For reference in case it has been lost in the mix of this discussion I believe the best style of infobox for quickly giving readers an overview of the conflict before they dive into the article would be similar to these: Korean War, Crimean War, Yom Kippur War, Russian Civil War. BogLogs (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  BogLogs, you wrote: ... there are experts in international law that disagree. It is to this statement that my request for sources mas made. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please read it again, I know you are acting in good faith but I wrote no such comment. BogLogs (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  My apologies BogLogs, the question should have been directed to Entropyandvodka. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry if the chain of this got a little muddy. You requested:

  please cite any such "expert" sources that would assert that military aid provided by any country to Ukraine since the invasion is of such a nature that they (the provider) are considered a belligerent under prevailing international law.

  Here is an opinion that I found useful in forming the criteria in my comment; it makes the assertion that the United States (and many of its NATO allies) are belligerents in this conflict, and argues why. [55] It also cites other sources I found useful, a couple of which I will share below.

  Here is another article quoting an expert making a similar argument. [56]

  Here is an article from an expert with the International Committee of the Red Cross speaking more broadly on the issue of support. [57] Pages 7-8 mention integrated support into military operations (ie, intelligence sharing) being regarded as co-belligerency.

  Here is a paper from a professor of international law analyzing the conduct of the United States in a previous conflict where neutrality was claimed. It specifically names the sharing of intelligence as an act of war. [58]

  There are more papers and debates about the issue of arms specifically, but that should be sufficient to answer your request for now. To me, the United States sharing of intelligence seems to be an even clearer example of participation in the conflict (though the immense amount of materiel supplied probably has had a greater overall impact). The sharing of intelligence and near-real time targeting intel means that US military personnel were actively integrated into Ukranian military operations for the purpose of harming a belligerent. entropyandvodka | talk 21:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user.Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Entropyandvodka, thank you. So, as you would say, there are debates about the issue which (from my reading) would pivot on the disjunction between the principle of neutrality and the doctrine of non-aggression, where the former is long standing and the latter is more modern (as I understand it) arising from the charter of the UN. I would observe that to place any country in the infobox is to speak in a Wiki voice and without nuance - it is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. I have made this statement in respect to adding Iran and make it more generally here. Stating: 'The principle of neutrality says X, country Y has done A therefore country Y is a co-belligerent', would be WP:SYNTH. However, if we were to state in prose: 'Author X (and Y) have opined that country A has breached the principle neutrality because of B and are a co-belligerent', is fine. To state something like this in a Wiki voice there should either be a consensus in good quality sources or sourcing that meets WP:EXCEPTIONAL. As you would state, this is a matter of debate so it is not fine to state: 'Country A is a co-belligerent [cite X] [cite Y]', when this is not the consensus in good quality sources and neither rise to being exceptional sources. This would be my criteria. I believe it has been met for Belarus. If it has not, then Belarus should be removed. I don't see that it has yet been met for any other country. When it is, then we might add then to the infobox, which intrinsically uses a Wiki voice. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  You've made some good points. Though I agree that it would be WP:SYNTH to make the claim of belligerency in the manner of sourcing the principle of neutrality, the action of the country, then the conclusion, we do have sources that do this for us. Here's another one.[59] If the article were to include a discussion of this directly, or some kind of notation in the infobox was needed, I agree that only the sources making the claim (and not their supporting research) would be appropriate.

  With regards to WP:EXCEPTIONAL, you also make a good point that the infobox speaks in Wiki voice without nuance, but this is a double-edged sword. Many of the sources I've looked at arguing the opposing view do acknowledge the legally murky area of the United States' actions, and don't deny that the United States is supporting Ukraine; they just argue that it is doing so as a non-belligerent. It seems the case that there isn't an expert consensus on this matter because it's not explicitly spelled out one way or the other in the Geneva Conventions or the UN Charter (which was why the International Committee of the Red Cross put forward the article I supplied). Since the co-belligerent vs non-belligerent status of the United States and some other countries is a matter of dispute, and since the infobox speaks in Wiki voice without nuance, their total omission from the infobox, with no note of any kind, implies that Wikipedia is picking a side of that dispute. This is further confounded by Wikipedia's frequent inclusion of a "Supported by" subsection, which often includes parties that weren't de jure belligerents in conflicts. The omission here thus implies that the United States, for example, is not a belligerent or a supporter.

  Further, there is some room for nuance in the infobox. In its current form, the infobox includes notes for Belarus, Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR (though the notes for these latter two may also have WP:NPOV problems, but we can look at that separately). In the case of a specific power like the United States, they could be included with a nuanced note. It does seem noteworthy to me that the United States has come so far into its involvement that some experts already consider it a co-belligerent. Alternatively, a link to a list or section about foreign support under a "Supported by" subsection would probably satisfy most of the editors objecting to the infobox in its current form, and all the better if that section contains a discussion with RS of the belligerency status dispute, as you suggested in your post. entropyandvodka | talk 21:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  A note for clarity: when I say that the sources arguing the opposing view acknowledge the legally murky area of the United States' actions, I'm referring to whether those actions legally constitute co-belligerency, not whether the actions are legal or illegal. entropyandvodka | talk 21:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. No need for this in the infobox and no country is formally involved. Andre🚐 04:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  The proposal is due to the need that the infobox reflect the reality of the conflict, which includes the participation of other countries in supportive and indirect capacities. The "Supported by" subcategory addresses the informal nature of their involvement. When they are formally parties to the conflict, they should go in the main section as belligerents. entropyandvodka | talk 19:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's necessary for the other countries to be in the infobox at all. Andre🚐 15:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  On the basis that their involvement isn't formal? entropyandvodka | talk 18:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  When some context and further exposition is needed, it should be discussed in the article body and not the infobox. Andre🚐 20:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 no, this is an attempt to sneak POV into the article. Volunteer Marek 04:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  What POV would be added by listing the supporting nations in the infobox? BogLogs (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

”rUsSia iS fIgHtiNG aLL oF NaTo aNd THAt’s wHY iZ loOsinG” Volunteer Marek 19:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That might hold water if the proposal was to include NATO as a main belligerent, but that isn't the proposal so your argument fails. entropyandvodka | talk 20:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh really? So tell me, what are these "other countries" that the proposal wishes to include? They're not in NATO? See, this is how I know there's some shenanigans afoot here - because you're trying to obfuscate and hide what the proposal actually is in order to get it passed. When you have to rely on deception to make your arguments, it's pretty clear that the intent is to violate NPOV. Volunteer Marek 23:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This seems like projection to me. I've been making fact-based arguments for the inclusion of countries in the infobox based on their participation in the conflict. Whether those countries are in NATO or not isn't really the issue. The reality is that multiple NATO countries are heavily involved. If we establish several countries are participants in the conflict, and they happen to be in NATO, is it your argument that they should be exempted from the infobox by virtue of their NATO membership? entropyandvodka | talk 21:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Seems a bit odd to only include supporters for one side. TylerBurden (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not what we're doing. I don't know why this needs explaining but there's a huge difference between a country providing military supplies (which happens all the time even in peacetime) and a country letting its territory be used as a launching pad for an invasion. Volunteer Marek 23:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This we agree on (though the supply during peacetime and wartime are not the same, as supply during wartime constitutes participation in a conflict). However, military supplies are not the only form of support Ukraine has received. entropyandvodka | talk 21:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Entropyandvodka, I believe “supply during wartime constitutes participation in a conflict” is absolutely false. What is this based on.  —Michael Z. 16:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have phrased that as can constitute, as when there is no conflict to speak of a third party cannot be participating in it. When there is a conflict and military aid is being supplied for the purpose of use in that conflict, then the debate is open as to what level of participation that entails. entropyandvodka | talk 18:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. There is large difference between sending soldiers to fight on battlefields to face casualties, or, to merely send supplies and money for other nation's soldiers to face heavy casualties. The Infobox should respect this distinction of countries who are sacrificing the lives of their own soldiers to preserve their sovereignty as opposed to countries who are not making sacrifices of the lives of their soldiers on the battlefield. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

To add a country as supporting Ukraine does not imply that it has sent soldiers to die on the battlefield. There's no possible room for misunderstanding. The distinction is achieved. Super Ψ Dro 16:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It does in fact insinuate it. There’s A LOT of room for misunderstanding actually, which is why 1) this is being suggested (intention is for readers to misunderstand, so that a POV can be pushed) and 2) why we shouldn’t do it. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What misunderstanding is intended by showing that, for example, the United States is supporting Ukraine in their efforts? Is the United States not supporting Ukraine? The United States is an indirect participant in the conflict, so what's the misunderstanding? Being a belligerent or a supporter of a belligerent is about gradients of participation in a conflict.

Is it POV that the United States is assisting Ukraine with immense amounts of materiel and sharing intel that is directly integrated into Ukrainian military operations? entropyandvodka | talk 19:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, let me see if I understood properly. Are you accusing any editor here, ostensibly me, of having some hidden intentions, maybe pro-Russian propaganda ones? Super Ψ Dro 20:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not accusing you specifically of anything - my understanding is that you started this RfC simply because this has been a perennial issue. But if you're asking about the general situation? Yeah, you'd have to be incredibly naive (AGF is not a suicide pact) to think that no one here isn't motivated by desire to push a pro-Russian POV. Volunteer Marek 20:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you present any evidence of this? If not, it's a fair, but baseless concern, and using it as an argument against this proposal is equally as baseless in my opinion. I believe we should be confident in our (as in Wikipedians') ability to portray reality as it is without fears for accidentally falling for the attempted manipulation of it by some groups. Super Ψ Dro 21:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The “evidence” is “read this whole freakin’ talk page”. Volunteer Marek 23:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No. No editors here are pushing Russian propaganda. Stop saying that because it's a serious accusation. Super Ψ Dro 07:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh please. AGF is not a suicide pact and I’m not gonna throw common sense out the window just because you make some reassuring assurances. “Russia is at war with entire West/NATO” is central staple of pro Russian propaganda and these repeated attempts (this is, what, third RfC on essentially same proposal? Fourth? All the previous ones failed?) to basically enter that into the infobox fit that propaganda line like a velvet glove. I’m also not the only one to have noticed this with regard to this article and talk page. Come on! You got an editor below claiming that Iran “only supplying drone” (which Russia uses to murder Ukrainian civilians) is not participation in the conflict, but aid to Ukraine is. The evidence that you asked for is all over this page. Volunteer Marek 07:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

By that criteria, ErnestKrause, Belarus would be excluded. entropyandvodka | talk 19:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Russian troops attacked Ukraine from Belarusian territory. Did Ukrainian troops attack Russia from NATO countries territories? No? Then stop playing games. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not the argument I was making. I was pointing out that by his criteria, Belarus would be excluded. I think they should be included, as should the other direct and indirect participants. entropyandvodka | talk 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

And I was explaining to you why Belarus needs to be included while other "direct and indirect participants" are not to be included. Take WW2, period 1939-1941. US is providing aid to Britain and France. But if we were to have an infobox for just that part of WW2 we would NOT include US as a participant in the war (though we would include fascist Italy).

Here is one way to distinguish levels of "support". Is the support provided exceptional to the circumstances of the war?

Countries providing military supplies to other countries happens ALL THE TIME, even in peace time, even when the recipient is NOT involved in any active conflict. It's standard and that's why it doesn't warrant being included in an infobox.

On the there hand "letting a foreign country's troops invade another country from your territory" is SPECIFIC to an actual war. That, by definition, cannot happen in peacetime. So it's. That's why we include Belarus.

Put it another way: if all that Belarus was doing was supplying Russians with ammo (which they are doing) we would not include them. It's also why we're not including Iran. But it's not all that Belarus is doing - the aggression on Ukraine was launched in big part from Belarusian territory. Volunteer Marek 20:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's really a silly explanation. And moreover shameful for the reputation of Wikipedia's neutrality. Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Oookay buddy. Speaking of silly. Apparently “only selling drones” (used to murder civilians) is not participation but providing other types of military equipment is [60]. But we shouldn’t worry about anyone trying to push POV here. Riiiigggghhhhhtttt. Volunteer Marek 23:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't sure which comment I should reply to and I don't want to reply to each one separately so I'll just reply to this one here. There is nothing in this proposal that precludes adding Iran or Syria or even NK (alleged) as supporters to the other side of the infobox. I understand you are worried about POV here and the image that the war is going as it is because of western support. However this isn't something whispered about behind the scenes, Ukraine and western nations have been very upfront with how much previous and continued support is helping in its defense. Listing it in the infobox of an encyclopedic page I would think does nothing to further Russian propaganda than the already public statements of support do.

Furthermore the goal of wikipedia is to be an un-biased, at least as much as possible, encyclopedia and I'm not sure we can do that if we are always afraid that any edit might support one dictator's propaganda. BogLogs (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but we SHOULDN'T include Iran or Syria or NK in the infobox as they're not participants in this conflict, even if they do provide weapons to Russia. Of course we can discuss this support in the text of the article. But including these countries in the infobox - just like including US or UK or whatever - would give a false impression to the readers. Volunteer Marek 03:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"...Belarus needs to be included while other "direct and indirect participants" are not to be included."

So you admit that infobox as it is does exclude other direct and indirect participants in the conflict? Glad we can agree.

As for the criteria of the "exceptionality" of the participation being a basis for infobox inclusion, while it's good that you're at least suggesting a criteria, I think it is a bad one, and arbitrary. If a country regularly violated their neutrality expectations, then an action that should make them a belligerent or a supporter of one might not, as it would cease to be exceptional given that they do it regularly. Conversely, if a country never gave materiel aid of any kind and then did for the first time, the act of giving military aid would be exceptional in their case, and by your standard of "exceptionality" of participation make them a belligerent. See why this is a bad criteria? It is not the exceptionality of Belarus allowing Russia to attack from their land that warrants infobox inclusion, it is that the action makes them an indirect participant in hostilities.

I would again suggest referring to the criteria I laid out above, as it satisfies concerns others have raised about the legal meaning of belligerency, but also resolves the issues that arise with acknowledging significant indirect participation (Supported by), which is both consistent with existing Wikipedia articles and adheres to NPOV. entropyandvodka | talk 01:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We're not agreeing on anything, so please don't try to twist my words. The only country that has plausibly "violated their neutrality expectations" (wtf these are - please see WP:OR) is Belarus, since Lukashenko allowed its territory to be used as a launching pad for the invasion, as well as the source for missile strikes on Ukrainian cities. And no, what you suggest is not consistent with existing Wikipedia articles. Hell, we don't even list Britain and France in September Campaign. Please take your criteria and read WP:OR instead. Let us know when Ukraine launches strikes on Russia from within NATO country's borders. Volunteer Marek 03:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hell, by your criteria we should add Germany to the infobox as supporting Russia since they've sent military equipment to Russia [61] and German companies are still providing components to Russian arms industry. This would of course be ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 03:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Everything in the criteria that I put forward exists in a source I provided, and another source making part of the same argument (but with the emphasis on intelligence sharing and its integration into hostilities), so it isn't WP:OR. Other editors here have argued for a criteria that would only include de jure belligerents in the box under international law. Under international law, there are legal ramifications to being a party to a conflict or a neutral, which is what I was referring to.

As for the point about Germany, an argument could be made that they are a party to the conflict, but not for the reason you stated. What a private citizen or company does isn't the same as what a state does in its capacity as a state. This is why, for example, volunteers from Britain being on the ground in Ukraine haven't made Britain a party to the conflict, even when those volunteers are active service members of British armed forces. entropyandvodka | talk 19:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Option 1 or Option 2A

To option 1

• Option 1 is the status quo I don't see a particular reason to change and there are many reasons to retain the status quo.
• Extensive lists are not consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - that which cannot be simply summarised belongs elsewhere. They also bloat the infobox.
• Collapsing long lists still creates an accessibility issue for mobile users. Perhaps it shouldn't but it does and until the mobile environment for WP is changed, it is still a valid argument.
• The infobox lacks nuance. Adding "supporters" does not distinguish the nature of the support. Consensus has been that Belarus is a supporter because sources (AFAIK) clearly report it as an "aggressor" in law but not as a combatant. I have no objection to adding countries rising to the same level as supporters in a Wiki voice (in the infobox) provided there are WP:EXCEPTIONAL sources. Otherwise, it would be wrong to equate the aid provided by other countries with Belarus.
• While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it is double-edged. It is only a valid argument if it represents "best practice". There is no evidence that "Supported by" is best practice represented by consistent use in our FAs. I am unaware of any that do. The template is widely used and subject to broad scrutiny by the community. Many comments are being made about the role or purpose of "supported by" but these are opinion. There is no such WP:P&G on this issue. It is not a recognised parameter in the template nor is it mentioned in the documentation.

To option 2A: In the most recent RfC, there was an emerging consensus for this option but it did not fit with the RfC question. I am prepared to support this since it addresses many of my afore concerns and has a reasonable chance of flying. The German article would link to "List of foreign aid to Ukraine since 2014" with the piping "supported by foreign aid from other states". Not perfect in that we might have a more specific link (and article) to aid subsequent to the invasion. It doesn't quite distinguish between the "support" provided by Belarus but this is not insurmountable. While WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE would discourage such links, we might WP:IAR in this case. Some would conflate my opposition to WP:REHASHING the previous RfCs with what are essentially the same arguments to "shutting down discussion", yet here we have a different proposition that builds upon the previous RfC.

To option 2D (opposed): my comments in support of option 1 would address my reasons to oppose this.

To options 2B and 2C: I would first refer to my comments in support of option 1 and most specifically, that listing any specific country(s) might equate with the actions of Belarus. Some are expressing opinions (WP:SYNTH) that they do. When we have sources to support such a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, that the actions of a particular country rise to a similar level in international law as for Belarus, we might add them to the infobox. This is the objective criteria that is the status quo. It would be inappropriate to apply different criteria (different standards) against each of the two opposing sides. This RfC does not propose objective critera for determining which countries might be mentioned against either side nor a change to the existing criteria, since it is addressing an issue for only one side of the conflict. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Fixed typo/omission "2 → 2A in reasons Cinderella157 (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I think Option 2A is a good compromise consensus position between the different views articulated throughout this discussion so far (though this current RfC is still quite new so time should be given for more discussion and other editors to join with their perspectives). BogLogs (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Is that a second !vote? Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I've already had my vote. I thought it was clear as a comment to Cinderella statement above but in the future I'll write Comment or some other such thing to make it more clear. BogLogs (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-thought comment Cinderella157. I'd like to add regarding Adding "supporters" does not distinguish the nature of the support. that notes can be added to specify the kind of support the country has given. I proposed this on the first RfC but apparently forgot to do so on the second. And options 2B and 2C could potentially also be short enough so as to make adding a collapsible list unnecessary. Super Ψ Dro 07:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, a possibility but ... Advocating for inclusion it has been stated: ... 70% of users see the infobox first and most check just that. Now I'm not certain of the verifiability of the claim but, if they're not going to read anything else then they're not going to read notes. Furthermore, it is a way of trying to insert intricate detail into a format intrinsically ill-suited for same and would not be compatible with an "at-a-glance" summary per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 or Option 1

Option 3 would be adding a new section to the infobox, something like "Foreign support" or "Foreign assistance" and a link to 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Foreign_involvement just like the casualities and losses section of the infobox. This seems valid as all the other major sections are being covered in the infobox except for the foreign support. Given that the foreign support is quite a major and unique aspect of this invasion it seems apt to include it in the infobox, even if in token. I think that it would be too hard to fit any nuanced summary inside the infobox, so just a link to the section covering seems like the best option. I think this is a better compromise than option 2.

Barring that, option 1 is the cleanest. Introducing supporting countries inside the belligerent section just seems like a terrible idea. Pabsoluterince: (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 (revised): Given that the purpose of the infobox is to "summarize key features of the page's subject" and provide identify key facts at a glance. The proposed "token' addition that simply points to the section is wrong as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function. If the information is not in the infobox, people can read the page to learn more. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I assume this would require a technical change at Template:Infobox military conflict. Super Ψ Dro 07:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, probably a relatively minor one. And probably one that's not wanted ha. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

If such a change is achieved I have no problem, and I don't think other editors will. Super Ψ Dro 11:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This would be acceptable for me as well. BogLogs (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 as the info box isn't the place for information that needs context explanationMoxy- 02:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  It does include a special note next to Belarus, as well as Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR. What would you think if a similar concise note accompanied supporters listed on the other side? entropyandvodka | talk 05:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2C, per my extensive advocacy of such an edit in Infobox: Ukraine supported by NATO (and others). As for specific countries, I think The United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Poland would be good candidates to be listed in the infobox for now. I would also add NATO, but that is potentially a different discussion. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 or Status Quo I still don't see a need to include this support in the infobox this way. Per other editors, this question leads me to question why we are arguing so intently to add a massive list of countries giving typical aid measures to Ukraine, but not addressing any similar situation with Russia, Belarus and Iran notwithstanding at this moment. King keudo (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Belarus is already listed in the infobox and Iran still has an open discussion regarding its addition above at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Iranian IRGC in Ukraine. BogLogs (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you, I'm aware. I specifically called those out to be exempt from my statement regarding 'addressing any similar situation with Russia'. King keudo (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, I misread your original post. That said though is there 'any similar situation' to be addressed besides Iran and Syria's support which are already being discussed? The argument for me, and I would say this should be a suitable criteria for any conflict infobox, mostly boils down to the size of the aid and the effect it is having on the conflict. Additionally if you are worried it would be some massive list of countries as other editors have mentioned, options 2a and 2b would seem to alleviate that concern. BogLogs (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 This is a classic case of a slippery slope. Once you start, there is no clear case to end. Probably we could argue for the inclusion of 100 countries in such a list. As that obviously won't work, the best thing is to leave it out. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. per ErnestKrause and others There is large difference between sending soldiers to fight on battlefields to face casualties, or, to merely send supplies and money for other nation's soldiers to face heavy casualties. Obviously the level of aid and assistance given by US, UK and others deserves coverage, but this is better rendered in text. At most a 2a option of a textual footnote should be employed. Pincrete (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2B, list the United States with a footnote explaining the support that Ukraine has received. The US is probably the single-largest national government by contributions to Ukraine, and I'm on the fence on including supranational orgs like the EU or NATO as of yet. We do, however, have to set a barrier on what countries to include to avoid creating a slippery slope as some Option 1 backers have mentioned, and I further propose that each individual country going under the Support column be subject to its own discussion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 or possibly Option 2A. per ErnestKrause and Adoring Nanny's reasoning, and also the potential for this to be misleading and create a false equivalency between the support given by other countries to Ukraine and the support given to Russia by Belarus. If people wish for the fact that Ukraine has received aid from other countries to be included then I see no advantage option 2C has over option 2A, as 2A would convey similar information, but in a less potentially misleading manner, and without clogging the infobox --Tristario (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1  This is the only acceptable option, since the way this vote and the options have been structured reflects a non-neutral WP:POV. Every other option is one-sided, asking us to treat the Ukrainian side differently from the Russian side, and encouraging the exceptional mention of the USA. The right way to deal with changing the infobox “Belligerents” is to agree on criteria for inclusion, taking into consideration all factors, especially that this is an armed conflict in progress where misinformation, disinformation, and skewed POV can be harmful. —Michael Z. 16:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Would you propose having the criteria discussion as a part of this one or as a separate discussion, since it was secondary to the purpose of this one? If separate, would you want to wait until this RfC is closed or have it concurrently?

  For future criteria, I would propose that it be specific with regards to inclusion in the main section vs the "Supported by" subsection, and that if and when a consensus can be reached it be added to the FAQ at the top of the page with links to the relevant discussion, perhaps headed by a summary of the reasoning behind it. entropyandvodka | talk 20:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  In my opinion, “supporters,” according to most of these definitions, should not be listed under “Belligerents,” which has a specific legal meaning. I would like to see a discussion about adding a separate heading and row to Template:Infobox military conflict.

  Frankly, I’d rather the infobox be updated than keep having these very lengthy repeated discussions here. —Michael Z. 20:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Could we get as a conclusion of this RfC that a new header should be added at the infobox itself? Super Ψ Dro 14:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a base idea to confuse an RFC by asking aditional questions. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I cannot do anything anymore if people have decided to mostly raise issues about technical or external factors. Surely it is better to get something out of it rather than nothing again. Super Ψ Dro 19:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Part of the RfC was that editors discuss their inclusion criteria. This seems to me to be the most important component of the RfC, not inclusion criteria per specific states, but inclusion criteria in general for any states. Arguing on a per state basis runs the risk of different or arbitrary inclusion criteria being applied to different states. If we could have a focused discussion on inclusion criteria without regard to a specific state, we would be better positioned to reach a consensus now and in the future about the inclusion of specific states. As it is, editors are arguing to include or exclude specific countries based on highly variant and sometimes arbitrary criteria, which seems to doom consensus in many of these discussions. Two opposing arguments may both be valid if their inclusion criteria is different. Focusing the discussion on criteria would also allow us to better address whether the criteria itself has problems that need addressing. If it does in its current form, then the status quo is unacceptable. I'm less in favor of technical changes to the infobox versus developing explicit guidelines with regards to the Belligerent section and Supported by subsection as the infobox currently exists (and is currently used in a large amount of articles). Such guidelines would be very useful even if there were to be technical changes to the infobox, and may further prove useful outside of this article. If the criteria for this article is only to be locally applied, it should still be explicitly stated.

Now my question is: can this be done in this RfC or do we need a new discussion or new RfC for it? entropyandvodka | talk 21:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not trust that editors will be willing to support this initiative without technical changes to the infobox. A new discussion would also require including supporters of Russia even if this may overlap with other discussions. I do not believe this RfC can achieve anything anymore other than a clearer idea of what a more productive and focused discussion may look like in the future. But I don't think it's a good idea to do it immediately after this RfC. Such a thing could risk the imposition of a moratorium. Super Ψ Dro 22:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion for the future discussion would be that the criteria be established without regard to specific states or cases (such as the example I provided in my vote earlier in this discussion). It should be clearer, when arguing in the abstract, that if an editor's reasoning for using a particular point of criteria is expressly to include or exclude a specific country that there are NPOV issues at play. entropyandvodka | talk 23:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

How does one propose to do this? The point of Wikipedia guidelines is that Wikipedia:The rules are principles. The goal is not to have bright lines for all content guidelines. Many guidelines are left intentionally up to interpretation and may depend heavily on the circumstances and the topic. Andre🚐 23:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently from this RfC there has been a detailed discussion and numerous points given for different perspectives. I worry that ending this RfC so soon with No Consensus, again for the 3rd time, or simply starting another RfC will only lead to more deadlock. At least in principle would editors be willing to allow a separate section on the infobox, rather than it being in the belligerent section, to list countries providing supporter (Or even a simple note with a link to the section detailing foreign support)? BogLogs (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment Unless there is something new or novel to be discussed on this matter, the discussion will (and has) largely WP:REHASHED what has in essence already been said many times before. While the expectations of Super Dromaeosaurus are commendable, the reality is that this RfC was phrased in respect to specific countries (at 2B and 2C) and was never going to lead to development of criteria. Responding editors are rarely going to behave as the OP might expect or wish no matter how clearly the OP might try to guide the responses in opening an RfC. Many editors will tend to answer the question they wish had been asked and not that actually asked. Furthermore, the likelihood of gaining a clear outcome from an RfC exponentially diminishes with the number of options - and here we have five plus.

To the notion of changing the infobox template: While this article has its own template, it is under sufferance of the broader community as a temporary expedient justified by a high volume of editing to the article (see various TfDs). The parent template is owned by the broader community and any change to it cannot be resolved here (and in particular by this discussion). While a change to the parent template is not impossible it would be my judgement that the broader community is likely to adopt a conservative position. Furthermore, presenting such a change proposal would only be reasonable if there was a clear consensus here to do so (IMHO). My view on a change to the template proper would be conservative.

Based upon the previous RfC (related to this RfC), option 2A was new and might have had a chance of flying; however, this does not appear to be the case at this point in time - largely because there are too many other options (IMHO). Further, I would predict (based on responses to this point) that there will be a consensus against change (ie we will have another RfC with no consensus as the result at the least). If there is consensus in support of option 1, then the matter would be definitely closed for the foreseeable future barring something particularly new. Noting Super Dromaeosaurus's most recent comment immediately above, a no consensus result will have a similar effect unless the closer were to specifically identify a productive way forward as was done with option 2A in the previous RfC. It might be useful to use this comment as the start of a new "discussion" section to separate such discussions from the response section. If there is some will to do this, please feel free. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, or a consensus for option 1, absent some new information, the status quo of not listing the supporting countries in the infobox should therefore hold. Will editors not be content with such an outcome? Why is it important to add this to the infobox? Andre🚐 03:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

For your first question I'm not sure (and I take it, perhaps it was meant rhetorically). If there is no change at all I would imagine some editors would accept the result of the process and others would continue to push in the future for additional changes using this or that argument.

For your second question about why editors find it important to change the infobox you need only look at the reasons given in this RfC or previous discussions and RfCs. Essentially that the article infobox as it is would be more representative of the conflict if the countries proving support would be mentioned in one form or another. I don't want to go on ad nauseam as I've already made these points more then once but this additional information in the infobox would better serve to introduce the readers of the article to the nature of the conflict (just as listing Belarus as well as the unrecognized and now defunct peoples republics do). BogLogs (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)'

Option 2D, or at very least option 2C (Struck sock !vote. Pabsoluterince (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)) Ukraine and Russia have both seen various countries support there respective causes, firstly the Ukrainian side has seen support from the EU, NATO, Columbia, Pakistan, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand as evidence by the Wikipedia article List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Furthermore the Russian side has seen support from some of it's allies, obviously Belarus, as well as Iran and North Korea; the sources are linked below:

North Korea: 1) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/2/north-korea-covertly-shipping-artillery-shells-to-russia-us-says 2) https://www.axios.com/2022/11/02/north-korea-russia-artillery-shells-ukraine-war 3) https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/02/politics/north-korea-russia-ammunition/index.html 4) https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/white-house-nkorea-covertly-shipping-artillery-russia-92539247 5) https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-white-house-accuses-north-korea-of-shipping-artillery-to-russia-12736638 6) https://nypost.com/2022/11/02/north-korea-sends-russia-artillery-shells-for-ukraine-war-wh/ 7) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11382055/North-Korea-covertly-supplying-shells-Russia-support-Ukraine-invasion-White-House-says.html

Iran: 1) https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/01/politics/iran-missiles-russia/index.html 2) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/31/analysis-irans-new-weapons-and-its-involvement-in-ukraine 3) https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/26/iran-ukraine-russia-war-drones-missiles-military-advisors-middle-east-nuclear/ 4) https://www.foxnews.com/world/irans-assistance-russian-war-effort-make-country-enemy-combatant 5) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63329266

I support option 2D, but also if we add the supporters of the Russian side of the war. See the sources listed above for support to Russia, and we have plenty of sources showing the Western support for Ukraine. Never have seen a conflict wikipage that doesn't list all factions of each side. At the very least 2C, so it covers all the major countries or organizations supporting whichever side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.16.54 (talk • contribs) (Struck sock !vote. Pabsoluterince (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC))

option d is ": Include every country that has helped Ukraine in any way. Thus, the note is omitted.", again this question is only about those aiding Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2C Per my reasoning from previous discussions. Don't know why this hasn't been done by now. EkoGraf (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

* Option 2C All other articles about wars include those that support one side or another, as we have Belarus on Russia's side (and we may possibly get Iran and North Korea soon too), we should include the more notable countries (such as USA, UK, Poland, France, etc) or add in NATO and the EU (so we don't need to add singular countries), and the note, obviously. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

* Option 2D All countries providing military aid on both sides should be added, in order to be consistent with other war infoboxes and because it is well-established in sources that the aid to Ukraine has had a significant impact on its abilities. An additional section could be added for non-military aid. LandyYecla (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2C The purpose of the infobox is to give a general idea of key facts about a topic. Foreign military support to Ukraine has been essential to its ability to keep up with the war for this long. Its omission from the infobox may leave the reader with an incomplete or misleading idea of the conflict, especially if they do not check the rest of the article, which so many people seem to be assuming never happens. Qowert (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2C This is valuable information that must be reported in the infobox. Usually (or maybe even always?) in the case of infoboxes of other wars Wikipedia informs about Belligerents and Supported by, i.e. countries providing money and weapons. See by way of comparison the Iran–Iraq War, where the US seems to have supported both Iran and Iraq. In this case, the involvement of many countries in support of Ukraine is noteworthy. I honestly don't understand why this wasn't done earlier. There is large difference between sending soldiers to fight on battlefields to face casualties, or, to merely send supplies and money for other nation's soldiers to face heavy casualties - this is correct, but that's the reason why we have two separate lists - Belligerents and Supported by, and I don't get why the latter should be suppressed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: In terms of the level of opinions generated up to now, it appears that 11-12 Supports for Option 1 have been presented with 11-12 Supports for Option 2C. There is a limited smattering of other opinions also available for review; it seems that this RFC may need to be adjusted or adapted in some way if there is not to be a third "No clear result" at the conclusion. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2C Many NATO states have provided free-of-charge weapons, intelligence, and training to Ukraine - the UK even let some Ukrainian soldiers train on British soil. Unlike, say, Iran or Turkey or North Korea's arms sales, these are presented publicly by the countries in question as an explicitly provided aid for Ukraine to beat the Russians. This constrasts with "neutral" humanitarian aid. Juxlos (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 (any) Ukraine has received significant contributions of weapons from many countries, so it is fair that they are mentioned. Félix An (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

*Option 2C Isn't giving military weaponry and "lethal aid" support? That's the case on nearly every historical war (c.f. the Korean War or Vietnam War), why are we treating this one any differently? ARADPLAUG (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 A senior UK officer has admitted to have troops on group performing covert operations

So UK should be definitely added RandomPotato123 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2A Foreign military support has been absolutely critical in this conflict, it makes no sense to me to exclude it and break with what we do for most wars. There is a case to be made for mentioning specific countries, but the amount of support is just so broad and the choice of specific countries is just too subjective for me to support listing countries, at least until the "fog of war" dissipates and we get a historian's perspective of the facts on the actual material/support given. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment This current RfC seems to be winding down now with the most recent editor input being Option 2 (of various varieties, with various points and good faith arguments) and the editors earlier on in the RfC process appearing as no consensus or leaning towards Option 1 (additionally with various points and good faith arguments).

Rather than close the RfC with an Option 2 (of some variety chosen) or No Consensus/Option 1 and again seeing this disagreement fought again in the future would there be any possibility of following the example of the Russo-Ukrainian War which simply includes a sub section for Ukraine with "Supplied by: For countries providing aid to Ukraine since 2022, see foreign aid to Ukraine" and Russia with "Supplied by: For details, see Russian military suppliers"?

If this is a possibility that is acceptable to editors please feel free to write Yes or if not No (of course you can write more if you like I'm really just trying to see if any good faith compromise/middle ground is possible on the issue at this time). BogLogs (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

What you can also do is ask for a close at WP:CR Andre🚐 01:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm not sure closer is warranted to just yet. BogLogs (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't your suggestion option 2A or a slight variation on it? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it is similar to 2A in that it is the smallest change from the status quo but It follows the wording directly from the Russo-Ukrainian War page and includes a note for the Russian side that seemed to be a concern for some editors. BogLogs (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

::I still think that a 2C-like solution is the best option, we should maybe do something like the Portuguese Wikipedia (include NATO and EU as supporting Ukraine, so we wont need to include all NATO and EU member countries), but also with a note (like in the German Wikipedia) linking to the foreign support page for further information, although if we are going to do this, we should also include Iran as supporting Russia (with a note about what support is given too). SnoopyBird (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have made an sandbox with the proposed content (User:SnoopyBird/sandbox2), leave any thoughts on it if you want. SnoopyBird (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I've looked at your Sandbox and there is still the issue that the "Supported by" is not 'symmetrical' on both sides; for example, Belarus does provide safe conduct for Russian troops to march through its land in attacking Ukraine, but none of the NATO nations have provided safe conduct to Ukraine troops for attacking Russia. It seems like they are different types of 'Supported by' which do not match up entirely. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and Iran has its military personnel (IRGC) directly involved in Russia and in Russian–occupied territory of Ukraine, while none of NATO and EU do. Nor the non-NATO and non-EU states that support Ukraine with training, weapons, non-lethal aid, humanitarian aid, reconstruction aid, and economic support.  —Michael Z. 16:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Option 2C per the many reasons given above. — Czello 10:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the above Wikipedia is not a poll. Users who have voted in favor of the ambiguous ballot Option 2C have not stated which countries count as important in their arguments. On top that, there is no reliable source that separates countries providing aid from being important to unimportant (which will result in this being original research). For example, the country of Luxembourg has provided a very considerable aid in comparison to its economy and military, which may be regarded as unimportant when compared to the aid of United States or other countries. Viewsridge (talk) 11:01, 27 December 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.

International Legion

Should we add the International Legion of Territorial Defence of Ukraine at the side with Ukraine. I think they are kind of important.

Daeva Trạc (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this not just a unit in the Ukrainian army? Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreement with Slatersteven. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought it is a voluntary army with soldiers from many countries (including Russia). Daeva Trạc (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The International Legion of Territorial Defence of Ukraine is a unit of the Territorial Defense Forces (Ukraine), which is a military reserve component of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 19:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Russia is freezing soldiers’ sperm for free

This seems worth mentioning somewhere, as an implicit acknowledgment by Russia that fighting in Ukraine is a likely death sentence for servicemen. I’m not sure if the best place for this information is this article or one of the other pages about the war, though. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Anecdotal? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Russian troops able to freeze sperm for free - lawyer - BBC News 2.222.6.91 (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: RESULT. RM closed. Not moved. RM cannot be initiated by a non-ECP user per WP:GS/RUSUKR. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine – It is appears obvious that this war will continue into 2023 and therefore the name 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would be incorrect. 2022-2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine seemed to be the consesus on discussion here. Therefore I am putting this request for moving to this title. I know that it is still 2022 and the name shouldn't be changed, but I wanted time to get a consensus before the year change due to how often this article is viewed. Starship 24 (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)—Striking comment — per a community decision, only extended confirmed users may edit or participate in certain discussions relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, including requested moves. DecafPotato (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support

🍁 DinoSoupCanada 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Since the invasion began in 2022, 2023 would be incorrect.

The invasion (title of the article) was in 2022. The subsequent war extended into 2023.

The famous D-Day invasion was in 1944. Further conflict continued into the following year, but no one ever says that the D-Day invasion happened in 1944–45.

There is a very clear distinction between an invasion and any extended period of war that may follow the invasion.

If the article title were to be changed, to be meaningful, it would probably need to read something like Russian–Ukrainian war of 2022–23. O'Dea (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose "Russo-Ukrainian War". Period. --104.163.138.105 (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)—Striking comment — per a community decision, only extended confirmed users may edit or participate in certain discussions relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, including requested moves. DecafPotato (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It should state 2023 for the rest of the year starting tomorrow. Kiwicomrade (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)—Striking comment — per a community decision, only extended confirmed users may edit or participate in certain discussions relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, including requested moves. DecafPotato (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The invasion is still very much ongoing and did not end in 2022--the war as a whole began in 2014, however. DecafPotato (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Per O'Dea. An invasion has a set time date, in this case 24 February 2022, or just 2022. A war however, which in this case would correlate to the actual war happening in Ukraine, namely the Russo-Ukrainian war. It has been happening since 2014, but has had numerous stages of both high intensity and low intensity. Insurgency and low battles kept ravaging Eastern Ukraine until the major second stage in the war, in 2022, when the Russian government decided to intervene and invade Ukraine officially, from multiple sides. A good example would be WW2; multiple stages where the Nazis had first occupied a large portion of Europe and then the second major stage; the United States gets attacked by Pearl Harbor, and decides to join the war. It's still the same war, just in different stages. I agree with O'Dea to either keep the name "2022 invasion of Ukraine" or rename the article to something more appropriate like "2022-2023 Russo-Ukrainian War". Twistedaxe (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC) —Striking comment from non-ECP editor in-line with WP:GS/RUSUKR. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Also, if we're going to give the entire span, how do we know it's not the 2022–2024 Russian invasion or the 2022–2032 Russian invasion? — kwami (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• The current title implies that the invasion spanned only the year of 2022. Unless a ceasefire is agreed upon and signed in the next 14 hours, this will not be the case. The idea behind moving is to keep the title current, not to crystal ball the end of it. Of course, you could also change the title to include a placeholder: (2022-ongoing, for example). Mr rnddude (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The article cannot be re-titled to Russian–Ukrainian war of 2022–23 as the invasion is part of the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2014. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per O'Dea. The invasion happened in 2022, and there is no issue with the article also discussing the resulting war. CMD (talk) 08:26, 31 December 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.

Article is missing section on war crimes

Even a short one. Volunteer Marek 05:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Check the "Prisoners of war" subsection please. --104.163.138.105 (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't really have anything on this topic and regardless, maltreatment of POWs is only one type of war crime. Volunteer Marek 10:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

IMO, you're welcome to rename the subsection and to contribute by including parts of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine artcile into it. --104.163.138.105 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Drone attack on Sevastopol

The “ Naval blockade and engagements” section doesn’t mention it at all, despite it being mentioned “2022 Crimea attacks“ article (with many sources) 197.234.165.147 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong date of invasion

Why does the article state in its opening sentence that "On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine"?

Russian forces entered Ukraine on Monday the 21st, the same day that Vladimir Putin recognised the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics.

The Guardian reported heavy movement of troops into Ukraine on the 21st, therefore that date marks the beginning of the invasion. O'Dea (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read the source: Vladimir Putin has ordered his military to enter the Russian-controlled areas of southeast Ukraine following a decision to recognise the territories as independent states. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your point: "Please read the source". I have read the source, and other sources, and I also have personal memory of Russian troops entering Ukraine a few days before the 24th, the day claimed by the article as the beginning of the invasion.

The invasion began on the 21st. You can confirm this independently from multiple sources online, if you wish. O'Dea (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@O'Dea: The invasion began when Zelenskyy recognized his country being invaded. It's not about tanks and recognition, it's about a large-scale offensive which Putin began right after his televised address. --104.163.138.105 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the invasion began on the 21st February, the day of Putin's address and – this is the key point – when locals reported heavy Russian troop movements in east Ukraine after Putin ordered them in. These facts are easily verified independently online or in any print media which covered the events. O'Dea (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The article uses Putin's declaration of a 'special military operation' against Ukraine as its genesis. That is: 5:00am local time on the 24th of February 2022.1 This is when fighting, shelling, and a full-scale invasion were initiated. This does mean that many US sources may be dated to February 23rd. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't accepting Putin's declaration of the 24th merely make Wikipedia editors dupes? The war began, de facto, when he sent his troops to invade on the 21st. The physical reality of military action on the 21st is so obviously more credible than any mere words by such a devious, slithery operator as Putin. After all, he calls the war a "special operation" which tells you everything you need to know about his reliability as the independent, verifiable source Wikipedia relies upon. O'Dea (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The source I cited is Ukrainian, which uses the 24th as the date of the invasion as well, as does the Ukrainian language Wikipedia, and the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Oleksiy Danilov: Я можу сказати, коли 24 лютого о 5 ранку, - хоча насправді вторгнення почалося о 3:40, саме тоді на територію Луганської області зайшла перша колона російських танків - то коли десь з п'ятої до пів на шосту зібралися члени РНБО, у нас вже були заздалегідь заготовлені усі нормативно-правові документи, які ми мали прийняти.1 The only difference between our article and Ukrainian sources is that we say 05:00am, while Ukraine says 03:40am. It just so happens that Putin's speech marks the moment of the invasion. Within minutes of that broadcast, shells starting landing on Ukraine's major cities. The thing Cinderella was trying to draw your attention to was the phrase Russian-controlled areas. That's where the troop movements were on the 21st. Russia and Russian separatists have controlled and occupied parts of Ukraine since 2014: Crimea completely, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts partially. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@O'Dea: Again, what date did Zelenskyy acknowledge his country being invaded? --104.163.138.105 (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't remember the date of Zelenskyy's acknowledgement any more but that, in any case, is a secondary event subsidiary to the actual event itself which began on the 21st. O'Dea (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're not trying to argue. You're trying to push your own opinion through. In that case, we might as well say that the invasion began with Russian "green men" occupying Crimea all the way back on February 28, 2014. There is a worldwide consensus on when exactly the 2022 invasion is thought to have started and this is final, whether you like it or not. Happy new year, --104.163.138.105 (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

We have extensive content about what happened on Feb. 21 -- Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Invasion. We cover the entry of troops on Feb. 21 under "Invasion", and technically it is invasion, as is any crossing of troops from Russia to Ukraine, but since the troops entered already-Russian-controlled territory, and large-scale hostilities hadn't started yet, it wasn't widely reported as the start of the anticipated invasion. —Alalch E. 18:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The territories weren't occupied by Ukrainian forces so it can't really be called the start of the invasion. Although it is considered part of Ukraine but I'm talking about the on the ground reality and not what is internationally recognised. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"naiming"

The first sentence of the third paragraph reads "The invasion began on the morning of 24 February 2022, when Russian president Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" naiming for the "demilitarisation" and "denazification" of Ukraine." I believe "naiming" is supposed to be "aiming" but I'm not certain. I just know that "naiming" isn't a word in English. Emetzold (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone changed it, thanks for pointing it out.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Policy of Infobox RFCs for 2023; A Steps-and-Stairs approach might save editor contribution time in 2023

  Russia

  Ukraine

  Countries sending military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 invasion

  Russia

  Ukraine

  Countries sending any aid, including humanitarian aid, to Ukraine

As was well written by Scottish in the last close of the RFC for the Infobox, there have now been a total of three (3) highly contentious RfCs and ineffective RfCs dealing with the content of the "Supported By" part of the Infobox. These have been quite wasteful of editor contributor time and I'm proposing to try to control that in some way for 2023 by using a Steps-and-Stairs criteria before any further RfCs for the Infobox are allowed in the future. That is, editors interested in making this type of Infobox modification would need to first take the step of being able to successfully add the Infobox for "Supported By" into the Military aid and support subsection of this article as a preliminary requirement; such editors would need to successfully add this step into that subsection before they can climb the stairs to start a new, fourth version of the main Infobox RfC. In other words, I'm suggesting that the 2023 policy for this page's Infobox RFCs needs to take this intermediate step to demonstrate the usefulness of a "Supported By" edit in the Military support subsection before any further main Infobox RfCs are allowed. This might be able to save much editor contribution time which has otherwise been largely wasted on RfCs in 2022. Any agreements/disagreements would be useful to hear as the New Year starts. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

... editors interested in making this type of Infobox modification would need to first take the step of being able to successfully add the Infobox for "Supported By" into the Military support subsection of this article as a preliminary requirement ... [emphasis added] Sorry but this isn't making sense to me. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella157: Thanks for your clarifying italic; I've added the images current in the Military aid and support subsection of the article. It is the content of these two geopolitical graphs which I believe should be converted into Infoboxes to appear in the Military aid subsection before any further RfC about the main Infobox are generated. Only if an editor is successful in creating the Infobox in the subsection with consensus, can a new RfC about the main Infobox changes to "Military support" be allowed. This would be a useful precondition to avoid doing yet another inconclusive RfC about the Infobox which has needlessly used up so much editor contribution time in 2022. Let me know if those graphs are helpful in explaining this situation. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

Change title: “2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine” to “2022-23 Russian Invasion of Ukraine” 2600:4040:ADBF:1400:E55F:B359:3F2F:40FD (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

See move discussion above. Sarrail (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lemonaka (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The word "war"

As Putin has officially referred to the invasion as a "war," should we add info in that situation, as it could be considered an important event during the invasion? QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The invasion is part of the Russia-Ukraine war article, is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly. As in https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/22/putin-war-ukraine-special-operation/ by the Washington Post, Putin refers to the 'special military operation' as a 'war.' Should we add an updated in a section on that announcement? QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

A state of warfare has existed since the first day of the invasion; what is needed to expand upon this? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand if it may be considered irrelevant, but the labeling of the conflict as a war by one of its belligerents could be considered an important milestone, as the term has been publicly acknowledged. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the labelling of the invasion as "war" by Putin is only significant in light of his previous labelling of this invasion as a "special military operation". This potentially reflects a shift in the perception and presentation of this invasion from Putin/Russia's perspective. If so, this addition may fit under the section on "Prelude and declaration of military operations". But I think you would need a few more sources than just the Washingtonpost, to corroborate the belief that there is indeed such a shift in perspective. This article is already lengthy. We don't want to clutter it with recent news, which would run counter to WP:RECENTISM HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Another Russian private military company (besides Wagner) has joined the fighting

See [62] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the implication for this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't think this news piece belongs to this article. Lacks encyclopedic significance (at least as of now), and doesn't have sufficient support in reliable sources. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Transferring weapons to Ukraine violates the law of neutrality

[63] Supplying states don't qualify as co-belligerents. However they violate the law of neutrality, which justifies proportionate countermeasures by Russia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages exist for discussion of their articles only, not for legal or political debate. They are not for discussing whether Russian countermeasures would be justified or proportionate. O'Dea (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right. My point is not whether Russian countermeasure would be justified. The source I shared shows that there's a third option (significant for both international law and international politics) between being neutral and being a co-belligerent, that is, providing military and financial support to one of the parties to the conflict. Since the recent RfC on the infobox was closed with no consensus, I think we should remove Belarus from the infobox. It's contribution to the hostilities is not greater than US and EU's contribution. If the nature and extent of foreign support is too complex an issue to be adequately addressed in the infobox, then let's remove the "Supported by" class altogether. The infobox as it is now is a mockery of NPOV and casts a (IMO undeserved) shadow on the whole article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry; where does the article you provided compare the actions of Belarus to those of Western nations providing equipment? To say that "It's contribution to the hostilities is not greater than US and EU's contribution" would require a source saying that, would it not? The article you've provided doesn't give any indication as to how they view Belarus compared to Western nations supplying equipment. King keudo (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

All of this comes down to sources, any speculations or legal interpretations are original research. And until Ukraine starts launching missiles at Russia from US or NATO territory, no, the situation is not even remotely comparable to Belarus. Volunteer Marek 05:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Western nations have clearly helped Ukraine more than Belarus has helped Russia; this stands specially true after the Russian withdrawal from northern Ukraine. We either include all of the supporters or none. Now, I am aware that Belarus has indeed committed aggression according to international law for letting Russia launch an invasion through its territory. But as Gitz6666 says, the current situation is an insult to NPOV. Western nations, in the context following the new Ukrainian counteroffensives that changed the situation of the conflict, were never excluded from the infobox after a normal and civilised debate, but by one with users launching personal attacks, writing in upper case and not actually addressing the topic in hand. Therefore, I give myself the freedom to reject logic as well and support the exclusion of a country that should be included in the infobox.

Perhaps this will contribute to have, once again, another debate on the supporters within this war, this time one discussing the supporters of both sides and with users with a mature attitude. Although if the Ukrainian counteroffensives did not constitute enough of a breakthrough, it might be necessary to wait for the end of the war before it is restarted. Super Ψ Dro 22:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

So... any reliable sources for this or is it original research? Andre🚐 23:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources for what exactly? Super Ψ Dro 23:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"Support" what?? No specific changes have been proposed that I can see. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It's above in bold. Super Ψ Dro 23:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Please see WP:VOTE. No source has been linked in this discussion that mentions Belarus at all, so I'm having difficulty piecing together what's driving that conclusion. VQuakr (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention Belarus. But Belarus is unique in this conflict as far as I know. Have invasion forces entered Ukraine from any nations other than Belarus and Russia? That's certainly not neutral-country behavior and a far more significant contribution than provision of defensive armaments. VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly not neutral-country behavior. You are right, but the starting point of the discussion was that (according to RS) the US, the EU and the UK are not behaving as neutral countries either. So this we know for sure: none of them are, properly speaking, "neutral". However, Belarus's support is highlighted in the infobox as particularly relevant, although it is not obvious whether it is much more significant from a political, military and legal perspective than the support provided by the US, the UK and the EU. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It is of course obvious that it’s support is much more significant than that provided by the US, UK and EU. At least until missiles start flying from Alaska, London and Brussels towards Moscow and St. Petersburg. Volunteer Marek 05:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe what you meant to say is "At least until Ukrainian missiles start flying from Alaska, London and Brussels...". In fact, if they were US, UK and EU missiles, the situation would not be comparable - the US, UK and EU would be co-belligerents. So we'll have the US, UK and EU in the infobox when the Ukrainian army invades Russia by launching the attack from their borders - right. That resolves my doubt about the existence of a neutrality problem. However, our readers may not understand the subtle similarities and differences, and may not realise the overwheling importance of Belarusian support for the Russian military effort. Therefore I would remove the whole concept of "Supported by" in the infobox. It may be fine for other conflicts, but not for this one. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

At least how I interpreted it, the Belarusian support is notable because Russian troops are entering Ukraine through Belarus—a step-up compared to just supplies (though still not Belarusian soldiers, to be fair). DecafPotato (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Belarus was a co-belligerent for the invasion of Feb 2022, as it hosted Russian invasion forces. NATO and the EU weren't particularly involved at that point. However, it appears that Belarus has been scaling back its involvement (or at least attempting to); AFAICT all actual invading forces are now coming from Russian territory, though missiles are being launched by Russian forces in Belarus. Meanwhile, the West has ramped up its support quite considerably, with massive transfers of weapons as well as advisors, shared intelligence and training of Ukrainian forces e.g. in the UK. Even Switzerland has abandoned neutrality. I believe it's a reasonable question to ask whether the Western support of Ukraine is now comparable to Belarusian support of Russia. However, if we do that, we should also consider Iranian and N.Korean military support of Russia. I suspect Iran's support may be comparable to that of Belarus. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Would rather Iran is added along with Belarus. TylerBurden (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

We ahve an RFC on this. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. And a proposal to remove Belarus from the infobox based on a source that fails to mention Belarus seems dead on arrival. VQuakr (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The RFC has determined there is no consensus to add the US to the infobox right now, I don't think we need a new RFC to say that there's no consensus to remove Belarus. And I question why it's being proposed. Andre🚐 00:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It is easy to answer this last question by Adrevan, "why is it being proposed?". In fact, when I proposed to remove Belarus, I explained the reason: If the nature and extent of foreign support is too complex an issue to be adequately addressed in the infobox, then let's remove the "Supported by" class altogether. The infobox as it is now is a mockery of NPOV and casts a (IMO undeserved) shadow on the whole article.

The infobox is a panel that summarizes key features of the page's subject. As it is now, the infobox says that a key feature of the war is Belarus's support for Russia and, a contrario, it says that support for Ukraine by the US, UK and EU is not noteworthy. Anyone who watches the news knows perfectly well that a key feature of the current war is the massive international support (political, financial and military) for Ukraine's cause. Zelenskyy is always saying this [64]. So anyone who watches the news and reads our infobox might question our good faith and competence. Since we already had two RfCs to decide not to report international support for Ukraine in the infobox, let's at least remove the information on Belarus. Otherwise, it sounds like a warning to the reader: "don't trust this article - either they don't know what they're talking about or they don't want to tell you!". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't you think Zelensky, the leader of Ukraine who is trying to appeal for as much international support as possible, is not an unbiased and reliable secondary source for information? Lukashenko has allowed Belarus to be used as a staging ground[65]. The NATO countries have provided financial aid and armaments. However NATO troops and territory are not formally committed. The support is certainly worthy of note but is complex enough that it should be explained in text and not listed as an item in the infobox. If you think this is also true of Belarus we need some reliable sources, something strangely absent in this discussion. Andre🚐 20:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Also Belarus's support is complex enough that it has to be explained in text and not listed as an item in the infobox. In fact, as you can see, the info on Belarus has a footnote, which contains a relatively long text with three more footnotes. Now, this may occasionally happen in infoboxes but is at odds with the guideline, which states that the purpose of the infobox is to allow readers to identify key facts at a glance. If I'm not mistaken, the only policy-based argument for the two failed RfCs on foreign support was that explaining the nature and extent of foreign support is too complex to be done in the infobox. This may be true and is a strong argument. But I think that the argument also applies perfectly to Belarusian support: four footnotes (three within the first), 52 words and a wikilink to Belarusian involvement in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is simply a poor use of the infobox, and it looks like we are trying to make a point, given the absence of information on the involvement of other countries. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair argument. Andre🚐 16:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As I recall, the main argument there was and remains that Belarus is providing safe conduct for Russian troops who pass through Belarus for the purpose of attacking Ukrainian targets and Ukrainian forces. That's almost the text book definition of what military allies do for their fellow allies. It belongs in the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a distinction between support being "too complex" and support being too extensive. Both forms of support will enjoy long footnotes, but only one of these two scenario constitutes an argument for exclusion from the infobox. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Donetsk still occupied by the Russiand

Is it? 2601:249:4480:AC90:942D:F24A:D08D:7D15 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The city or the oblast? because the city and a big chunk of the oblast are, still, this isnt the place to ask questions about the war. SnoopyBird (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Template talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox#Donetsk and Luhansk PRs (in infobox)

Donetsk and Luhansk PRs

The following discussion has been moved here. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Should the Donetsk and Luhansk PRs be removed from the infobox? Neither one claims to exist anymore. WMSR (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Both still exist within Russia. They were annexed, but they did not cease to exist. Applodion (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk PRs were Russian puppet states formally annexed by Russia. They should be removed from the infobox, otherwise we have to include every subject of Russian Federation --Perohanych (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Applodion @Perohanych @WMSR Here's my opinion on this:

The annexation of the DPR and LPR to the Russian Federation is internationally unrecognized, so in my opinion, we should not treat them as a subject of the Russian Federation, nor should we treat them as separate countries and use the flag icon in the infobox. So what I've done is I've changed the little parenthetical disclaimer in the infobox to say: "34,000 (separatist militias)" in order to reconcile the two situations. PilotSheng (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of international recongition, the facts on the ground are what matters regarding the combatants. Excluding them because they are illegal entities makes no sense; that would be like removing terrorist groups like al-Qaeda from insurgency articles. Whether as separate proto-states, puppet regimes or (now) as republics within Russia, the DPR and LPR have existed and still exist. Both field a very large number of troops involved in this war, and are arguably more significant for the war than Belarus, so they have to be included. Applodion (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Is everyone opposed to the idea of adding the dates into the Infobox for the status before the annexation, and then the status after the annexations? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest something in the magnitude of removing them but adding an inline note which states not only Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, but also Zaporizhzhia and Kherson People's Republics fought on behalf of Russia until their annexation. Without formally writing their names in the belligerent's section as they were considered Russian occupied territories since 2014. Viewsridge (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Fought on which behalf of whom? Was there also warfare against Russia in Mariupol? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

There have never been any Zaporizhzhia People's Republic nor Kherson People's Republic, nor any Russian militias purportedly belonging to anything of the sort.  —Michael Z. 23:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

They were independent for about 24 hours [66] before being annexed by Russia. Viewsridge (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC) Russia also carried out forced mobilization in occupied Kherson and Zaporizhzhia [67] before their annexation. Viewsridge (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither source says any of the following about Zaporizhzhia or Kherson oblasts:

1. “They were actually independent.”
2. “They were called people’s republics.”
3. “They had military or paramilitary organizations of their own.”

 —Michael Z. 22:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

They should be removed. As “states,” they were Russian fronts from the beginning, and never had political autonomy where the war was concerned. Their militias were always commanded by officers of the 8th Combined Arms Army of Russian Land Forces, and they belong in the infobox under “Belligerents” heading even less than do the Kadyrovites, or Wagner Group, or the South Ossetian volunteer battalion, which at least have been under command of politically autonomous Russian agents.

Specifically, the International Criminal Court found (back in 2017?) that the war was already an international conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This year, the Dutch court trying the Flight MH17 mass murder found that the DLNR militias were under overall control of Russia by mid-May 2014 (a legal term meaning that the Kremlin is responsible for all of their war crimes).

They should certainly not have flag icons hanging off of them, as they do not represent recognizable flags of sovereign states, per MOS:ICON. —Michael Z. 23:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing the DPR and the LPR from the infobox is anachronistic. Russia annexing them in September does not retroactively undo their existence prior to that point. Moreover, puppet states are normally represented in infoboxes. Beyond our personal disapproval of Putin's war, I see no reason to censor these two. (For a comparison, consider the following: A month into the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenia announces its unification with Artsakh. Would it then have been correct to remove Artsakh from the infobox, although it would by then have fought for a month under its own flag?) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope. They were never legal or sovereign belligerents. Labelling them as such is contrary to reliable sources.

At best, their forces could be listed alongside other Russian units under “Units involved.”

Don’t talk about other articles, because they may be wrong, or completely different situations. I don’t know, but here we need to determine how to correctly represent this subject in this article.  —Michael Z. 03:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Support Michael's argument, Mikrobølgeovn's argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Viewsridge (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The DPR and LPR are not labelled as 'sovereign belligerents', they are both listed as operating under Russian control. Viewsridge, you're citing an WP:AADD essay that has no relevance to this discussion. The essay you want to cite, but I stress first that citing an essay is not an argument, is WP:OTHERCONTENT. Furthermore, as that essay states: an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Its difficult to assess these republics and their importance to the article; this has been overwhelmingly a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Shouldn't the Infobox reflect the most important and overwhelming realities of the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The way I see it, arguments in favor of censoring the DPR and the LPR amount to their illegality and them being puppet states. The first is irrelevant, the other is not disqualifying in and by itself. If we remove them, we set a problematic precedent. How about we simply stick to the facts on the ground? Even outright colonies are normally listed as belligerents if they contributed forces. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

For me, the question should be why DPR and LPR, as constituent republics of the Russian Federation (according to Russia), should be given more notability than the other constituent republics. Even if we were to suppose that we should only list constituent republics internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, that would mean including the Republic of Crimea as well, which is clearly a belligerent under the standards of the article (Russia invaded Kherson and other Ukrainian areas using Crimea as a staging area). From the international perspective, all three (Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea) are recognized as a part of Ukraine. When DPR and LPR were not yet annexed by Russia, it made some sense to list them separately. But now that they are just part of the Russian Federation, I would say there's no reason to single them out while excluding the Republic of Crimea and other constituent republics. --JasonMacker (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

They hadn't been annexed by Russia when the invasion was launched. Crimea had been. That is the key difference here: For seven months, the DPR and the LPR participated in this invasion under their own flags. Removing them because they were annexed in September is anachronistic. It would have been different if Russia had annexed them before the full-scale invasion. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Because Crimean soldiers were part of the Russian Armed Forces while DPR and LPR forces were not, formally/legally speaking. All this being from the Kremlin's perspective. For several months we had soldiers not formally part of the Russian army fighting Ukraine. In my opinion this is the strongest argument for including the former puppet republics. Though probably another user will be able to word it better. Super Ψ Dro 23:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the suggestion along the lines of that proposed by @ErnestKrause and others is the best way to go. DPR and LPR can be listed as belligerents if they are formally or legally recognized as autonomous states. They should not be listed as belligerents if they are annexed as Russia, as they will be conducting the war as part of Russia, and not as a legally separate belligerent. If DPR and LPR participated in the war at the beginning as formally autonomous states, but got annexed by Russia in the midst of the war, then the most accurate way to reflect their belligerency status in the info box, if at all, is to make the following note in parenthesis in the infobox:

Belligerents

Russia

Donetsk People's Republic (until xx date when it was annexed by Russia)

Luhansk People's Republic (until xx date when it was annexed by Russia)

Does this make sense to all? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm strongly supporting anyone who would like to add that the annexation for each of them took place on 30 September 2022. This is already stated in the footnote there in the Infobox, and its just a matter of refactoring it out of the footnote where it is now, and into the displayed part of the Infobox. The statement is historical accurate and unobjectionable as I read it at this time. I'll fully support any editor who adds this information into the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This information is already included in the two infobox notes, where this is accurately explained in detail. The extra addition of "(until xx date when it was annexed by Russia)" would also be inaccurate, as the DPR and LPR still fight in the war; their armies, though now officially part of the Russian security forces, are still operationally separated from other Russian formations. They are also treated by the Ukrainian government as separate (as the DPR and LPR are terrorist forces per Ukraine, unlike "regular" Russian forces). As I and others said above: Just because they were annexed, does not mean that the DPR and LPR suddenly disappeared. Applodion (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not DPR and LPR still exists, and whether or not they are still fighting in the war, is not the issue, Applodion. The issue is what is DPR and LPR's legal and political status, when they are fighting the war. If they are separate political or legal units on their own, they can be listed as a belligerent. If they are not separate political or legal units, but belong politically and legally to another warring unit (which is Russia), then they cannot be listed as a belligerent. Whether or not they are operationally linked to Russian formations, or operationally separate from Russia formations, during the war, is irrelevant. Now if the Russia's annexation of DPR and LPR is not internationally recognized, such that DPR and LPR still retain independent statehood, or political autonomy, that's a different story. That will be a strong argument to keep DPR and LPR on the list of belligerents, but I'm not sure if that's the argument you are making. One good precedent for the dilemma we are facing now is the infobox at the wiki page on the Second Sino-Japanese War. In that war, Japan annexed a lot of Chinese cities, and created a lot of formally independent governments (but are in fact, political puppets to Japan). For these puppet states, infobox give them a time period (i.e. year start - year end), to denote when they are created and when they are dissolved as an independent political/legal unit during the war. Long story short, the focus is on DPR and LPR's political and legal status, not whether they exists, or whether they are still fighting the war. If there's a change in their political and legal status during the war, that change should be reflected in the infobox. Does that make sense, Applodion? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Just want to take a step back to point out what is really going on here at the end of the day. It's all about narrative control. DPR and LPR is pretty much under Russia's control since at least 2014. Russia wants to create an optics that there's popular support for its cause against Ukraine. Hence, it made DPR and LPR into independent states, with "international recognition" from its band of brothers (Syria and North Korean, etc), voicing support for Russia's cause against Ukraine. Then the war against Ukraine didn't go well, and Russia wants to show some kind of progress to its people and the world, hence its declaration that it had formally annexed DPR and LPR in September 2022. Either DPR and LPR is part of Russia, or it is not. You can't have the cake and eat it. You can't list them as independent political/legal units, to create a semblance of external support for Putin's cause, and then in the same stroke, consider them as part of Russia, to show that Russia's gaining some sort of victory in this war.HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"The issue is what is DPR and LPR's legal and political status" - it's really not. As I said above, the infobox is mostly concerned with who is fighting, not the belligerents' international status - as otherwise we would have to exclude any illegal groups from infoboxes. The argument "Whether or not they are operationally linked to Russian formations, or operationally separate from Russia formations, during the war, is irrelevant" is thus just false; that's literally all what matters. In addition, the infobox currently clearly showcases that the DPR and LPR are subordinate to Russia - regardless of their exact status; any further details are covered in the notes. In addition, the comparison with the Second Sino-Japanese War is weak, as Japan did not annex its puppet regimes; they were integrated into each other. For example, the "Provisional Government" became part of the Reorganized National Government. If we had a similar situation at hand, the LPR and DPR would have merged into a new state instead of joining Russia.
Regarding "Russia wants to create an optics that there's popular support for its cause against Ukraine", this is also irrelevant for this discussion. Look, nobody disputes that Russia tries to portray this war as some kind of weird liberation struggle despite the overwhelming anti-Russian feeling of most Ukrainians. However, the DPR and LPR are not just propaganda pieces - they field tens of thousands of soldiers and are still important participants in this war.
"Either DPR and LPR is part of Russia, or it is not". In reality, confusing quasi-states which exist somewhere between independence and annexation are rather common. The Republic of Artsakh is another example; they are neither fully separate from, nor fully integrated into Armenia. Applodion (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Article scope should be reduced to the invasion

An invasion is a phase of war/conflict. It is the act of entering a region by force. This only occurred in 2022. The conflict is long past that stage. The article content should be limited to that period of time that the Russian were making advances in Ukraine. This has the benefit of reducing the size of this article to conform to WP standards, and it permits a process of maturing the article, without constant expansion with new events and such. I am sure there are aspect of the invasion phase that could be covered better in some way, but with constant extending in scope that is surely neglected. This also obviates the renaming of the article, and leaves a very specific, notable phase documented in its own space. Everything from the start of successful counter attacks and recapture of territory should be moved to a new article for that phase of the war. These pieces should then be connected with the overarching article Russo-Ukrainian War or a similar new one. kbrose (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I've been following this conflict pretty closely since the invasion last year, but I only saw the Russo-Ukrainian War article for the first time today. (Side note, I don't think I've ever seen it called the "Russo-Ukrainian War" anywhere outside of Wikipedia.) If that is indeed the mother article and this the daughter article, it does make sense to limit the scope of this article to the invasion and expand that article with some of the more recent developments covered in this article. And maybe rename the mother article so people can find it when they search for "russia ukraine war. ~Awilley (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think reducing the scope would be a good solution. I agree article size and the number of templates will eventually be a problem. I think it should be managed with the parent-child WP:SUMMARY style editing, removing detail best covered in sub articles and leaving a good summary for the topic with a hatlink to the child article.  // Timothy :: talk  21:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Not sure when the cut off should be though. When the Russians stalled outside Kyiv? The counteroffensives in the south and east by Ukraine? A good example in my mind is War in Donbas (2014–2022) and then Battle of Donbas (2022) with the Invasion being the cutoff.Yeoutie (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

No. There's a new stage of the Russo-Ukrainian War since 24 February 2022. We need a central article to cover all of the events that happened after that day. Breaking the article down into several parts will only complicate things unnecessarily. Besides, Russian forces continued to make small advances in Donbas after the Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive. Particularly around Bakhmut and in Marinka. Where would we include this? Super Ψ Dro 12:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The invasion article here could be shortened somewhat by creating sibling pages for the Phase one of the Invasion and also for the Phase Two of the Invasion; the data in there sections has not changed for several months now. Phase Three on counterattacks and the annexations of the 4 oblasts would be kept in the current article. Is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think what you describe is three phases. There have been changes in focus and operations launched and abandoned, so we can mark some major milestones. But this remains a single invasion because both sides still have the same maximalist goals: conquer Ukraine vs. defeat the invasion. This should remain a main article with unchanged scope, and expanded sections can be broken out in summary style.  —Michael Z. 20:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm against making separate "phase one/two" etc. pages, as it'd inevitably come down to personal interpretation/OR. Jr8825 • Talk 20:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI, the Russian advance on Kyiv stalled March 8, 2022, and the Russians announced their withdrawal March 29.

However, reliable sources still call the operation an invasion and tell us that Putin’s Russia maintains the invasion goals, including occupying the lost and unachieved territories Putin “annexed,” occupying Mykolaiv and Odesa up to the border of Moldova, and conducting regime change. For example:

• “Putin also stated that he thinks Russia is ‘operating in a correct direction,’ indicates that he has not set serious conditions for negotiations and still wishes to pursue his maximalist goals” (December 26).[68]
• “Lavrov questioned whether an ‘acceptable’ politician would emerge under the ‘Kyiv regime,’ apparently restating the Kremlin’s position that Zelensky is not a legitimate political leader or acceptable negotiating partner and recommitting Russia to its maximalist goal to drive regime change in Ukraine” (December 29)[69]

So I believe it’s still an invasion in progress, however poorly it may be going.  —Michael Z. 19:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this page's scope is fine as-is personally; "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a widespread, accurate label for the ongoing fighting. My issue remains Russo-Ukrainian War (I've mentioned this over the year a few times on this page). I think that should be renamed "conflict" and "Russia–Ukraine war" should redirect here, using {{Redirect-distinguish}} at the top of this page so it reads "Russia–Ukraine war redirects here. For the conflict prior to the 2022 invasion, see Russia–Ukraine conflict". Jr8825 • Talk 20:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources and legal decisions tell us that the war (=international conflict) is now nearly nine years old. On top of that, having articles named with the rough synonyms “conflict” and “war” that overlap in scope might be even more confusing than what we have now.  —Michael Z. 00:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• No, the scope of the page is good, and the "invasion" remains a proper name, unless another more common name will appear. It does not matter if Russian forces were making advances or have been finally evicted from Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Russia is still trying to enter places like Bakhmut by force, and even if they weren’t, this would still be the same war, The current scope is fine. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC: infobox under "supported by"

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

Speedy close with noms consent. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the US and EU be added in "supported by" section of the infobox since they are actively training Ukrainian troops under official programs? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm only making an RfC out of this since the issue seems to have attracted prior controversy. If this was any other page I'd just be bold and do it.

It seems like common sense. We already have an article devoted to the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, did you read the very first section on this talk page - the one that is in purple so that it stands out? Given that an RfC on much the same subject was closed just a week ago and given the comments by the closer, opening yet another RfC on this subject might be seen as disruptive. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you want to close it, that's fine by me. I'm completely new to RfC and stuff (I mostly do late-night shortdesc/typo binges on articles nobody wants to read) and I assumed it was better than making a bold edit and getting reverted or worse.

Honestly? I didn't read that section until you pointed it out. I came to this page in the middle, from a link to the RM, and it looks just like any other colored template with a blue light filter. I did, however see the somewhat confusing section immediately above the RM, which got me thinking about "supported by".

Now that I've read it, as well as the linked RfC and the other talk page section about "steps and stairs", which isn't making sense to me either...

So yeah, if you think it's likely to stir up a potential hornets' nest, sure, close it if you want. RfC probably isn't appropriate in retrospect; it was a bit of a noob move.

Although, my proposal is more constrained and specific than the previous one. And it seems to be consistent with other articles. My two cents is that the best solution to all the controversy is to treat it like the 1422 Ruritanian invasion of Graustark. And the WP:NODEADLINE obiter dictum seems like a flawed argument as you could just as easily say WP:NOW. So in principle, I'd rather the issue of "supported by" be ironed out for however long it takes to do so, if it can be done civilly.

But yeah, if I did in fact walk blindly into the hottest sector of the entire bloody article, I'd rather let the infobox be someone else's problem. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, I thought you might not have seen the history. Cheers Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2023 (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.

Truce

There is a true right now. news Hgh1985 (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there this [[70]] says its been rejected. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, it's a one-sided (Russia won't be engaging ; Ukraine may or may not) ceasefire that expires the day after Orthodox Christmas (which is on January 7th). I'm dubious on it being significant. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I doubt either side will be following the truce Galebazz (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ther is that as well, declaring a ceasefire and actually carrying it out are not the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Considering the consensus of this conversation I suggest that there be a section for this titled like "2023 Russian truce attempt" after the planned truce occurs (or not) because it's a notable event nevertheless. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 12:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't favour an entire section. There might be a sentence which could go under 'Peace Efforts' but that's not a great heading either as it is only a 36 hour ceasefire being proposed. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-blames-its-soldiers-mobile-phone-use-deadly-missile-strike-2023-01-03/ Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd wait to see if anything actually occurs, then assess if it's notable enough to include. So far it seems like an information operation by Russia which they never really thought would be accepted, and are just doing to make Ukraine look unreasonable. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The "truce" is not really notable, although it should get one line in the timeline article. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The NOS stated 39 Russian attacks in 7 Oblasts took place on Friday. These would all be violations of the unilaterally declared truce. Nobody really believes in it. Like HappyWith said, it seems no more than a Russian attempt to make Ukraine look unreasonable. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Nederlandse here. Volunteer Marek 23:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, someone went and created the article anyway [71] Volunteer Marek 10:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The main point of disagreement was whether to continue using the single year 2022 or to use a range. This largely depended on how editors interpreted "invasion". Some arguments in favor of a move away from "2022" to a range were that the invasion is still ongoing, or at least that the fighting is ongoing and that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is often used for the war even if the initial invasion is over. Some arguments against a move were that 2022 means when the invasion started even if the invasion is ongoing, or that invasion means the initial offensive(s) even if the article also includes resulting events, or that additional detail in the title is unnecessary. Participants also discussed examples of other wars and invasions as arguments for consistency or at least precedent. Overall, the discussion did not produce a consensus.

The support side included the original proposal of 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine and XTheBedrockX's proposal Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). Between these two, there was a general preference in favor of the "present" option, for being less likely to need repeated updating, and for not implying that it ended in 2023 already or will necessarily end later in 2023. Some editors also considered putting the years at the end to interact better with search.

Other options were raised, but attracted relatively less attention in this particular discussion. These options included Russian invasion of Ukraine (the subject of a recent RM before this), or a reorganization of content to make the "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article focus on the initial invasion and to split or merge content about later parts of the war to some other location (also discussed below in #Article scope should be reduced to the invasion). Thanks to all participants in this well-attended RM for the civil discussion. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

---

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine – It is now 2023 in Ukraine. The invasion is still ongoing, so this page should be moved to a descriptive title that reflects the new timespan. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Speedy move. Later, we can discuss if "invasion" is the right noun. But the year is obvious. I'd have just moved this. Red Slash 23:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  While the prior discussion was closed for procedural reasons, it received near-unanimous opposition. I don't think speed is appropriate here at all, and honestly would have advised against opening this discussion in the first place, not out of any personal preference for a given outcome, but simply on the basis that such a proposal seems unlikely to gain consensus at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support As per the reasons given by the proposer. Compusolus (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Meh. The title "2022..." can reasonably be interpreted to mean "invasion starting in 2022" regardless of whether it is ongoing or not. As such, the proposed target seems unnecessarily less concise. But it's hard for me to drum up much of a strong opinion on it if everyone else thinks adding the "-2023" is important. VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per the reasons given by the proposer. Support XTheBedRockX's idea As it gets rid of the issues with constantly updating the title every year and is consistent with articles like War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). BlueShirtz (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for now per VQuakr. I mean, if the invasion keeps going on, we can't change the year every year... stay at just 2022 for now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Why can't we change the year every year? ~Awilley (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per the reasons given by the proposer Support User:XTheBedrockX's title to move the duration to the end of the article in parentheses. --Pithon314 (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC), edited 2 January 2023
• Speedy Move just do it. Great Mercian (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. War articles on wikipedia tend to have the years on the title. I don't see why this one shouldnt. But the war could go on to 2024.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It's the War of 1812, not the War of 1812-1815. And the alternate universe thinking here with the titles broken to begin with. History is going to remember the "Russo-Ukrainian War" as starting in February 2022, 2014 being a lead up. Ironmatic1 (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  User:Luxtaythe2nd mentioned below that the War of 1812 is the common name for that war which already existed in the referenced sources. This article title doesn't originate that way, it has 2022 to specify when this event occurred. So leaving it as just 2022 makes it sound as if the invasion has ended. There are example of wars that have their titles with the whole year range too such as Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) and Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) which would both support User:XTheBedrockX's alternative title suggestion. --Pithon314 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose It is the 2022 invasion. They invaded in 2022, not in 2023, which has barely begun, but during which it will be war. At least one ought to wait until the end of the entire conflict before deciding this. kbrose (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  To do that would be to wait until the middle of 2025, by then someone would've already moved it. why are we even having this debate? we should've moved this the second UTC hit 2023. Great Mercian (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• support, however may need an WP:RFC to discuss all related articles. Lemonaka (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support a move, but to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) instead, if only because the “Russia” part is probably what most people search for rather than the “2022” part XTheBedrockX (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  This probably makes more sense than my original proposal, and like others have said, it's consistent with articles like War in Afghanistan (2001–present). I'm behind this too. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per VQuakr and Ironmatic1. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per others, this is both unnecessary and inaccurate It is the 2022 invasion. They invaded in 2022, not in 2023, … during which it will be war.. Suggestion creates a cumbersome title which is less rather than more precise. Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I would rather we just create a new page for 2023, so as to not have a huge 10000000 line article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn't make sense—the invasion is ongoing; there aren't two separate invasions in 2022 and 2023. Compusolus (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes it does, as this is a phase in the wider war. So we split up the phases, the actual Russian invasion, and now the more bogged-down continuation phase. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  I understand your reasoning, but it's going to look very strange to have a '2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine' article. Such an article would imply an interlude between two different actions, which isn't the case. The invasion has been bogged down since the first few weeks, such that most of this article already is 'the continuation phase'. Indeed, the article is divided into three phases: opening/Russian advance (February-April) ; invasion stalled (April-September) ; Ukraine counter-attacks (September-present). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  In the same was as we have ww2 Normandy landings American airborne landings in Normandy Mission Chicago (all part of the same campaign/war). We break down large subjects into smaller bites to make them easier to navigate (as indeed we had to with the timeline article about this invasion). Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  The issue I am pointing out is not that child articles do not exist. It is that '2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine' is a false title because Russia did not invade Ukraine in 2023, which the title implies. If you have an appropriate title, feel free to propose creating a new article. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  And the issue I am poi9itng out is that this article is a child of Russo-Ukrainian War, it is not a new war, and we should not be implying it is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Since the invasion is still ongoing. Super Ψ Dro 12:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support, As the invasion still ongoing. Cactinites (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the norm like [[War of 1812] ]Moxy- 15:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  "War of 1812" is a name that was widely used before Wikipedia made an article about it. "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a name invented by Wikipedia to be explicitly descriptive and adding a "–2023" wouldn't break some sort of ancient tradition of war naming. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 17:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Google Scholar Moxy- 22:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  And? 8/10 sources on page 1 do not use the name '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine' – more common is 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' – and the 2/10 that do both post-date the Wikipedia article (as does practically every paper published since the article was created hours after the invasion began). Same story on page 2-5. Indeed, using quotation marks around the title cuts down the number of hits from 32,000 to... 1,500.[72] It's a tiny minority that use the same title that we do. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support, significant fighting has continued into 2023. Support XTheBedRockX's idea Definitely a better idea to just do "2022–present" in order to not change the title every single year. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 17:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The arguement from the standpoint of the name of the War of 1812 is fairly compelling. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  The War of 1812 has a common name, and it is titled that way. As far as I know, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine does not. The first is a proper name and the second is descriptive. They're not comparable. This stance would imply that 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is a proper name. WP:OR. Super Ψ Dro 12:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments already given. Invasion began in 2022. Walrasiad (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Use XTheBedrockX's idea Originally, I was completely on board with a move, but the invasion occurred in February and March 2022, and is, in fact, being repelled, as we enter 2023. XTheBedrockX's idea was for Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), which I think is a very good idea: we don't have to repeat this discussion on one of our most-viewed pages every year, and it does not mislead as much as 2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was suggested above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  If we move to the original proposed name and the invasion is still ongoing in 2024 (I pray it won't), changing it from 2022–2023 to 2022–2024 will not be controversial and so there will not have to be an annual discussion. --Pithon314 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the 2022 refers to when it began and not the duration (also if we make it 2022-23 it will look like it's already over) LICA98 (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per many above the 2022 refers to when it began and not the duration (also if we make it 2022-23 it will look like it's already over).  // Timothy :: talk  20:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose 2022 refers to the event which can continue into another year. Can revisit in the future. Andre🚐 21:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with above. The 'invasion' happened last year. The war is now happening that continues into 2023. We'll have to figure out when to stop the coverage of this article and the solution isn't to extend into the new year.Yeoutie (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the reasons already given. Let the name change once it ends and we can figure out how RS' are calling it.LordLoko (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per example of War of 1812, which officially ended upon Congressional ratification of Ghent treaty in 1815. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support XTheBedrockX's proposal, that is, Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). As others have pointed out, "War of 1812" was an accepted title long before Wikipedia came about, and therefore the WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, with no definitely established name, our priority should be instant ease of recognisability and clarity. This article is about the ongoing war that started in 2022, so in my opinion it makes sense for the title to make it clear the scope goes beyond 2022, as we usually do with current events spanning multiple years. While I understand the argument of those who think the current title is fine (2022 being when the invasion occurred), I agree with those who think this could potentially cause confusion for readers, as this article covers ongoing fighting. "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a widely used name for the current war, not just the initial invasion. Adding the date range at the end makes it obvious the article is about the war up to now, and that the invasion started in 2022. We can always change it again later if a better title develops. Jr8825 • Talk 04:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Additionally, I think it's worth again bringing up the unclear distinction between the scope of this article and Russo-Ukrainian War, as it relates to the issues we're hitting here. The "Russo-Ukrainian War" article is about the conflict/hostility between Ukraine and Russia since 2014, including and beyond the War in Donbas. The invasion article (this one) is currently set out so as to be about the escalation of the conflict between Russian and Ukraine into all-out war since 2022. This is indicated by the {{about}} template at the top of Russo-Ukrainian War, the fact that the date in the infobox is "to present", and the article structure following developments in the fighting up to now (beyond the initial invasion). One possibility is to rename the article "Russo-Ukrainian War" to "conflict", and have "War" redirect here instead, as many news sources refer to the current fighting interchangeably as "Russian invasion of Ukraine" / "Russia–Ukraine war". There was previously resistance to this suggestion as a number of pre-2022 academic sources referred to the (Donbas) fighting as the "Russo-Ukrainian War", but I personally think events have moved on. An alternative option is to move a summary of the fighting since the summer over to "Russo-Ukrainian War", and have that article become the main article for the ongoing war (narrowing this article's scope to the initial invasion), although that would require quite a lot more work to both pages and consensus for major change. Jr8825 • Talk 04:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support XTheBedrockX's idea of Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). We've taken this approach elsewhere, e.g. War in Afghanistan (2001–present) or Iraqi Civil War (2014–present), which now redirect to War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and War in Iraq (2013–2017) now that those conflicts are deemed over. I concur with the idea that "War of 1812" is well-established as the WP:COMMONNAME, which is not yet the case with this ongoing conflict. I also agree with Jr8825 that we ultimately need to address the scope of this article vs Russo-Ukrainian War and what title should apply to what level of coverage. ECTran71 (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support for XTheBedrockX: Renaming the article to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) is a far better idea. It eliminates the whole issue of the dates (since it is an ongoing conflict, as was the case with War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), which had the date span filled out following the Western coalition's withdrawal in August 2021). Also, considering that it is an ongoing conflict and a globally well-known one at that, it just makes sense to keep the title itself simpler (i.e., Russian invasion of Ukraine), since the overwhelming majority of searches are going to be related to the ongoing invasion and not any previous conflicts between the two nations. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support XTheBedrockX's idea of Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present) - The WP:COMMONNAME of this subject is undoubtedly 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' by a factor of ~10:1 (according to both Google Scholar and Search, and that is with filtering out leakage from the 2014 invasion). The year is present in the title only to disambiguate against that invasion. ECTran71 raises several precedents that support a change of title. The argument from 'War of 1812' is misplaced as that is a proper name for the war (akin to Second World War or Vietnam War) whereas '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine' is not. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support for "XTheBedrockX"'s idea of Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present). Compusolus (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support for XTheBedrockX: Renaming the article to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) per above. Ythlev (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support for the same change to “Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022 - present)”. Whilst I understand the argument that the initial invasion was in early 2022, the article does not simply cover the days of the invasion (there are separate articles that do). Instead it covers the invasion and subsequent war. A more accurate but excessively lengthy title would be “Russian invasion in Ukraine and subsequent war in Ukraine (2022 - present)” but I feel this is unnecessary long and descriptive. Regardless, given the article covers events occurring in 2022 and subsequent periods the title should make it clear that it not solely an article on events in 2022. For the reasons given above I’m not convinced by the “War of 1812” as this is a proper name, would be no different than having to call something the “x years war” as there is a war named “The Hundred Years War” Tracland (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Tracland (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• I mean if the conflict is still happening in 2023, then it should be renamed as such. Quake1234 (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• The year to this article was always kept because "Russian invasion of Ukraine" was considered ambiguous. See List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine. "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)" is going to cause precisely this problem on other articles. I ask what would we do with for example Women in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do we rename it to Women in the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Which Russian invasion does it refer to? What do we do with Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Which Russian invasion, the 1918 one, the 1941 one, an earlier one? Or do you propose Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)? Super Ψ Dro 12:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  The purpose of this discussion is this article. Whilst I appreciate there is crossover to other subsidiary articles that shouldn’t impact the appropriateness of the name of this article.
  On the prelude point, I don’t really understand your point. This clearly doesn’t need to be changed ‘prelude to the 2022’ clearly shows that it’s events occurring prior to a date in 2022 so the time period for this article is clear from its title.
  If the article for Women in the… covers multiple years then I agree with updating it. Tracland (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough on the prelude point. Super Ψ Dro 13:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - other Per the rational that follows, I would support in order: Russian invasion of Ukraine (per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURAL, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TITLEDAB), Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) (unnecessary disambiguation and less concise), then Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present) (unnecessary disambiguation, less concise, unnecessarily precise).
  As Mr rnddude evidences, The WP:COMMONNAME of this subject is undoubtedly 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' by a factor of ~10:1 ... This is also the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. At the recent RM, it was argued that there were other invasions but beyond that, there was nothing in the way of evidence and little (virtually no) reference to WP:P&G. IMHO (and quoting from WP:NHC, most arguments offered were irrelevant and flatly contradict established policy - specifically WP:TITLEDAB at WP:AT (a policy), to which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (a guideline) specifically defers. WP:TITLEDAB states: ... [a] title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. The policy is based on there being an actual and not a perceived or potential conflict in article titles. There is no actual conflict between Russian invasion of Ukraine and any other Russian invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore, we are specifically told to use only as much additional detail as necessary. Because there is no actual conflict in titles, preceding with year in the title (eg 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) flatly contradict[s] established policy. Looking at the two other events listed under the Russo-Ukrainian War and the long term results from before the 2022 invasion: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has about 2,000 page views per day;[73] and, War in Donbas has about 2,500.[74] WP:RECENTISM was raised during the RM (in that the recent [2022] invasion is overshadowing earlier events). After a year, average daily page views at this article are tending to flatten at somewhere between 40,000-50,000. At an order of magnitude greater than the sum of the other two relatively recent events. That is a lot of recentism to overcome. Of the invasions/occupations listed at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine immediately post the Russian revolution, average daily page views are less than 40 (and typically much less). The existence of other invasions does not preclude one from being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - that is intrinsically the point of the guidance therein. Simple citing WP:RECENTISM does not ipso facto preclude a recent event from being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Given the magnitude of global reaction and of direct global ramifications (particularly economic) that demonstratively far exceed the other events (even if this is a somewhat qualitative metric), I submit it would be difficult to argue that this invasion, as the primary topic, will not survive the WP:10YT.
  A year modifier ahead of a key phrase may be natural but is a poor title wrt WPs quick search function, which searches from the head of the search term - ie 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is a poor title for this reason.
  Re HelpingWorld, many war articles don't actually have years in the title! VQuakr observers, The title "2022..." can reasonably be interpreted to mean "invasion starting in 2022" ... Ironmatic1 observes, It's the War of 1812, not the War of 1812-1815. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 is commonly referred to in sources by only the start year (see searches [75][76][77]). While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (eg War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and War in Iraq (2013–2017)), WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS only supports such a format if this represents best practice IAW WP:P&G. But year ranges appears to be a Wikiism contrary to common usage in sources and WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  If we can support “Russian Invasion of Ukraine” as primary topic then I think that’s best. If not and it needs disambiguation then I don’t like starting with “2022” as that’s clearly not the main search term or use. I’d prefer if using date in bracket as a disambiguation that it covers the period of time covered by the article (“2022 - present”). I don’t agree that this is being unnecessarily precise (unlike my previous comment which I thought was to precise), but gives the information needed and only that information. Tracland (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Since I've been mentioned - not pinged, just mentioned - there is something you state here that I do agree with. We don't actually require the date in the title. This is simply because not a single other invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union, or the Tsardom of Russia is known by the name 'Russian invasion of Ukraine'. Indeed, the 1918 invasion that Super Dro mentioned above goes by the rather convoluted name of Group of forces in battle with the counterrevolution in the South of Russia. Typical of the Soviet's style. There is not a physical disambiguation required. Usually, if there are years, it's because an event has happened before, e.g.: Battle of Antioch (218) versus Battle of Antioch (145 BC) versus Battle of Antioch (1097) (and even 1098) for one that has a collection of disambiguating dates. It is editor desire to have the date so as to ensure the reader is aware that this is not the first time that 'Russia' has invaded Ukraine. Most relevantly to us, 2014 annexation of Crimea.

  Other than that, I caution that you have mixed WP:OTHERSTUFF (an AfD related essay) for WP:OTHERCONTENT (same premise, but regarding article content). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Once the war ends, the recentism argument will appear less appropriate. I think it is also easier (in lack of a better word) to say a war that is not ongoing anymore has a common name. A move to Russian invasion of Ukraine might be worth visiting after the end of the war. I personally might vote support then. Super Ψ Dro 13:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  At the current rate, the war will never end. Great Mercian (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• As in the RM closed a day before this one opened, Oppose per O'Dea, and per others in this new one above. The invasion happened in 2022, and there is no issue with the article also discussing the resulting war. There may be a better title, but it is not the one proposed. CMD (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and Russian troops are still within Ukraine. Therefore, this escalated stage of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the invasion that started on 24 February 2022, is still taking place. Russia is still invading Ukraine in 2023. I understand this interpretation but I don't think it's the only true one. Can an objective argument be made when other editors may intepret this differently? Super Ψ Dro 13:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's not how the word invasion is generally used. See for example 2003 invasion of Iraq. CMD (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure this is a fair comparison given the invasion in this case started and finished in 2003. Yes, there remained an occupying force afterwards but the invasion element had started and finished in 2003. In contrast Russia’s invasion is ongoing as they’ve neither captured Ukraine or fully retreated by 31 Dec 22 and are still attempting to invade. Tracland (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not following this attempted distinction. Russia is still there, the US was still there. Invasions don't have to result in the subjugation or an entire country or a full retreat. CMD (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  To add on to your point, I think @Super Dromaeosaurus is confusing the 2003 invasion of Iraq with the Iraq War. The latter covers the entire extent of military operations in Iraq from the initial invasion to the withdrawal of troops in 2011. The former just describes the aforementioned initial invasion. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not even mention Iraq in my comments. Super Ψ Dro 12:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• For Russia, this is moving into the direction of the permanent annexation of the 4 oblasts, with Putin taking the position that any peace talks must keep the question of the permanent annexation of the 4 oblasts as being off the table. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Dictionary primary definition of invasion:The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. You can't enter anything interminably, once you are inside (the foreign territory) you HAVE entered, whether you have successfully conquered/subjugated/annexed or not. As others say, invasion is being confused with conquest or war.Pincrete (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I know this isn't much helpful but I just wanted to note how, while this should be only a superficial change and shouldn't be hard to decide what to do, the problem with articles like this one, is that they are about things very recent and for obvious reasons we can't know how it will be known in future, even a near one. To make myself clear, what I mean is that we can't possibly known if this war will be known as the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or the 2022-2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine or even something else entirely. I mean, who knows, maybe in a couple years this war will actually be known and called something like "East European Post-Soviet war" (I know it's a very improbable name, but it's just to show the problem). And because of this we can't actually know for now certainly how it will be actually known in history until some time passes, maybe even a little, but enough that an actual clear name is used commonly. It's true that the War of 1812 just uses the first year, but we can use it certainly because we now know that it's this the common name and not something like American-British North American war or the Great North American war or whatever for example and indeed we can't be sure that this war will be called this way with time, I mean, by using years or even the names of the different sides and Countries and so indeed something else entirely indeed; like for example the First Punic War isn't called something like 264 BC Roman invasion of Carthage neither the 264 BC-241 BC Roman invasion of Carthage. Now, again, I know this doesn't help much, but considering this, I'd only suggest what it's normal used on Wikipedia in such cases and so following the usual procedure and normal precedent for such cases, whatever it is, to change the title to cover all the years, or not, and then wait until a clear name will come out. Only, I don't know what's normally done in such cases. 84.220.201.133 (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Striking comment by non-ECP user. Not deleting because it was replied to. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think the answer here is that if the common name subsequently changes then we change the article name at that time. We don’t have a crystal ball.
  The question is what is the most appropriate name for the article as at the current date, based on the common name currently being used. Tracland (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support – as it's 2023 and the invasion is still ongoing, the name makes sense. HOWEVER, I think Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) could also work, as the other may imply that the invasion ends this year. DecafPotato (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support for XTheBedrockX: per many other articles (e.g, War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), War in Donbas (2014–2022), War in Iraq (2013–2017)) Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it should be renamed to Russian invasion of Ukraine (currently a redirect to this page). My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support move to “Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-2023)” or “Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present)”. Invasions can last multiple years, and article titles about invasions tend to reflect this. See for example Swedish invasion of Brandenburg (1674–75), Philippines campaign (1941–1942), or Philippines campaign (1944–1945). --Katangais (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Although the article is titled Swedish invasion of Brandenburg (1674–75), within the article text makes the distinction between invading (forcibly entering territory) and occupying (holding conquered territory). Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion is in chaos and no longer has any value other than a timesink. It should be closed because as it stands nothing productive can come from it continuing.  // Timothy :: talk  11:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. The invasion started in 2022, and that is all that is needed in the title for disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom similar title with 2022–2023 Peruvian political protests - Jjpachano (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Neither Title Works Best

I don't think there's a solution on how to define the various events since 2014 which would satisfy everybody. It is true that at no point between 2014 and 2022 did hostilities cease along the Donbass frontline for more than a few days, and annual deaths never dropped below several hundred, so it would be silly to consider the Donbass conflict up to February 2022 as anything besides a singular war. However, the enormous intensification that began on February 24th has fundamentally altered the manner and locations in which the war has been fought, crimes against humanity far more numerous and killing or injuring far more people, the economic and societal effects of the conflict for Ukrainians and Russians, and in its effects on global diplomacy and geopolitics. With all of that in mind, it is not unreasonable to say that February 2022 marks the beginning of a war distinct from the intense violence of 2014-2015 and the intermediate 7 years of occasional skirmishes or artillery strikes.

The way I see it, several changes should be made, but changing the title to either "2022-23 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" or "Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022-present)" is a highly counterproductive one. At present the article is far too cluttered and far too long, and its title is highly misleading as to its actual contents. Nobody considers the Battles of Ypres to be part of the 'German Invasion of Belgium in WW1', or the Battle of Fallujah to be part of the 'Coalition Invasion of Iraq'. 'Invasion' is almost universally a term reserved for the initial offensive made by the aggressor at war's outbreak, not a war as a whole. So the article concerning all events that happened after February 24th 2022 ought not include 'invasion' in the title.

The current article name must be limited in scope to cover events up to April 7th, and the ramifications thereof. Its other contents should be split off into new articles or integrated into already existing articles as appropriate. The 'Russo-Ukrainian War' page, not the '2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine' page, ought to serve as the central article which encompasses the whole conflict. If we believe there needs to be a single page covering all events since February 24th, it may be titled "Russo-Ukrainian War since the 2022 Russian invasion"

Thereppy (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support a rename to any suitable title that reflects that the invasion continued into 2023. Zcbeaton (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Cinderella157 pretty much said it all. The current title is not ideal, but is preferred to the proposed change. Historians will give a name to this war, but until then, WP:CRITERIA governs. The proposed title is not concise (adding a year range is not necessary for people to identify this article), nor consistent (with other naming conventions), natural or recognizable. What if the war continues till 2024, 2025, or 2026? Do we have to change the title every year? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Noted on your first point.

  On the second, I think (ignoring for now the title of this change thread) the general view from the comments is that, if there is to be a change to cover a range, then “2022 - present” is generally preferred to “2022-23”. Though this is only my view from a brief scan of the comments above and, of course, there is also the option of no change being made. Tracland (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point, Tracland. I'm thinking that if we follow this line of reasoning, we will still have to rename the title at one point. Because there will come a point where the war ends, and then 2022 - present will have to be changed to 2022 - 20xx. As per WP:Recentism, there should be "an aim toward a long-term, historical view". A name along the lines of 2022-present feels more like a journal entry, than an encyclopedia. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  True enough. The more I read this thread the more I’m not sure there is an answer. I don’t think the current name is correct, I certainly don’t like it starting with “2022”, but all the alternatives proposed also have flaws. A “- present” does have certain precedent - for example “Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)” and “Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present)” but is ultimately not the ideal solution for the reasons you rightly raise. Tracland (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  If one considers actual evidence and what the pertinent WP:P&G actually says, what is wrong with Russian invasion of Ukraine? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  There are about eight Russian invasions of Ukraine listed at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine, and the redirect with that title is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Russian invasion of Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 01:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, if this can be supported as the primary use of this title then I think “Russian invasion of Ukraine” is the natural title as it’s the common name used in most sources. My understanding was that previous consensus had been reached to disambiguate from other Russian invasions of Ukraine and hence the inclusion of the date. Tracland (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I can see there is a separate discussion on this from the previous comment above. Maybe something will come from that but probably needs to be agreed there first. Tracland (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Mzajac, as Mr rnddude states: We don't actually require the date in the title. This is simply because not a single other invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union, or the Tsardom of Russia is known by the name 'Russian invasion of Ukraine'. Arguments that other Russian invasions necessitate additional precision flatly contradict established policy (per WP:TITLEDAB, part of a policy document). Cinderella157 (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Cheers, Tracland. Agree with Cinderella157. It is not as if there are numerous "Russian invasion of Ukraine" titles such that we need a precise [yy to yy] marking on this title to distinguish it from others. As Tracland rightly point out, it's difficult to pinpoint an ideal title for this historic event right now, because the event itself is undergoing changes and flux. Many have raised that what has started as an invasion is turning, or has already turned into a war. The dust has yet to settle. My take is that until the dust settles, we try to minimize changes to the title, unless there is a clear compelling alternative, which at this moment, there is not. Fair? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Well it depends on consensus, doesn’t it. We agree on a lot of things that “we don’t actually require.” Russian invasion of Ukraine is not a formal title but a descriptive name, which can be applied to a number of events, and good sense could lead us to not make it the primary name for only one of them.  —Michael Z. 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Michael Z, I'm not actually proposing to change title of this article to "Russian invasion of Ukraine". I'm proposing to maintain the status quo, i.e to maintain the current title name - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which title already has a date. Unless a more compelling alternative arises, which can be justified by WP:P&G and WP:Criteria. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think we have a potential issue with Naturalness and Consistency. The Natural title is “Russian Invasion of Ukraine” as this is the common name used in most sources (without the 2022) and is therefore the most likely search criteria (I believe someone posted a stat above). If a date is required for disambiguation purposes (which is itself debatable based on the above thread) then for Consistency, the general presentation of articles disambiguated by date is for the date to be in brackets at the end of the title (not as the first word of the search unless the most natural search would be by date (e.g. a sports season or an election, being events with regular patterns of recurrence)) Tracland (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support for XTheBedrockX's proposal: Renaming the article to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) seems more reasonable per the above. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. As @Thereppy: and several others pointed out, the current Russian invasion of Ukraine consists of the initial large-scale offensives by the attacking side. While the war—or the current phase of the war—has continued, it isn't convention to include dates other than the year in which the invasion began in WP titles. Lightspecs (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I’d fully agree if the articles coverage was only the initial large-scale offensives. But the article coverage includes the subsequent phase of the war. There’s a separate discussion below on splitting the article such that it only covers the initial large-scale offensives. If, following that discussions, it’s agreed to split such that this article only covers the initial large-scale invasion then I’d agree that the existing title is appropriate. Tracland (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Tracland, I think splitting along the lines you proposed is something we have to do sooner or later. Until then, finding an appropriate title is perhaps impossible. I'm afraid there's no word in the English language that can appropriately describe an invasion and a war at the same time. If you name this event as an invasion, you fail to capture its later evolution into a war. If you name this event as a war, you fail to capture its initial nature of being an invasion. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree entirely that there’s no suitable word (at least that I know of) to describe invasion followed by war. I’m not necessarily adverse to splitting the article, but this would need to be a separate discussion (one I believe has been started below and which I’ve not really considered the arguments for in detail). Tracland (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Strong Support It's 2023 already and the war is continuing. We should rename the title. We're eight days late! Taiwanexplorer36051 (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem may be this is not a new war, the war started in 2014, and this is the article covering it Russo-Ukrainian War. If anything this is an evolution, with Russia entering an already ongoing war officially (rather than unofficially). Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support renaming to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), per XTheBedrockX and other supporters of this alternative. This is a more accurate title which does not restrict the invasion to 2022, and shows that the invasion is still ongoing. It also makes for more natural searching. 1857a (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support XTheBedrockX's idea as it gets rid of the annoying chore to constantly change the title of the article as the war drags on. I suppose we could do the same for the Mahsa Amini and Peruvian protests, but I say to wait it out on those. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 01:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the renaming, as per War in Afghanistan (2001-2021), the second year refers to the end date. For formatting dates, it is explained in MOS:YEARRANGE. In this case, if the renaming were to occur, the end year of the invasion would be 2023. Due to this, I also Support XTheBedrockX's idea We do not know when the war will end, and we cannot make predictions based off guesses, as in WP:CRYSTALBALL. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support XTheBedrockX's idea as 2023 is not necessarily the end date. PhilKnight (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support XTheBedrockX's idea. —Legoless (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support XTheBedrockX's idea Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support XTheBedrockX's open ended "Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022-present)" title Galebazz (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we conduct a poll as to how many people are in favor or in opposition to the idea, or are in favor of the alternative, which is XTheBedrockX's idea. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No. WP:VOTE. Discussions are decided on the basis of the merits of arguments, not by majority vote. Policies and guidelines should inform our conclusion, not the sheer number of opinions (in complete disregard of their merits) in favour of a particular option. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree (No). WP:VOTE. Nederlandse Leeuw, I also agree that the article title should conform with applicable WP:P&G. How then, do we reconcile that the year in the present title is clearly contrary to WP:TITLEDAB (part of a policy document) - ... [a] title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed a vote is not the basis for establishing consensus in Wikipedia. Tracland (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: '2022' indicates when the current large-scale invasion began, not for how long it lasted, thus 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an enduring title that will always remain correct. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw:, the question was whether WP policy permits adding '2022' or not? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'adding'? '2022' has been in the title ever since start of this article, it wasn't 'added' later. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding "2022" to the root phrase "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Does policy permit this in this case? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The 15 December 2022 move request was already decided against any of the proposed alternatives. Nothing has changed. '2022' indicates when the current large-scale invasion began, not for how long it lasted, thus 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an enduring title that will always remain correct. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  The 15 December 2022 was a discussion as to whether to move to “Russian Invasion of Ukraine” and was closed as don’t move. From a quick flick though I can’t see that conversation actually reached a consensus on other proposals.

  Is one of the issues that “Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022 - present)” has never actually been formally proposed as a name change. From a read of the above it appears this is the title that is most likely to get support if consensus is reached for a change. The topic of this discussion is not that specific title. Does it need to be brought up as a separate proposal or can it be discussed in the round in this conversation (noting the actual title of this conversation would appear, on the whole, to have been opposed as an inappropriate title).

  Genuine question as I’m not sure what the policy on these things are. Tracland (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Both the current proposal and XTheBedrockX's alternative have been explicitly discussed and rejected just a week before the current move was requested. To quote myself:

  "A. The most important point is that the current name 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is actually fine. '2022' indicates when the current invasion began, thereby neatly distinguishing it from the far more limited military operations in Crimea and Donbas since 2014 (which technically are/were also "invasions"). Even if the current invasion doesn't end before 2022 is over (which it almost certainly won't, sadly), '2022' remains the correct starting year, and it's useful to keep that the same.

  (...)

  D. I am open to the alternative suggestions above that we can rename it 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine and change the second year every time it enters a new year before it ends, or Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), but that makes things a bit messy, especially for linking to the article from other pages. Reason A is more compelling to keep the current title than the relatively small advantage that these alternative names would bring.

  So on the whole, keeping the current name is best. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)"

  Nothing has changed just because we have now entered a new year, because the identical proposals of the previous discussion took this into account. There is no need to redo the discussion that has been had already. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely fair comments, I wasn't personally involved in the previous discussion and only became aware of the proposed change once this discussion had been created. Whilst by view is a preference to change the title I can understand why there is frustration in rehashing arguments already made if the points have all recently been considered.

  My personal view would be for a change of name (as I think the alternative with (2023 - present) at the end is a more accurate reflection of the article contents) but if there is established consensus otherwise then I agree the overall consensus that has been established should be followed. Tracland (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your response. To be clear, any frustration you might read in my previous comment wasn't directed at you. Your question is a relevant one and I was happy to answer it. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, but there is a fair point that I should probably have looked back at previous discussions before assuming this was the first discussion on the point. Tracland (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Oh well, now you know. ;) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Tracland (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:CRYSTAL the war will end in 2023. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, can you expand? Are you saying that the proposed title would violate WP:Crystal as would imply the invasion finished in 2023? Tracland (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with this argument. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think Ribbet32 is saying that by including the year '2023' as the last year, it implies the war will end (or has ended, quod non) in 2023, which is something we do not know, therefore in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks for the clarification, I agree that any inclusion of “-2023” could result in the article being perceived as ending in 2023 and, largely for this reason, don’t support a “-2023 title” (I’d much prefer “-present”, on which view are expressed elsewhere in this chat). Thanks for clarifying. Tracland (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. "2022-2023" just makes the title way wordier than it needs to be, and as has already been mentioned above, the invasion started in 2022. I think that in the long term, most of the content on this conflict will be under Russo-Ukrainian War, and this article will be related to that article the same way Invasion of Poland is related to World War II. Mover of molehills^{move me} 02:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Noted on the first point regarding the wordiness of the original proposal made.

  I appreciate the long term view and, if and when, the significant editing to achieve this is agreed and done then I agree with you. However, as it currently stands the events from 2022 onwards only make up c.5% of the Russo-Ukrainian War article. Predicting the future is hard and the article needs to reflect its current use even if this might subsequently change. Tracland (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support XTheBedrockX's idea as it removes the need to consistently update the title should the subject drag on for longer. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we are going to use the word "invasion", it's the 2022 invasion, because that's when the invasion was. If we want a broader title then it's "2022-2023 special military operation" or whatever. In either case, the proposed alternative doesn't work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support for XTheBedrockX's proposal as it seems the most reasonable title, but the current title is acceptable. In any case, I oppose the original proposal. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I seriously doubt that such a move will make the article easier to find. People searching are most likely to simply search "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" which will return either article equally well. And if not for access, why change it? A change like this will necessitate changing the title on a yearly basis. When the invasion is effectively over, I could support a change to "Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022-end-year)" but until then I don't see a particular benefit for the move. It can't really be claimed that the is more accurate, as the argument of whether to title by start or time span is semantic. --Lenny Marks (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Lenny Marks, given your comment and the policy link WP:TITLEDAB, which tells us not to use unnecessary precision (ie 2022 in the title), do you have a view on the present title with respect to that policy? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Cinderella157.

  From what I understood (and correct me if I'm wrong), you're asking if WP:TITLEDAB instructs us to remove 2022 from the title, leaving "Russian Invasion of Ukraine," as 2022 is unnecessarily imprecise. As I read it, WP:TITLEDAB is suggesting that the least amount of extra text necessary to distinguish an article topic be used. More specifically:

  As a general rule, when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia:

  1. If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies.
  2. If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated.

Personally, I believe that "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" is ambiguous because it may be confused with the Russo-Ukrainian War at large, and it is of unclear primacy. I therefore do not believe it satisfies part one, and we must disambiguate per part two. I suppose that the current title could be revised, however, from "2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" to "Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022)," but this seems semantic. In any case, that's how I read the policy there.
-- Lenny Marks (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

To read WP:TITLEDAB more fully: ... [a] title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. It deals with actual conflicts in title names, not perceived conflicts. Having "2022" in the title appears to be unnecessary precision. I was asking because of your observation: People searching are most likely to simply search "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" ... Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Move to Russian invasion of Ukraine since it already redirects to the page and is a more search-friendly name, with the current note about previous invasions at the top of the page modified to reflect this change. D4R1U5 (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose We should wait until the invasion is over and then move it when we find out what reliable sources call it. Also when the invasion ends nobody will think of the Russo-Ukrainian War as starting in 2014 they will think of the part starting in 2022. So perhaps we would name this article "Russo-Ukrainian War" and the 2014-15 article something else and then the protracted frozen conflict article from 2015-2022 something else as well. PilotSheng (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Titling it with a date range suggests it is over (that it ended in 2023). It should either stay at the current title or be moved to 2022–present Russian invasion of Ukraine. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2023 (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.