This is an archive of past discussions about Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Since the article was moved to Russian invasion of Ukraine, and this talk page wasn't, hitting the 'talk' tab on the article now leads to Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, not the actual talk page for the article. I'd list this at WP:RM/TR, but it seems to have been deliberately avoided by the moving admin (@Rosguill). DecafPotato (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
When the article starts to discuss Russia's stated reasons for the special military operation in the introduction, there should be information on Russia's accusations of American involvement in the "Maidan Revolution", as this is crucial to their casus belli, that Zelensky's government was not legitimate because Poroshenko was removed from office through illegitimate means, and that implies that Zelensky's election was not legitimate either. This is how many Russians see this situation. Dotacal (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Putin writes "Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly interfered in Ukraine's internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements of state policy in Ukraine."
Perhaps you could provide the quote where they say "and this was one of the reasons Putin gave for the invasion", as I hm having trouble finding any such reference. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I never said "and this was one of the reasons Putin gave for the invasion". I said "there should be information on Russia's accusations of American involvement in the "Maidan Revolution", as this is crucial to their casus belli" and I gave sources showing evidence regarding that. Dotacal (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
No you said "Russia's stated reasons for the special military operation in the introduction", but if this was not "Russia's stated reasons for the special military operation" (I.E. an official justification) then it has no place being added to such a section. (which (by the way) a "casus belli" is). Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This time, yes, I did say that, but I never said "and this was one of the reasons Putin gave for the invasion".
Here's Russia stating at the UN that since Maidan in 2014, threats to Russia's national security have been increasing and negotiations have been breaking down, forcing Russia to engage in the special military operation.
I don't think the Russian government really mentioned Maidan in particular to justify this stage of invasion - or if they did, it wasn't prominent enough to get reported on. Do you have WP:RS that refer to this? Also, I assume you mean Yanukovych, not Poroshenko, lol. HappyWith (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
They've mentioned Maidan quite a bit, the government change in 2014 was seen as influenced by the US covertly with neo-nazi groups. And yes, I mean Yanukovch lol. Dotacal (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
You mean Yanukovych was removed by the Rada when he fled: Poroshenko was elected and left office normally when he wasn’t re-elected.
But if you’re going to list Putin’s made-up casus belli, you have to include “external control” by EU/UK/USA, Ukrainians are a “fake people,” Volodymyr’s baptism, NATO expansion, “genocide in Donbas,” “drug-addicted Nazi Jew,” and “satanists” (what am I missing?). —MichaelZ.17:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
"Zelensky's government is illegitmate because the former government was illegitmately overthrown with the assistance of the US" isn't as crazy or as shocking as what you're suggesting, but it has been brought up by Russian officials. It's a main part of the Russian rationale in this war. Dotacal (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 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.
Should make it mandatory to read the FAQ
Seven different times people have asked to add NATO as supporting Ukraine, which is in the FAQ. Should make it so that a pop-up appears where you must check the box saying that you have read the FAQ in order to start a new discussion? Starship 24 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Can we do something about the endless move requests while we're at it? It's honestly amazing how many people think they've found some perfect solution when it didn't need to be moved in the first place. TylerBurden (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
As useful as this would be, I have a feeling it's not possible to implement and it wouldn't make people read the FAQ regardless. They can just check the box and not read the FAQ. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Or we can just delete the posts and not waste our time on something that will essentially amount to nothing. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654521:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
We occansianly spend a lot of time on the nothing:See 2 sections ago I think is worth a try bc the current system allows the same thing to keep happening. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results. That is what is happening here@Blaze WolfStarship 24 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this "pop-up" would work (and what does this have to do with efns?), but if you want people to see the FAQ, just put it on an editnotice. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Huh, I just realized that neither this article nor its talk page currently have editnotices, not even to alert editors of the sanctions. That's... odd. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I know how efns work, but I'm pretty sure the proposer was referring to pop-up dialog boxes, which don't exist on Wikipedia as far as I know. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, I'm aware of how efns work; I've used them extensively. What I'm saying is, they do not have the capability to have users check a box, and I'm not sure where you would place the efn in the article. And I believe Starship 24 was referring to a dialog box, not an efn popup. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Turns out, there were editnotices for this page, but the closer of the previous RM neglected to move them from their original locations (2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). I have moved the editnotices and transcluded the FAQ on there, I hope that will help with the situation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Ignorance of the FAQ
Honestly, I feel that from this point forward, if a question asked here is in the FAQ then it should just be removed with a note to read the FAQ. We made the FAQ for a reason so we shouldn't continue answering people's questions that are in said FAQ. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654512:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
This is more perhaps a matter of Wikipedia:Competence is required - and in part that takes a small amount of time to familiarise themselves with the "back ground" to the article. Reading the FAQs is part of this. I know it is frustrating. We need a big banner with letters ten-feet-tall, with bells, whistles, sirens and flashing neon lights that says "Read the FAQs before you post here". Perhaps an editor new to the TP should premise their new post with "I have read the banners/FAQs". Then we would need an FAQ: "Why was my post deleted". WP:GS/RUSUKR already states: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments ... Perhaps we need to go back to ANI and seek refinement or clarification of WP:GS/RUSUKR to address the issue. Acting unilaterally might be seen as contentious. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the FAQ works that well since this Talk page is still being bombarded with NATO requests; see my thread above on using the space on the main page Infobox under belligerents which is currently seen as "(this space deliberately left blank)". ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I feel like another part of the issue might be that there are 6 notices on this talk page relating to relating to discussions. Yes the FAQ might be the second to the top however the other notices might get people to be like "Ok I get it this topic is controversial" and ignore the rest of them. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Section on Phase 3 on invasion links to a subordinate sibling article about Phase 4, however, there is no Phase 4 section in this article: Is this an issue or not an issue for the main article?
Reliable sources do not use absolute phase numbers. We should stop using this novel nomenclature someone found in a single source as it is borderline FRINGE, and will continue to be problematic. —MichaelZ.20:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
It is fairly certain that 'second phase' was predominant in both the domestic press and the international press after Russia was repulsed from Kyiv. Once the second phase became common verbiage in the international press, it was natural for them to also start making back references to the 'first phase' which came before the second phase, even though it was only called that after the second phase was introduced in the press after Russia was repulsed from Kyiv. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
This article looks like it is heading directly towards a "Phase 4" designation and section within the next month or two, for lack of participation of editors in this discussion. If no one has a follow-up opinion, then the direction is towards starting a "Phase 4" section in this 2022 Russian invasion article within the next month of two. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Those "phases" are wildly different from the ones that we use. While there is use by reliable sources of "phases" to describe the invasion, there isn't RS consensus on where those phases start and end, and such consensus will only emerge (if ever) long after the invasion has concluded. DecafPotato (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2023
While we might title sections within an article with considerable licence, titling articles is quite another thing. Describing and naming of phases is a matter for reliable sources and more specifically good quality sources - which WP:NEWSORG are not. We don't lead but follow the sources and there needs to be a consensus in the sources to apply a particular title. Such a consensus can only follow the events. We don't have crystal balls. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
There is not much choice here since sysops (Vanamonde) has already decided on retaining a Wikipedia article for the Timeline of Phase 4. Also, Michael and Steven have both opted to oppose the renaming of that 'Phase 4' timeline during a recent discussion on that Talk page. It appears that without further discussion, then this main article will need to go in the direction of naming new sections in accordance with sysops decisions for retaining the 'Phase 4' Timeline article here in this main article sometime during the next month or two. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
You mention the renaming discussion, but that doesn’t support your argument at all when I actually look at the discussion; Michael, as far as I can tell, said he’s against the phase terminology in general in the discussion, and Steven just opposed it per WP:FORK. Similarly, that sysop’s closing statement was certainly not what you’re describing, as they mainly talked about how in that specific AFD, the arguments on both sides were messy and that “original research concerns about the title had not been resolved”, concluding that the content should be kept, but leaving it to later disussion as to what title or article it should be under. That is not a “decision to retain the article” in its current state and title by any means. HappyWith (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: You can link the Phase 4 Timeline article directly to see that sysops (Vanamonde) has endorsed it and kept it to this current day. I'm not sure what you mean here in your comments. Both Michael and Steven have opposed removing references to Phase 4 as well in those Talk page discussions. Unless there is a reasonable discussion among editors here soon, then the 'Phase 4' discussion will likely prevail in this main article here within the next month or two, given the opposition to removing it. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The AfD closure (by @Vanamonde93) said, ... And there are genuine original research concerns with the title that have not been rebutted. The title, and the need for a standalone page, could benefit from further discussion but given that this is already a hot mess, and that AfD isn't really the venue for discussing a merger or a retitling. And sysops have no additional weight in content disputes than any other editor. DecafPotato (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
That was the first part of the comments where Vanamonde ended up endorsing keeping Phase 4 in the title; this was followed by the second part of the related comments where Steven and Michael both opposed the removal of the name 'Phase 4' from the Timelines. At present, it appears that by the end of this month, March, and the end of April, that this main article will be fully recognizing 'Phase 4' is the absence of any related discussion about it on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Please quote the section where Vanamonde "endorsed keeping Phase 4 in the title", because I'm looking at the closing remarks right now, and I don't see anything of the sort in there. It wouldn't matter anyway, because, as DecafPotato says, sysops have no additional weight in content dispute, but I think you're misinterpreting the results of that discussion. I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth, but Michael said on the talk page, and I quote, The vast majority of sources do not recognize any “phase 3.” A better title would be Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (September to November 2022), using a terminology that’s widely used, intrinsically meaningful, familiar to all, and easily adjusted if necessary, and later clarified that the phase terminology doesn’t meet the WP:CRITERIA. I have no idea what phase 3 is. Slatersteven didn't support the phase terminology in that discussion either, only opposing the move because of WP:FORK. HappyWith (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, you have not achieved consensus to insert the phase 4 into this article. You say that because of the absence of any related discussion about it on this Talk page, this article will soon include that terminology, but that's not how the process works. The discussion slowing down is not a substitute for consensus, especially since, with my rough count, most editors in this discussion are against this proposal. HappyWith (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I think this whole business with "phases" is in need of a centralized, well-formed RFC to establish a clear, well-sourced format for organizing the war's progression that editors can agree on, because it seems like no one likes this current situation. HappyWith (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This is Vanamonde's close of the AFD where she in the end decides to keep it: [5]. Right after that, two rename discussions were opened, as suggested by Vanamonde, with both Steven and Michael stating Opposition to removing titles with 'Phase 4' mentioned. That pretty much cements 'Phase 4' into those Timeline articles, and it means that 'Phase 4' is likely to be fully incorporated into the main article here before the end of this month or next month at latest in the absence of any other discussion among editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
With regard to the argument over the stances of other editors, please read over my and DecafPotato's last post again, where both of us quoted passages from those users that directly contradict your characterizations. But, that's not really important, and I don't want to argue over what other editors meant in statements they made months ago. What's important is getting consensus here, now, among editors. Michael, Cinderella, DecafPotato, and I - that's a majority of editors in this discussion, by my count - have all raised WP:OR concerns about this terminology that simply has not been answered. Editors can't just not provide arguments and then assume the resulting silence is consensus. HappyWith (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Your comments keep me thinking that you are looking at the article as it was two months ago. The current main article here already includes a link to the Phase 4 Timeline article (by another editor) in the Invasion section of this article. Its already there. The Phase 4 Timeline article appears to be cemented in place following Vanamonde's decision to retain it (with her explanation), and the decision of Michael and Steven to Oppose renaming it. The 'Phase 4' link and comments are on their way to being fully included in the discussion parts of this main article within the next month or so, in the absence of any other discussion among editors to remove/support it. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
If Michael is your main source then you can comment on his reaction to these issues on the Timelines Talk page when he stated: "Oppose. The vast majority of sources do not recognize any “phase 3.” A better title would be Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (September to November 2022), using a terminology that’s widely used, intrinsically meaningful, familiar to all, and easily adjusted if necessary. —Michael Z. 14:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)".
Those are Michael's own words in his opposition to previously clearing up the 'Phase 4' references in the related timelines. The current bottleneck in the Russian invasion appears to be the siege of Bahkmut which seems on the verge of collapse, after which the Phase 4 transition in the article will likely take place without anyone against it at present. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, you added text "On 7 February, 2023 the Russians had mobilized nearly 200,000 newly mobilized soldiers to participate in a renewed offensive towards Bahkmut.", but your source is from Feb 6th. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The convention of newspapers in general is to report facts from the previous day in comparison to the date on the front page. In this case I'm finding that the article from Feb 7th is documented as Feb 7th. Is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Its from the New York Times here on page one: [6]. You do know that you can use your search engine on Google or Yahoo to pull up most articles, like those in the New York Times. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, regarding your "On 7 February, 2023 the Russians had mobilized nearly 200,000 newly mobilized soldiers to participate in a renewed offensive towards Bahkmut." Russians did mobilized 200000 but not on Feb 7th. And, they did mobilized, but not for "a renewed offensive towards Bahkmut" only, as your sentence says, but for other areas as well. Manyareasexpert (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
If you feel the wording can be enhanced and that you have a superior version of the wording, then you can put in an edit change request as a separate thread on this Talk page in the format of change text X to text Y, and another editor will evaluate it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2023
Note: Remember that edit requests should be used for clear and agreed-upon suggestions, not to start discussions. I think the hatnote is great here, especially because there is no disambiguation hatnote (!). Maybe we should add the disambiguation hatnote? I'm closing this request until we figure this out :) Actualcpscm (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Ukraine mobilization caused by lack of membership in NATO?
The following text is from the article:
As a result of Ukraine not having a military alliance with NATO, Ukrainian president [[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]] enacted [[martial law]] and [[Mobilization in Ukraine|a general mobilisation]] within Ukraine.
There is no citation to a reliable source for this cause-and-effect statement. Indeed, it is plausable that Ukraine would have mobilized in response to the invasion even if Ukraine were a member of NATO. I think the text should not go beyond what is in the cited sources. I am bringing this issue to the Talk page because it was recently removed and then reinstated, and I do not wish to participate in an edit war. John Sauter (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The current version of the last sentence of the second paragraph in the lede is very poorly worded and should be improved: "Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy enacted martial law and a general mobilisation." This makes Zelensky look anemic and hapless in the execution of his office. The reason Zelenskyy did not request the help of military allies, which any responsible military leader would normally be expected to do, is because Ukraine has no military alliances. A better version of this sentence might read as: "As a result of Ukraine not having any military alliances, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy enacted martial law and a general mobilisation within Ukraine." Two editors have reverted against this in opposition to my earlier version of adapting this edit to state that Ukraine has no military alliance with NATO. The current version of this sentence which I singled out for comment here is poorly written and should be improved to something resembling the 'corrected' version as I've try to present it here. I'll support any editor who can add it to the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The sentence is a plain statement of fact. The rewrite shoves in NATO/military alliance where it neither belongs nor makes sense as a causative agent. It is original research. With or without allies, a nation under assault will be mobilising and enacting or bringing into effect the laws necessary to its defence. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The phrasing you are suggesting is absurd. A country under large-scale attack moves to a war footing regardless of whether it is calling in allies.
Furthermore, the suggestion makes a number of assumptions about international relations, geopolitics, and the specific situation, which are unsupported and could be construed as POV.
The causative relationship in the proposal is not supported. Mobilisation is a matter of course response to a significant military act of aggression - regardless of alliances. I think it is starting to snow now. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The causative relationship is not intended there, but only the historical one. It is a historical fact that Ukraine applied for NATO status in 2008 and was rejected. Its already covered in the main part of the article. The second paragraph of the lede would benefit from some mention of it as a historical fact. Otherwise the closing sentence of that paragraph in the lede looks dull and uninformed; as if Zelenskyy felt that Ukraine could do it all alone. If anyone can improve the wording in that second paragrph of the lede to express this historical fact, then I'll support. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion should remain at the other article, though a notice placed here to draw more attention to the discussion should be fine as it is neutrally worded. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Hundreds of thousands
No outcome from the original discussion. However, this discussion diverged and there is also a parallel (duplicate) discussion that has evolved at #How accurate are the estimates?. This discussion is closed for procedural reasons so that any further discussion may be conducted at one section and not split over two sections. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
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.
At this point, I think we are allowed to say that the war has caused, "HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of deaths", not, "tens of thousands" as the article says. Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, there's been over 150 thousand deaths on the Russian side, so taking into account the Ukrainian millitary + civillian losses it's easily 200-300 thousans Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Person who started this thread is not responding, though it might be worth making a review of the Casualties and Deaths table in the article. I'm thinking that it could be improved since some of the references are quite old, and some of the estimates used conflict by over a factor of ten; that's not so good. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I know did not provide the source, BUT every single piece of information you can obtain suggests the death count is in ghe hundreds of thousands. Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This might be a matter of internal consistency. Our well-sourced casualties tables indicate ~45,000 confirmed deaths, and up to ~240,000 estimated deaths (deaths only) using the higher death estimates. If we're going by confirmed loss of life, then we retain tens of thousands, else if we go by speculative loss of life, then it'd be hundreds of thousands. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Confirmed deaths simply refers to the loss of life that has been accounted for. That figure updates itself as more bodies are recovered and identified. It'd be strange not to have such a figure, as it'd mean that no bodies have been recovered. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia which deals in confirmed facts rather than speculation. If the preponderance of reliable sources says tens of thousands then we say tens of thousands. If it says hundreds of thousands then we say hundreds of thousands. This is not a propaganda outfit either for Putin's croneys or Zelenskyy's. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
To put an objective perspective on this, we should consider order of magnitude. Anything between 3.16 x 10x and 31.6 x 10x is of the same order of magnitude. Hence, anything between 30,000 and 300,000 (noting significant figures) would be reported as tens of thousands. Furthermore, if we state in a Wikivoice that the war has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, then we are representing a fact. If we rely on the aglomeration of the tabulated sources to make a statement in a Wikivoice (even as an estimate), then we are sailing right into WP:OR. The table reports figures from belligerents that are inherently unreliable. This is OK when the source is attributed but it is not OK when stated without attribution. Because of the nuance of sourcing, arriving at some sort of total using such figures is not an exception under WP:CALC. From what I can see, total deaths (not "killed + wounded") when based on somewhat independent assessments are about 150,000 and not yet in the hundreds of thousand as an order of magnitude - even if we use Mr rnddude's 240,000. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
300,000 is not tens of thousands. It isn't Orginial research as these are published by various governments. Nearly every estimate is in the hundreds of thousands, so not WP:CALC either. @Cinderella157Starship 24 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I know you didn't mean "hundredths of thousands" have died, so I have corrected it. If figures of killed are >300,000 (or even >200,000), published in good quality sources (preferably based on independent assessments), then it is simply a case of introducing these into the body of the article and then amending the lead so that it reflects the body of the article. Steven, at the very start, ask for a source and none have been provided that actually give a figure to support this. The assertion is unsubstantiated. And 300,000 is tens of thousands - 30 of them to be precise. But what I actually said was that 300,000 is the objective threshold where we would change the reporting by an order of magnitude to hundreds of thousands ie tens of thousands (104) as a plural broad description covers the range 104.5 to 105.5 (30,000 to 300,000). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The real question is, where are these sources published by various governments that [n]early every estimate is in the hundreds of thousands? But no. It is a simple concept that to have hundreds of thousands, you need at least two of the buggers (100,000 + 100,000 not 100,000 + 1) for it to be plural. And saying that does not negate the objective basis for when we change from one order of magnitude to the next higher. Cinderella157 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
When using Google, I type in the keywords "Russia Ukraine Invasion" and the search result screen gives me a Google Infobox on the right side of the screen with the Reuters casualty information updated daily. Depending on which browser you use, then you can try to duplicate this type of search. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Here is the screen capture from the Google Infobox from today, in addition to the one I previously provided above from Reuters:
From Reuters (Mar 23, 2023) · Updated 21 hours ago
Deaths
At least 42,295 people
Non-fatal injuries
At least 58,479 people
Missing
At least 15,000 people
Displaced
Approximately 14M people
Buildings destroyed
At least 140,000
Property damage
Approximately $411B
Comment. It is not possible to get a page link to the Google Infobox, which just comes up automatically based on how their search engine works. The Google Infobox that comes up on my screen does state that their data comes from Reuters. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Google Infobox is not a good source even if it says "From Reuters". Many others are not having this infobox. Without link, there is nothing to discuss. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the closest thing to a source that has been presented in the past week of this discussion. If it is from Reuters, that's an RS and it won't be disputed by an editor, only by other RS. There won't be any change made without RS being presented to support it. At this point, this discussion can be closed as inactionable. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a reason I used the qualifier if. I am no more able to verify the original source than anyone else. I was able to verify that the figures aren't being fabricated here, because they are repeated elsewhere with attribution to Reuters (e.g. this Jerusalem Post article). This doesn't suffice to confirm Reuters' as the source; but it also doesn't alter the core issue that no source to support the alteration has been presented and that the request is thus inactionable. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I can see the Google infobox that attributes Routers as the source. Click on "Reuters" in that infobox and it took me here. That link does not link to where the figures can be confirmed as being from Reuters. If Reuters is the source being attributed, then this should be verifiable - ie one should see where this is stated by Reuters. The reality is that Google is the one providing these figure. Google has somehow collated these figures, apparently by using information from Reuters. If we were to cite this information, we should say "Google Inc attributing Reuters". This then raises the question of whether Google is a reliable source? I think not in this case. Consequently, these figures are not reliable/verifiable and should, at best, only be relied on as a guide and not used in an article. Using it as a guide, the deaths are under 100,000.
Editors have asked for sources on several occasions and "Reuters", an agglomeration of the tabulated results in the article or figures that combine "killed and wounded" are what has been provided. Per Mr rnddude, until somebody actually provides verifiable RSs of reasonably quality to support the assertion, this discussion is going nowhere. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Given the difficulty of linking to the Google Infobox, then the appropriate question would be to ask if the format they are using to present the casualty results offers any lessons for Wikipedia to learn from; would this article's report of casualties be enhanced in any way by using the Google Infobox format which I have screen captured above, which Google is stating they got from Reuters? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I think you might have missed my point. The provenance of the figures reported by Google is questionable (WP:VER and RS) so the question is moot. And this discussion is still going nowhere without RSs of reasonably quality to the initial assertion. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the first time I'm hearing that the Google Infobox has questionable reliability; especially since the very often link directly to Wikipedia articles in general. I'm not aware of any RS issue with the Google Infobox; do you plan to list them at the RS review page for questionable reliability? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I scoured the Internet but wasn't able to find the original source from Reuters, but there is no reason to believe Google Search is lying when it attributes the data to Reuters — a highly reliable source. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
But theres no reason to believe Google is lying when it attributes the data... You do know that google runs on an AI right? Ever seen ChatGPT attribute something to something unrelated. Example, one time asking about wikipedia policies on pagemoving, it used WP:NOTFORUM as a source. What!? @InfiniteNexusStarship 24 (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, not really. Misinformation appears on Google Search, yes, but only in the form of search results that link to unreliable sources. That is not what we are talking about here. Google doesn't generate its own content, all cards that appear at the top of the page are sourced from and clearly attributed to reliable sources. For example, the dictionary definitions come from Oxford, the info on Knowledge Graphs comes from Wikipedia, election stats come from AP, and it appears Russian invasion casualty numbers come from Reuters. It is highly doubtful Google will make up data and claim they got it from Reuters — that could get them sued. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment This discussion has diverged and is now totally off-topic. There is also a discussion fork so that the discussion is split over two sections. The other discussion has also diverged and is now totally off-topic. My intention is to close both discussions as unresolved/no consensus. This is not a case of shutting down further discussion but focusing any further discussion. I would suggest that there is an emerging consensus that the Google infobox is not a RS. To the proposal to use the Google infobox format, it is unclear: how this format would be presented (tabulated or prose); where this would be presented in the article; and, what data it would rely on. If these discussions were to be continued as a single new thread, I would suggest an OP should address these issues (ErnestKrause). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
That's not a reason to close a discussion. It is fairly common for discussions on Wikipedia to veer off-topic, sometimes more dramatically than others, and if that happens editors are welcome to start a new subsection asking editors to circle back to the original topic. Unnecessarily closing discussions inhibits the consensus-building process. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I just looked at the most recent archive, and it looks like a lot of discussions were closed by you and Ernest. Kindly refrain from doing so, most discussions on Wikipedia should not and do not need to be closed like this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Discussions going off topic should have a new discussion made about that topic. If nothing else needs to be said about the original topic, then it can be closed @InfiniteNexusStarship 24 (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Agree. This discussion and the associated one have no constructive purpose and are inactionable. They ought be closed and archived. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I said if it goes off topic there should be a new section. this should be kept for discussion of the original problem. if no longer necessary, then i agree this should be closed @Cinderella157Starship 24 (talk) 21:37, 27 March 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.
"2022" in title of map
Given that the move from "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" to "Russian invasion. . ." was approved, the map of the current military situation in the introduction should reflect this change. RaiBrown1204 (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This can be done, but not really necessary. And given the number of transclusions across so many wikis, this may be complicated to do. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
They may be referring to the legend in the map which retains the title '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine', rather than the file name. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
More information about NATO in the lead section would be useful
More information about NATO in the lede would be helpful to keep other editors from the constant influx of editor requests about NATO involvement on this Talk page. NATO is mentioned many time in the main part of the article, and seems that more information in the lede would help is curtailing the amount of misinformation which many editors have about NATO and Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Why we say "Many countries imposed sanctions on Russia, and on its ally Belarus, and provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. ", not only is NATO not the only organ supplying aid, not all NATO countries are. So why single NATO out? Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
No. While NATO played a role in the larger geopolitical picture and is now arguably supporting (please please let's not rehash that for another month at least) Ukraine, the sort of assertions you recently inserted were, to say the least, extremely problematic both substantially and procedurally.
This is one of the most contentious pages on the entire encyclopedia. Edits should reflect consensus and so forth, and with hundreds of edits to the main article as well as the talk page, I'm sure you know that already.
Apart from which, with respect, we do not make large changes to an article just to avoid repetitive discussions at the talk page. No one is forcing you to take part in said discussions, after all. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
There is still the issue of the large number of requests coming from drive through visitors to this Talk page for NATO information. Adding something about the status of NATO in the lead section might deflect these numerous drive through requests for NATO information. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Or will just cause them to want to peddle more of Putin's propaganda, no we do not make edits in the hope of stopping drive-bys, we ask for talk page protection. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Meaning that you wish to continue to engage with each and every request from drive through editors with NATO requests? You seem to have previously expressed some chagrin at all of their numerous comments... ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
That is because the FAQ is a summary, they are supposed to have read. What we do not give is give in to wp:badgering by wp:meatpupperty. Nor is this what they ever ask for. They want NATO in the infobox, They will keep on asking for that. I have no mroe to add, so will bow out. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Its not a solution and I'm thinking that some prudent expansion of the lede or Infobox still offers open possibilities to inform readers of the NATO details, and deflect unwanted and unnecessary NATO edit requests on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove 'z' in the Donetsk front sub-subsection of the Russian annexations and Ukranian counterattacks (6 September-present) subsection of the Invasion section. 64.228.216.34 (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Are the estimates (particularly regarding Russian losses) remotely close to the actual number lost given the circumstances? In particular, how much does Russia's given military corruption, poor record-keeping, and intentional disinformation campaigns affect these estimates' accuracy in these cases? Do we even have a way to know? Nice argument (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm mostly asking because in this case it's completely possible the estimates aren't remotely close, as in more than 1/3rd off the actual number. Steven is right though, that's why they're listed as estimates. Nice argument (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm more thinking about how heavily disinformation may have affected these estimates. However, as Steven points out, we don't have a way to know, and therefore there's nothing to be done about it. Nice argument (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I never said they're biased. I said they're inaccurate. Bias does affect accuracy but I'm not really taking that into account as much as intentional disinformation and poor record keeping. Nice argument (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
You say heavy disinformation (caused mostly by bais). Intentional disinformation is unlikely to be somethign done by a neutral nation. Poor record keeping is unavoidable, but genrally lowers the estimate from the true value, not the other way around. @Nice argumentStarship 24 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Heavy disinformation (not caused mostly by bias; more caused by intentional obfuscation of records and coverups of deaths especially by Russia) compounded on poor record keeping also affects the estimates made by other nations. That, and I never said the actual count was lower from the estimate, it's probably higher. Nice argument (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd close the discussion myself if I knew how, frankly it isn't leading anywhere and there's probably nothing that's gonna come out of it. Nice argument (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Are the statistics consistent with the Reuters numbers, which are published daily, or are they not consistent with Reuters? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
At #Hundreds of thousands, it was stated, ... these are published by various governments. Nearly every estimate is in the hundreths of thousands ... This was specifically in response to the assertion that we should not be relying on an aglomeration of the tabulated sources from the article. The question is simply asking for the sources claimed to support this - specifically. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Reuters is trying to do daily updates to these statistics and they have been doing fairly well so far; their numbers appear to be consistent and fairly accurate, unlike other sites which seems to vary even by a factor of ten on the statistics. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
See the Reuters statistics printed in the section above and see if the numbers are consistent or inconsistent with Wikipedia's version of the statistics. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
What about the format being used in the Google Infobox which I've presented in the other thread on this Talk page for the casualty statistics? Can the article here benefit from using Google's Infobox format for presenting the casualities, even if Wikipedia can improve on them and refine them? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
It was a format question only which I asked. Is the format which Google Infobox uses for Invasion casualties at all useful to learn from; can the Wikipedia table used in the main invasion article here be improved by looking at the Google Infobox version which I've presented in the other thread on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment This discussion has diverged and is now totally off-topic. There is also a discussion fork so that the discussion is split over two sections. The other discussion has also diverged and is now totally off-topic. My intention is to close both discussions as unresolved/no consensus. This is not a case of shutting down further discussion but focusing any further discussion. I would suggest that there is an emerging consensus that the Google infobox is not a RS. To the proposal to use the Google infobox format, it is unclear: how this format would be presented (tabulated or prose); where this would be presented in the article; and, what data it would rely on. If these discussions were to be continued as a single new thread, I would suggest an OP should address these issues (ErnestKrause). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment This is the first I'm hearing that you feel that Google Infoboxes are unreliable, and this should be brought up on the RS Noticeboard if you are serious about it. Currently, Google is a grant supporter of Wikipedia and over half of their Infoboxes often include links directed straight to Wikipedia articles. Your calling Google Infoboxes unreliable seems inconsistent with their citation refering to Reuters for the casualty numbers, and Google's multiple redirects to Wikipedia articles in general. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment Okay, forgive me for being pedantic, but I keep seeing the word "infobox" being thrown around. We've got to stop calling it an infobox, "infobox" is a Wikipedia/Wikimedia-specific term. Call it a card, a box, whatever, just not infobox. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment; If someone or anyone in this thread is stating that they feel that Google is providing bad information, or that their Reuters attribution from Google is unreliable, then report it the Wikipedia Noticeboard for RS. This is the first time I'm hearing that anyone at Wikipedia feels that Google is providing questionable data. As for the facts of the matter discussing death casualties, then Google is using Reuters to state that the numbers are well under 100,000, which is why these related thread were started here. As a matter of Google's providing data via Reuters, the actual casualty numbers are still under less that half of 100,000. I've already quoted these numbers by screen capture twice in the threads on this Talk page from both January and March of this year. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
If it's been impossible to find any sources that espouse this specific statistic other than Google's automatically generated infobox, I'd say that's a sign for it not being a trustworthy statistic. HappyWith (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Did you just suggest Reuters — one of the most respected and highly reliable sources in the world — is not a reliable source?? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I just that a government which devotes far more energy and has far more access is more reliable. I am also suggesting thatt wikipedia shouldnt say when there are tons of varied claims to base there statement of reuters @InfiniteNexusStarship 24 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the Wikipedia RS Noticeboard is against both of you concerning the reliability of Reuters; it currently has a "green" light status with no yellow flag or red flag restrictions. Reuters is a reliable source according the the Wikipedia RS Noticeboard. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Listen, Starship, the notion that Reuters is unreliable is just plain wrong and against the consensus of the Wikipedia community. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
'The be all and end all' expression, I think, has been exhausted in its value here. Nexus is trying to tell you that Reuters is listed by Wikipedia as a reliable source. I need to support Nexus on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Reuters is a reliable source, not disputing that. I never said that, you and InfiniteNexus assumed this. Now, think for a moment. Lets compare a government to reuters:
Q1:Who has more resources toward tracking casualties?
A1:A government
Q2:Who has more access to information?
A2:A government
So, who do you think is more reliable. I am not saying that Reuters is unreliable, just that a government is better equipped to make estimates and is therefore probably more accurate that Reuters, a private website. @ErnestKrause @InfiniteNexusStarship 24 (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Ukranian army using civilians as “human shields”
I wonder why something like that is not included anywhere in the article, many sources stated that The ukranian army is using human shields and launching attacks from civilian areas and infrastructure, here are some sources:
UN report from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): “ The placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields by both parties to the conflict – as documented in the case of a care house in Stara Krasnianka (Luhansk region) for instance – also raise concerns. “ [1]
The head of Amnesty International’s Ukraine chapter has resigned, saying the human rights organization shot down her opposition to publishing a report that claimed Ukrainian forces had exposed civilians to Russian attacks by basing themselves in populated areas. [2]. “ Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February”, Amnesty International said. [3]
At UN, Lavrov accuses Ukraine’s armed forces of using “civilians as human shields”[4]
A new UN report has found that Ukraine's armed forces bear a large share of the blame for an attack on a nursing home that left vulnerable residents trapped in the firing line, The report by the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said the battle at the nursing home was emblematic of its concerns over the potential use of "human shields" to prevent military operations in certain areas.[5]
I wonder why are these allegations never mentioned in the article ?
You could propose a formal WP:EDITREQUEST with the exact wording/sentence you wish to add to request it be added to the article (or one of the invasion's many subarticles). There's no need to "wonder why" the allegations aren't mentioned; that could also be taken as an allegation of biased editing. DecafPotato (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Lavrov lies blatantly. The Amnesty report was widely criticized, including by Amnesty itself, and has been discussed before (anyone remember where?): but look at Amnesty’s reports on Ukraine and you’ll see that 99% of their reports are on Russian war crimes. Two of the points above refer to exactly one incident with an article: the Stara Krasnianka care house attack. —MichaelZ.07:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
There are enough reliable sources to include the “human shields” allegations in the article, it’s an allegation from reputable international organizations (UN, OHCHR) (such sources overweight western media and officials), UN member sovereign states (Russia), and independent Press and journalism (amnesty), that seems to be more than enough for the allegations to be included in the article. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
OMG I can’t believe my eyes. Are you the real Slatersteven or someone hacked your account ? Haha. Anyway thanks for taking neutral stances !. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
No not true, i just try to neutralize the obvious anti-china and anti-non-western bias. That’s all, I don’t recall that i once called to give a Chinese article anything special or biased, for example, it’s Taiwan’s article that have special status among all other unrecognized states by the international community with omission of it’s lack of international recognition from the lead, it’s the one that have special status, not once i called to grant any thing special for china, i just call for neutrality regarding things that the western media and governments support (which is a minority in the international community) and not grant it a special status because of that, that’s all, you can’t call me biased because you want me to be anti-china and pro-western. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Lavrov also said at the UN that Ukraine was using mosquitos and birds to infect ethnic Russians. Which deserves mention only for the absurdity of the claim if anything. Recently Russia bombed a church in Odesa and excused themselves by stating Ukraine had put military hardware or something. We also have petty shit like Russian state media celebrating the strike at Kramatorsk and denying it as soon as it was found out there were civilian casualties [9] or claiming 600 Ukrainian soldiers were killed in a single strike right after Ukraine did the same to Russia in a place that journalists later visited to find not even evidence of military presence there [10]. Russia is a pretty low quality source. It doesn't matter that it is a UN member sovereign state. Additions regarding this in the article should exclude their word because it has no value. SuperΨDro14:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Lavrov also said at the UN that Ukraine was using mosquitos and birds to infect ethnic Russians.. Source ?
for the rest of your reply, the same apply on ukraine and ukraine’s officials statements and reports as well, so should we remove anything that is solely based on ukranian officials claims from the article ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
In the interests of complete accuracy and fact checking, it appears that it was Vasily Nebenzya, RF permanent ambassador to UN, who said it, not Lavrov. It does say something about the UN as a body and as a venue that such farcical statements can even be made unironically there (even if there are boos and walkouts and stuff). Can you imagine Fascist Italy unironically saying such things about the Ethiopians at the League of Nations? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: You can stop wondering why its not in the article and read WP:FALSEBALANCE, and you'll have to come up with much better sources, rather than dsistorting the ones above to twist into a narrative to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS. // Timothy :: talk14:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the key point here. The Russian army has done so much more, and so much worse than these selected incidents involving the UKR army in the very early days of the war. These could be mentioned briefly in the "War crimes" subsection, since they really did happen, but to give them equal prominence in the lead as if they're equally important as, say, the Mariupol theatre airstrike, would be heavily misleading per WP:FALSEBALANCE. HappyWith (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Much better sources than UN and OHCHR ?,do you mean something like BBC or US officials ?
You're twisting sources to fit your narrative. A people forced into fighting to defend their homes and towns from a brutal aggressor is entirely different from a brutal aggressor invading and intentionally attacking homes and towns. If Poland fought to defend Warsaw, civilians would be caught in the middle, but claiming "both sides" were using human shields would be beyond credibility, as is the claim that Ukrainians are using civilians as shields as they try and defend their homes and towns. // Timothy :: talk14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
On examination, it does seem that the OP has a history of problematic and contentious talk page stuff, including ad hominems and whatnot.
But just because pro-Russia flamers (good-ish faith, but biased and tiresome) and trolls (bad faith) are in the information space does not justify bringing pathos-laden arguments into discussions such as this.
This is an encyclopedia with pretentions of being NPOV, not a mere news source such as Reuters.
The less we bring WP:WORLDVIEW into our editing, the less time we have to waste writing detailed replies to the kinds of threads people like to start here.
I would prefer to dismiss this whole thread anyway on procedural grounds, but there is in fact a subtler issue here that should be recognized.
Just because of the demonstrably and pretty obviously… wrong things being done by the Russians and their supporters in the information space, we must never anoint ourselves with the incantation "Gott mit uns" — this tends to have… unintended consequences over time, as the past thirty years have shown.
And I'd personally argue that this attitude is part of why large sections of the Global South and others support or tolerate the behavior of the West's adversaries. Did you see all the abstentions when the UN condemned Russia's aggression? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This is obviously very contentious. Probably more so than the eternally and perennially damned infobox wars.
In principle, I agree that a brief mention is warranted. Care should be taken to ensure that coverage is in an appropriate proportion (i.e. summary) to fairly egregious incidents like Bucha and Izyum, however.
I am not sure that this would get consensus. This is precisely the sort of case where we often have serious and subtle problems due to WP:WORLDVIEW, the ongoing nature of events, and the fact that the population of the Atlantic West identifies with Ukraine as "our team" rather than "fellow humans and victims of aggression and likely war crimes" — a subtle difference but one that matters, and affects coverage.
I haven't really read the whole article on RU WP, but from the glimpses, it may well be better at this than us. If so, that would be due to a more diverse editor group (second-gen speakers in West Hollywood, California, college students in Bishkek, Estonian moms, Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian teenagers, you get the point) and likely the linguistic nature of Russian compared to English.
The same facts can easily, and usually unintentionally, be made to seem POV to any side by a few small changes in presentation. No one but God (if you believe he exists) can possibly be 100.00% NPOV.
Human shields are one of the most time-honored and grayest (difficult to identify, call out, and enforce) infractions of the laws of war. Nobody really cares. Maybe they should, but that's irrelevant.
Right now most of us are in the general direction of this. To be clear, that was World War ONE.
Due to more caffeine than I've had in many months, I'm starting to dive down a rabbit hole of larger questions outside the scope of this topic. That said, I don't see a way to handle this without a certain amount of contention. Ultimately it's a process that's sometimes necessary to reach a workable product, but I'd rather not. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
There are legitimate allegations of war crimes that have been made against both sides. Extended detail of this belongs at War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While allegations of crimes are predominantly against Russia, this article should not suggest that Ukraine is squeaky clean. NPOV is about proportionate weight. The body of the article here should reflect that. While this article does not presently have a war crimes section, there are plenty of mentions of war crimes allegedly committed by Russia but none for Ukraine. We should remedy this. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
It is not our place to "black-wash" Russia. Russia is doing a pretty good job without our help. There is no need to guild the Lilly. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Remarkable poster image; are you suggesting that there are analogies between WWI and the current Russian invasion of Ukraine? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
There seem to be NPOV issues indeed. Mariupol theatre airstrike and Izium mass graves seem to be completely missing. Mass abduction of children only vaguely mentioned. Bucha being whitewashed with extremely euphemistic Ukraine said it had recaptured the entire region around Kyiv, including Irpin, Bucha, and Hostomel, and uncovered evidence of war crimes in Bucha. Meanwhile unconfirmed Russian claims about 14 staff and patients killed in Novoaidar hospital are being reported as a fact in wikivoice. Also, regarding the human shields, the topic has been repeatedly discussed at the war crimes article, and one shouldn't confuse general endangerment of civilians by placement of military objectives, with an actual intentional use of civilians as "human shields" to deter enemy attack. The few cases of latter being reported by RS have been done by Russian Army.--Staberinde (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Mariupol is without question in this main article in the Invasion sections; also the other humanitarian infractions are covered in the sibling articles which have been forked from the main article. The issues have been covered extensively in the sibling articles if you look at them. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Please make any requests to alter the map here and provide your reasoning when you do. It's not clear why you want the alteration to be made. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Too many moves
Regardless of the "best title" this page is being moved to often and being very confusing for everyone involved, myself included. Can we do something about this? Starship 24 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
There was no consensus above for a moratorium on move requests. That said, I don't expect there to be further RMs in the near future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
A higher threshold can backfire by inhibiting the community from settling upon a stable optimal title. That said, in this case, as closer of the recent RM, I think support exceeded even high thresholds and has found a stable title. It’s unfortunate that sufficient numbers didn’t see it when it was first proposed, but that’s water under the bridge now. —В²C☎05:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Born2cycle: I've just noticed that there was a sub-RfC attached to the main RfC which you just closed which asked for a moratorium on the name change requests. After reading them twice, then I am seeing some consensus on a short moratorium of 2-3 months, if I combine all the supports requesting a 1-year moratorium and a 6-month moratorium as combined with the 2-3 moratorium requests. It seems like it might make sense to close the sub-RfC to the main one you just closed as including a 2 month moratorium on further name changes. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErnestKrause (talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Too many moves cause a lot of redirects. I was fixing the links in some of the articles to reduce redirects when clicking the link. Cwater1 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Based on my rather extensive experience with WP titles, I believe the current title is stable for the foreseeable future because there is no plausible policy-based reasoning to change it. There should be no need for a moratorium. If I’m wrong and there is a policy-based reason to change, then that should be allowed. That’s how we achieve naturally stable titles. Not with artificial moratoriums. —-В²C☎23:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong/harmful with redirects, except in navboxes and double redirects (which I and others have already fixed). Of course we're free to update them, but that's not a pressing matter. Those with access to AWB can also mass-update said links with a click of a button, if they wish to do so, so not a hassle by any means. InfiniteNexus (talk)
The two successive page moves have been very damaging to the daily page counts which this article is receiving. It was about 50K per day under the original title, which was literally cut in half when the first name change took place. After the second name change took place (to the current title), then the daily page count went down to under 20K total per day. That's a drastic count in readership which has not recovered for over a week since the first name change. The name changes do not look like they have been helping readers find this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
That plainly doesn’t make sense on its face. Why would moving the page ever decrease readership? The old names still redirect here. I think the view count is just being split in between the redirects and the new names, which isn’t a problem at all. HappyWith (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
A loss of over half of the readers of this article due to the name changes, is clearly an issue. This has had a negative impact of the number of readers who are gaining access to this article. You can view the daily page counts for this article yourself, which has gone below 20K readers per day. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
That's not what I was saying - please read my comment again, more carefully. I am saying that there is not an actual decrease. HappyWith (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the second time you've repeated the same evidence-less claim. The article was still receiving ~50 thousand views after the first name change taking into account views via redirect. The second name change took place when the article was receiving ~40 thousand views per day and it retained that viewership.1 This is not unusual for the article which cycles between ~40 thousand and ~60 thousand views, probably resulting from news cycles (see the spike on 2023/2/24 for an obvious example). There has only been any real reduction in the past 2 days, and the cause for that is unlikely to be the moves. The redirect views search explicitly says that [s]ome data is not yet available for the dates: 3/25/2023 · 3/26/20232 which may account for at least part of that loss. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I've redone the computations using the optional tabs on the Wikitools page for the Page counts, and the numbers do come closer to where they should be. Just looking at the bare page counts, however, is decpetive and does not present a reliable account of this matter. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
My statement is very plain; after the page moves and taking into account the redirects, that the page has lost about ten percent of its readers as assessed on the page counts done by Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The statement in true. The numbers before the rename were somewhere between 49K and 50K on daily page views. The numbers now, adding in the redirects which requires an extra step, is at about 42K-43K daily page views. That a significant drop of a bit over 10%. I'm not really following your random snipes here, and do you have a point to make? You also appear to be sniping at InfiniteNexus as well about Reuters elsewhere on this Talk page? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Remember this:"I've redone the computations using the optional tabs on the Wikitools page for the Page counts, and the numbers do come closer to where they should be. Just looking at the bare page counts, however, is decpetive and does not present a reliable account of this matter." You admiteed you were wrong a second ago, now you reverse that statement @ErnestKrauseStarship 24 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Your approach and comments seem odd. Possibly your are playing up to April Fool's Day. Your snipes at various other editors and myself on this Talk page are becoming droll and should end. Your comments about Reuters seem to be verging on fantasy. Reuters is RS. Could you drop the stick on this? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
See WP:CIVIL, stop making rude comments to me. As said before, I have never disputed that Reuters is RS. Please actually look at my comments. Also, you can make rude comments to drive opposing opinions out of a discussion, that is WP:BADGERING @ErnestKrauseStarship 24 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Reliable numbers from Reuters
Taiwanexplorer36051; your edits have been updating the article's statistics on the casualties and could you comment if the Reuters numbers which I placed in the threads above this one are reliable in your viewpoint or not reliable? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Taiwanexplorer has been making the recent article updates on these stats and it would be significant for me to hear from him if he is up to answering. You can archive or move this thread after he answers. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Meta: Why no redirect for incorrect capitalizations of “of” and Ukraine?
Russian invasion of ukraine is a redirect and WP links are not case specific for the first letter so russian invasion of ukraine also works. I was going to fix this but it isn't broken (now?). We could make redirects for every permutation of caps including "Russian invasion Of Ukraine" but I think that the search box suggestions are sufficient to deal with these. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
DecafPotato (and others), what I actually said was: links are not case specific for the first letter. But yes, they are case specific for every other letter. The two links I referred to give context. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
"PRussian Invasion of Ukraine" is a plasuible misspelling, and the search lead you noweehr near it @Cinderella157 for something with millions of views, this has probably happened to hundreds Starship 24 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
By the time one completes typing PRussian into the quick search toolbar, there are ten entries in the drop-down suggestion box that all say "Prussian" something - all with Prussian in big bold letters! Some degree of competency is required, even by our readers. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
"Prussia" is not a plausible misspelling of "Russia", we're talking about two totally different countries that have nothing to do with each other. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Please read WP:RPURPOSE which states: Likely misspellings (for example, Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice). [emphasis added] While mispelling [sic] Russia as PRussia is possible it is far from Likely. The argument does not meet with the P&G. It will not survive the scrutiny of the broader community. Rather than wasting any more time, go ahead and create the redirect from PRussia invasion of Ukraine. Ping me when you do and I will put it up for deletion. Guarentee it will last as long as a snowflake in a heatwave. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:R3 probably applies to that creation. The intent behind Cinderella's invitation was to reflect on policy, not to engage in pointed editing. This only succeeds in wasting a minimum of three people's time: one editor to create it, one editor to nominate it for deletion, and one admin who now has to assess whether R3 is applicable or if a half dozen more editors' time needs to be lost debating it at WP:RfD. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
It is not implausible, it is accidently typing the p key. You may see the RFD (Redirects For Discussion) of it. We will see what the consensus. As probably hundreds have made this typo, I think it is worth a bit of time on the part of editors. @Mr rnddudeStarship 24 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Redirects with implausible typos do not need to go through RfD before being deleted. In fact, it already has been speedy deleted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion was speedily closed and the redirect speedily deleted, because it would have been a waste of time to argue over such a pointless redirect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, any competent editor would have recognized that this is an implausible typo. Secondly, other editors' comments in this discussion should have already told you that there is consensus against the creation of the redirect, and yet you went ahead and did so anyway. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Note this is an ongoing allegation under investigation by Ukraine and NATO given that the Nuclear deal in question violates ICC Arrest Warrant on Putin. There are fears of a Nuclear War as of March 2023 according to the AP New Reuters.2601:640:C682:8870:8BCF:AA77:4645:9A52 (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
From the third paragraph of the article: "Russia has said the plan to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus comes in response to the West’s increasing military support for Ukraine." HappyWith (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This definitely has to do with Ukraine. It’s another example of Russian nuclear sabre-rattling to frighten Western politicians into tempering support for Ukraine. The plan predates the 2022 Russian invasion, but Putin’s announcement is timed for its propaganda effect.
Putin advanced another information operation by announcing that Russia will deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus by July 1 and renewed tired information operations about the potential for nuclear escalation. . . .
The announcement of the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus is irrelevant to the risk of escalation to nuclear war, which remains extremely low. Putin is attempting to exploit Western fears of nuclear escalation by deploying tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus. Russia has long fielded nuclear-capable weapons able to strike any target that tactical nuclear weapons based in Belarus could hit. ISW continues to assess that Putin is a risk-averse actor who repeatedly threatens to use nuclear weapons without any intention of following through in order to break Western resolve. . . .
Putin has likely sought to deploy Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus since before the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine and has likely chosen this moment to do so in order to serve the immediate information operation he is now conducting. . . .
The aggressive gesture of nuclear weapons parked on the border of Ukraine has been covered in many international sources and needs to be added here. I'm making a short addition to the nuclear section of this article following the NPR report. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I believe the actual plans are to build a storage facility by July, but no statement has yet announced that weapons were to be moved. Putin also said that Belarus would not be given control of any nuclear weapons. These details ought to be reflected if someone can find suitable sources. —MichaelZ.19:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Michael, there have been lots of random snipes on this Talk page from other editors since your visit last week, though if you would like to line up your citations for the edit you are describing here on tactical nuclear arms, then I'll try to add something. You are also welcome to adjust/improve/modify my own edit on this issue as needed in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Fair. The best I can do for now is offer that storage facility is claimed to be completed July 1, but no date is given for any transfer. And Putin explicitly said Belarus won’t control. This is from Reuters.[14] —MichaelZ.13:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
And the Guardian reminds us that previous nuclear threats have been bluffs, and experts are sceptical of this one. But his announcement is a slap in the face to Xi, with whom he made a joint statement a few days ago, and if implemented his stated plan would violate the NPT.[15] —MichaelZ.13:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks ok and I'll try to get to it in the next day or two; are you saying that you want something about Xi added here as well, or will you add the Xi material on one of the other related sibling pages. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I’m just hoping to round the sentence out with a bit better perspective. Not sure if the item warrants any more than that in this article. How about something like this:
Putin stated on 25 March 2023 that Russia would establish a nuclear-weapons storage facility in Belarus by 1 July, retaining control of any weapons that may be moved there. Commentators responded with skepticism.
I'm guessing that its a matter of going with your new version and adding the 3 citations. I'm leaving off the closing phrase since readers can just click on any of the 3 citations being added to read it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I object to your omitting experts’ assessment from the article. Your argument is invalid, as its consistent application would turn encyclopedia articles into lists of links, or its selective application as here would turn it into a list of facts and numbers with no encyclopedic content. —MichaelZ.16:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Reverting my own edit while opposition (objection) on Talk page is in process. I'm also recusing from further edits on this sentence. You are welcome to edit the version which you believe is best for Wikipedia for this sentence as I'm recused. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2023
Since this isn’t really an invasion, we should probably split this article in two: Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-Present) (the Somali Civil War has it as well) and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. TankDude2000 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
It’s not only an invasion, it’s a war! Don’t think I’m a Pro-Russian. As a Romanian, I’m clearly against Ruzzia and also support Ukraine! 109.166.129.138 (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for typing again, I was logged out. It’s not only an invasion, it’s a war! Don’t think I’m a Pro-Russian. As a Romanian, I’m clearly against Ruzzia and also support Ukraine! TankDude2000 (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
There already is an article called Russo-Ukrainian War which covers the war, this article covers the invasion in 2022 and what followed. I'll mark this as answered as such requests need to be made differently anyway (see above). BeŻet (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I assume you meant to say "this isn't really an invasion anymore" based on your split proposal, in which case I agree, but I doubt consensus could be reached on splitting the article at the moment.Yeoutie (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This Talk page is being bombarded by edit requests for adding Nato and Ukraine info and banners. I'm going to suggest re-examining the Wikipedia policy on the Infobox belligerent section, and whether or not this space can be used to indicate that Ukraine is not in the NATO military alliance. At present the Belligerent section of the Infobox under Ukraine says nothing and is "this space is intentionally left blank". It can be put to good use by adding a short comment that NATO is not in a military alliance with Ukraine in parenthesis, or something like that. Otherwise, this Talk page appears to be under a daily bombardment of edit requests to add more about Ukraine and NATO. Comments of support/oppose from other editors if possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The FAQ has not worked that well; as you can see in the thread directly above this one which has been marked as closed about NATO. Also, your comment about PP does not seem to help since the main page is already extended confirmed protected. Could better use be made of "(this space deliberately left blank)"? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Don't think that will work all that well. The questions will then be: "Why is it intentionally blank? Shouldn't we add NATO there?" Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Would you prefer that the empty space under belligerents in the Infobox remain as blank, or to include a short message like "(Ukraine does not have a military alliance with NATO)"? My feeling is that leaving it blank accomplishes nothing useful, whereas adding that short comment about NATO could at least help to try to address the bombardment of NATO edit requests which keep being made on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
What I am saying is, adding "this space intentionally left black" or "Ukraine does not have a military alliance with NATO" is not likely to be an effective remedy. The remedy is to deprecate the use of "supported by" and there is an RfC at the template talk page to do just that. It isn't an actual template parameter. Its usage is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the template. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The main issue still remains to inform readers of the situation with NATO in the lede and Infobox as well as can be done. The main part of the article already does this, but the lede and Infobox still come short of giving a simple introductory view of NATO's relevance. The writing of a better lede section which incorporates at least some mention of NATO might help if someone feels up to doing it. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
When it comes to talk pages, a lot of people will ignore the FAQ anyway. After the Taliban took over Afghanistan in August 2021, people kept complaining at the talk page about the country's flag having been changed under the new regime. Even after I added this point to the Talk:Afghanistan/FAQ in February 2022, users continued to complain about the flag for at least another year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Under the section "Reactions", an image shows that Serbia has imposed sanctions, but the given sources don't say that. At least I didn't find it. Can we make it more clear where the information comes from? Or, conclude that it is, perhaps, an error? Donaastor (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
You are correct, the Serbian states several times it has to imposed sanctions. I suggest we remove this part of the article. 165.234.101.99 (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia articles for Sanction against Russia during the invasion states the following with 2 citations pertaining to Serbia: "A 2022 June poll found that over 80% of Serbians were opposed to sanctions on Russia. A July 2022 poll found that 84% were opposed. Serbia has not imposed significant sanctions." The correct place to voice concerns on this diagram may be at Wikimedia to correct the diagram if its a problem. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Finland and Sweden joining NATO as a result
Finland and Sweden have applied for NATO membership following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War ([17][18][19][20]). Finland just became a member and Sweden is expected to progress soon ([21]).
Finland and Sweden joining (or applying for) NATO is a direct consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (aforementioned WP:RS explain that path). This is an important cause-consequence relation from the historic point of view. I propose to include this into the "Results" of the infobox. While the war itself is ongoing, there are already major (historic) consequences of it. This is also consistent with the infobox on other wars i.e. major conflicts often have implications, with the due WP:WEIGHT, beyond the conflicting parties. -- Mindaur (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I thought to present the case, as we had some heated debates about the infobox in the past. Umm, you seem to have just added a sentence into the article though. Did you actually read my proposal? It's about the infobox. -- Mindaur (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a grand total of one insignificant mention of this information in the entire article. If it is not significant enough for a) a detailed mention in the body and b) a mention in the lede then it has no business being mentioned in the infobox. Further, the infobox documentation explicitly state that the 'results' parameter should be used to state either 'x victory' or 'inconclusive'. In cases where this is inadequate, a note should be left in the parameter directed readers to the appropriate section where the outcome is discussed in detail. However, in this case, the conflict is on-going, so the 'results' parameter is not even used. Some vague (or even explicit) reference to the content of other articles is not adequate reason in itself to disregard the infobox's or its parameter's purpose(s). The only actionable element of this request is to update the article to note that Finland is now a member as that information is not presently contained within the article (Addendum: which I see Ernest Krause has already done). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Probably not fit for the results section of the infobox, but it can definetely be expanded beyond a hastily added ″insignificant mention″. TylerBurden (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there any actual reason why we need "Phase x" in each subheader in the article? There are dates and names for each of them already there. Couldn't we change "Second phase: South-Eastern front (8 April – 5 September)" to "South-Eastern front (8 April – 5 September)", etc? HappyWith (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
There is an on-going discussion and critique within Wikipedia regarding which reliable source to use in the various Timeline articles which document this invasion, currently in the phase x to phase (x+1) notation; have you reviewed these. Most attention, though without consensus as yet, has gone to the NYRB article from January which discussed the invasion as having four chapters; have you read these Wikipedia discussions? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, my position is that they’re original research and should be removed. My question in this discussion is, why do we need the ordinal numerals in this article? Wouldn’t it resolve a lot of the conflicts if we just grouped events by the descriptions and dates, and threw out the contentious ordinals? HappyWith (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The terminology originated in the international press when Russia retreated from Kyiv and the international press started widely using the terminology of the Second Phase as having started. This was accepted by virtually all nations in the international press as the start of the Second Phase of the Russian invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that’s true that they all called it the second stage, phase, etc, but I’m not convinced that the terminology has been consistently used for the subsequent stages of the war. My question is, why do we need to use the terminology on this page as the names of subsections? If we got rid of the numbers, it would make it much easier to create a subsection for the “fourth stage” with the stalemate and Bakhmut front, since we wouldn’t need to argue endlessly over whether it was the “fourth phase” or not - we could just call it “Second stalemate and Bakhmut push” with the date range in parentheses. HappyWith (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2023
Russia is putting in a vast effort to fully subdue Bahkmut at this time, it is difficult to see them backing off on this issue. It seems to be reaching a "Mariupol" level of attention from the Russian invasion force. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
While sources did refer to a "new phase" for the retreat from Kyiv, we have adopted this terminology when it is not otherwise supported by good quality sources for other sections that follow. The use of "Phase x" implies authority in naming, which isn't the case - it is largely arbitrary and constructed by our editors. I agree with HappyWith, that we should name sections descriptively or by date. We should avoid implying definitive divisions. Wiki follows; it does not lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Yep. No one has given reasons to keep the numbers in this page, so I'm going to remove them now as best as I can. HappyWith (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The international press has made dozens upon dozens of references to the 'second phase' of the invasion after the Russian retreat from Kyiv; there is no getting around that. Regarding the "Phase 4" discussion, then there is still the issue of the Wikipedia sibling Timeline articles which have incorporated 'Phase 4' into their titles and which are already linked with this main article. You must have seen these items in this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No that's not how consensus was established on this Talk page several months ago, when you were not that active here on this Talk page. At that time, when "Phase two" was being used by vast portions of the international press, it was felt by the prevailing Wikipedia editors here that when the Ukraine counter-offensives took place, that a new section called "Phase 3" was called for in the Invasion article. At the time, and for months after it was named, this seemed to be perfectly reasonable and not criticized since it followed Phase 2, which was predominantly recognized and used throught the international press at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
But what was the reasoning for that? What reliable sources supported this terminology? Just because some editors decided to keep it in at the time doesn’t mean it can’t be challenged now. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, especially when there seems to have been no solid policy justification for the original consensus. HappyWith (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
You seem to not want to accept that the international press overwhelmingly adopted the language of the 'Second Phase' of the invasion after Russia retreated from Kyiv. Once you can endorse to me that you understand that this was the standard terminology used in the international press, then your questions might make no sense. It is almost as if you a pretending that the international press did not use the phrase "Second Phase" after the Russian retreat from Kyiv in dozens upon dozens of articles at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
If you fully accept that "second phase" terminology is established then it seems you must also understand how the international press started simultaneously referring to the first phase as coming before the 'second phase'. For example, see the January article on the Russian invasion in NYBR. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:NEWSORG is not a good source for "critical analysis" of the invasion. While we might refer to the counter-offensive as being described as a second phase, it is arguably much more valid and useful to use counter-offensive as a section heading. The key point though, is that this phase labeling does not ipso fact extend to subsequent temporal divisions. That, I would see, to be the main point being made against phase labeling. Nit-picking over "phase 2" ignores the broader issue - labeling subsequent temporal divisions. I would agree (per my above) that a descriptive labelling of sections is preferable to the phase-numeric labeling. Phase-numeric labelling only conveys temporal order which is otherwise apparent from the TOC and from the structure of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that solves the issue of all of the Timeline articles for the Russian invasion currently stating the "Phase x" language which the main article here is linking. I mean, even if I accept your position for now, then how do you address all of those Timeline sibling articles which use 'Phase x' in their titles? Your approach seem incomplete and partial. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
The main issues are the Wikipedia articles with titles like "Timeline of Phase 3 of Invasion" and "Timeline of Phase 4 of Invasion", etc. Those articles are already linked into this main article of the Invasion. They appear inconsistent with the section titles recently edited into this main article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Couldn't we just change those article titles to match with the section titles, like I said in my previous message? HappyWith (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm just not sure that you would be able to do that, even if Cinderella were to help you; I mean its 4 timeline articles for the Invasion with separate Talk pages, which is not easy to try even if with both of you together. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Why wouldn't it be possible? Couldn't we just make an RFC here or on the main timeline talk page - where all timeline talk is centralized anyway - and leave notices anywhere else it would be needed? HappyWith (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Even if Cinderella joins with you on this, then I'm still not sure you can get it done for all 4 article Timelines. The last time it was tried about a month ago, then Steven at that time was opposed to it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Let me rephrase. Even if an editor like Slatersteven disagreed, the important part would be the policy arguments. If anyone's arguments were against policy, their !vote wouldn't matter in the close. I'm going to create the RM now, and we'll see how it goes. HappyWith (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Sources overwhelmingly spell the Russian name Artemovsk,[22] by a majority of 75% or more.[23] The article text should reflect that. Any objections? —MichaelZ.14:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Finally, imposition of sanctions against Russia is a form of support for Ukraine.
So not only have western countries provided support for Ukraine in ways exceeding material supply of aid - I would also question why supplies of massive military aid, including state of the art tanks, artillery and air defense systems etc does not constitute “support”. If arming a party to a conflict does not constitute support I frankly cannot imagine what support could be, minus active participation. I question also whether this distinction exists in other Wikipedia articles on conflicts or if it has been invented specifically for this article - in which case it would be disingenuous and indicative of bias.
To summarise, I ask why provision of training, intelligence, military aid, and strategic advice does not constitute “support” in the eyes of the editors of this article. Osraige (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I have looked at the talk page, what I cannot find is any explanation for why America does not meet the criteria for supporting Ukraine. I am hoping someone could clarify this Osraige (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Why are we using tabloid level language such as 'slaughter-fest' in this article at all? This is poor tone in the best of circumstances. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
See: By 29 March, in spite of modest progress by Wagner troops in reaching the center of Bakhmut, US officials were speaking of the "progress" as minimal and that Russians were facing a "slaughter-fest" of twenty to thirty thousand casualties during the last 20 days in the battle for Bakhmut. citing this. General Milley does actually say "slaughter fest" (see here at about 50 seconds). Even as a direct quote, I would agree about tone. Why is progress in quotes? US officials were speaking? It was only Milley doing the speaking. This isn't how attribution works. I think somebody thinks that if you use the plural, it sounds more authoritative if more than one person has said it? I am thinking we should nuke the sentence and start over. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
While we are parsing language, the attack on civilians should be characterized as "Democide". I added: The Russian attacks on civilians, causing mass civilian casualties and displacement, have been characterized as "genocide" and "democide"[1]7&6=thirteen (☎)12:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Merge sections "Kyiv and northern front" and "North-eastern front"?
There doesn't seem to be much reason for treating initial attacks at Chernihiv and Sumy as a separate front, as the Russian forces which did achieved breakthrough there, then proceeded to advance towards Kyiv from eastern side. So I would suggest merging "Kyiv and northern front" and "North-eastern front" sections into single "Northern front" section.--Staberinde (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The origination points for the two fronts were very different; Kyiv was attacked out of Belarus, while the 'North-eastern' front originated on the eastern Ukraine border with Russia. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Not sure how you are reading this geography for Oblasts which are adjacent in Ukraine. Are you talking about the main spearheads of the invasion (there were 4 of them according to the international press at the time of the initial invasion), or are you talking about the order of battle for the individual spearheads of the invasion? Do you have any reliable sources for your comments? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Chernihiv was attacked from Gomel, Belarus, not sure what's the confusion here about. Anyway, the question is, should western and eastern axis of Russian Kyiv offensive be actually treated in separate sections or not. It is a fairly basic editorial question. I don't see much point in separate two paragraph "North-eastern front" section. Size wise it fits fine in "Kyiv and northern front" section, and also fits logically as that section already includes general introduction: Russian efforts to capture Kyiv included a probative spearhead on 24 February, from Belarus south along the west bank of the Dnipro River, apparently to encircle the city from the west, supported by two separate axes of attack from Russia along the east bank of the Dnipro: the western at Chernihiv, and the eastern at Sumy. These were likely intended to encircle Kyiv from the north-east and east.--Staberinde (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Support Seems like a good idea. I popped on the talk page in order to start a thread about summary style actually.
You are both apparently opposed to the various diagrams and maps which support these 2 prongs of the invasion, along with the prose concerning the separate order of battle for each of these fronts. Are you both stating that you wish to delete and eradicate all of the reliable sources currently in the article which state that there were two fronts in the initial invasion in the north and the north-east, and that you wish to eradicate all the maps and figures which support both of those spearheads? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Rename
The Russian invasion of Ukraine began in the winter of 2014, in the same article there is an exclusively large-scale invasion of Ukraine that began in the winter of 2022. Therefore, my proposal to rename the article to:
Building bridges between the two main sibling articles
It has occurred to me that it might be worth some effort on the part of editors to increase the relation between the two main sibling pages for the Ukrainian war and the Russian invasion articles. One possible path might be to add sections to each article about the relevance of the Russian plans since 2014 to build a 'land-bridge' to Crimea, after Russia had occupied Crimea in 2014. There are significant numbers of RS for Russia's early plans to want to do this since 2014, and it appears that the current Russian invasion has accomplished some measure of those goals to establish a land bridge to Crimea. Support/oppose comments from other editors if possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
US/UK special forces in Ukraine
I will preface this by saying that I have read the RfC about support for Ukraine, although I do disagree with it. Please do not refer me to it. However, with the recent leaks from the Pentagon, several reliablesources have stated that American and British special forces are present in Ukraine. I think that this is an extraordinary circumstance that would allow this to be changed, and to put the US and UK in the infobox. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Based on previous such discussions, if it turned out half the British army was deployed in Ukraine there'd still be no consensus on adding anything more than "Supplied by: UK".
For whatever reason there are a significant number of editors who refuse to agree with adding a "Supported by:" section for Ukraine on this page or that for the wider Russia-Ukraine conflict. It's unlikely that anything short of an outright declaration of war by a party involved is going to shift that, I'm afraid. TheGlaswegian (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Technically Russia had not made a formal declaration of war, so Russia should be removed from the Infobox. Juxlos (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying anyone opposed to such a change is acting in bad faith; far from it, many are rightfully concerned about the integrity of a highly disputed page about a major current event. However, what I mean to point out is that the endlessly repeating debates on this matter will continue to be totally paralysed by lack of consensus until something of extreme, unavoidable significance occurs. Until then, it's barely worth the effort of bringing up new evidence every time it crops up. TheGlaswegian (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
New evidence of what, what were these special forces doing? This is the issue. The irony is...well go back over the archives and look at what the irony is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The first source states The document does not say where the forces are located or what they are doing. The second source states: It is unclear what activities the special forces may have been engaged in or whether the numbers of personnel have been maintained at this level. While I doubt they are/were there for a holiday (though some chicken stranglers and snake eaters might consider a trip to Ukraine a holiday) the two reports tell us nothing of substance. One could reasonably speculate that they might be there for close protection since this is one role of the SASR particularly. What makes these reports particularly extrodinary? But, but, but ... they were top-secret reports, I didn't hear somebody say. Well dip me in green paint and call me a soldier, isn't that what secret squirrel military types do - keep secrets, particularly if they were/are protecting a high profile person (or is that Animal House). There are sections in the articles (and sub-articles) for foreign involvement (see Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement). So, while the secion may not be called "supported by" (not a particularly good heading for an article section) that is quite clearly what it is about. To that extent, it is factually incorrect to state For whatever reason there are a significant number of editors who refuse to agree with adding a "Supported by:" section for Ukraine on this page ... - or is it just that we don't want to call the section "supported by". There are more important issues with this article than whether or not to titivate the infobox with bunting from the flags of all nations. If Zelenskyy bought a corset, I swear somebody would want to add this flag too. (on spec that it might have whale bone stiffening. One should be aware that supported by is not an infobox parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
"One should be aware that supported by is not an infobox parameter." And yet, look at the pages for other wars. Vietnam War, Korean War, Iraq War, Yemeni civil war, Syrian civil war, all these pages have to some degree or another included a reference to "support" in the infobox by nations not involved as co-belligerents. Is the involvement of the UK in the Vietnam War, to give an example, so dramatically greater than the UK's existing political, economic and military activities supporting Ukraine's war effort? If no country supports Ukraine strongly enough to be listed here, then do all these pages need revision to meet the same standard? TheGlaswegian (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I can't say I follow; what is the wrong? That the articles of countless major wars, quite possibly the majority, include non-participants that offered notable support? It seems both relevant and appropriate to me, especially when outside aid can be an important factor in understanding the context and outcomes of said wars. To provide another example, the article on the Arab-Israeli conflict includes the information that Israel is supported by the United States while the Soviet Union supported their Arab opponents. I can't say I see what's wrong about that inclusion. TheGlaswegian (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Well as it's not all, yes doing something because some other page does it (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) is not a great argument. We need new arguments (not "evidence" arguments) as to why this change needs to be made. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
If the presence of this information across Wikipedia is insufficient, then how about the inclusion of Belarus in this article? It's listed as supporting Russia, so the inclusion of a "supported by" for Ukraine would be no different in terms of the format of the page.
For the record I would not support the removal of Belarus, but its inclusion while none of Ukraine's supporters warrant mention is a glaring inconsistency. TheGlaswegian (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Have you really read the previous discussions? If so, you'd know the answer to this question. But I guess it never hurts to keep asking the same question over and over. TylerBurden (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
OK, so lets treat them the same, name one NATO country that has allowed attacks to be launched from its soil. If you can name one I will support their inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
PS, why is it I am not surprised that the editors pushing this particular barrow are not ECP confirmed? Cinderella157 (talk)
Infobox should be changed ASAP, particularly considering it says Russia is supported by Belarus. Belarus does not have special forces on the ground. Not to mention billions of dollars in weapons are being supplied both by and through NATO countries. I think we should be careful here not to allow this article be subject of ridicule and adhere to WP:NPOV.Qayqran (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
TylerBurden Belarus allowed Russian forces to use its territory. I agree. NATO support includes providing tanks, F-16s, training, billions on military aid, military intelligence and of course special-ops on the ground. Can you provide here the basis on which you decide what does and does not constitute military support? Qayqran (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Can you provide a source that says F-16's have been provided? Also, are we now talking about support or military support? Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
"Individual NATO member countries are sending weapons, ammunition and many types of light and heavy military equipment, including anti-tank and air defence systems, howitzers, drones and tanks. To date, NATO Allies have provided billions of euros’ worth of military equipment to Ukraine. Allied forces are also training Ukrainian troops to use this equipment. All of this is making a difference on the battlefield every day, helping Ukraine to uphold its right of self-defence, which is enshrined in the United Nations Charter."
And this is why this keeps getting rejected, "Individual NATO member countries", not NATO. No mention of one of the justifications for inclusion. You, people, need to make better arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
From memory, we have already rejected adding the sinister States under “Belligerents” over the presence of its embassy security staff, its military attaché to the ambassador, and its unarmed DoD staff auditing weapons deliveries. We will likely continue to reject the presence of a handful of special forces that we don’t know what they are doing but are not alleged to be armed or fighting. And don’t appear to even be the issue, because just about all of the discussion above is repetition of previous discussions. —MichaelZ.16:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Slatersteven Strawman argument. No one is arguing to include NATO as supporting. We are saying United States, UK - and perhaps Poland which has already provided F-16s. Qayqran (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Around 70 states have given aid to Ukraine. None have provided any F-16. Ironic to see that argument accompanied by a critical analysis of someone else’s logic. —MichaelZ.19:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Nothing has changed since previous RfCs because this is nothing new. The US special forces operated since the beginning of the war, see this NYT article from June 2022 [24]. (But even as the Biden administration has declared it will not deploy American troops to Ukraine, some C.I.A. personnel have continued to operate in the country secretly, mostly in the capital, Kyiv, directing much of the vast amounts of intelligence the United States is sharing with Ukrainian forces, according to current and former officials. At the same time, a few dozen commandos from other NATO countries, including Britain, France, Canada and Lithuania, also have been working inside Ukraine. What they do? According to publications, they mostly coordinate the flow of weapons. They are not doing any actual combat missions because there are Ukrainians for such tasks. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
This has been extensively discussed particularly here (see also here where links to other discussions are given). Unless there is new information from sources likely to alter the consensus, simply re-raising this matter could be perceived as disruptive. Have you read the relevant previous discussions GramCanMineAway? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I see. I had just gone to the talk page and did not see it there and so assumed that the edit was made without anyone raising any issue. My apologies, I did not intend to be disruptive. I have now read those discussion posts, but admittedly, I had not at the time of making my 'Iranian Support' post. GramCanMineAway (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
As the FAQ notes, there was previously no consensus, and the lack of consensus may change over time.
I would support adding United States at a minimum.
A citation that I have post-dating the prior non-consensus is an academic text from Routledge, China and Eurasian Powers in a Multipolar World 2.0: Security, Diplomacy, Economy, and Cyberspace (March 31, 2023) which states, "[T]he United States and the West have supported Kyiev by offering military equipment, accommodating its financial needs, providing intelligence, and imposing sanctions against Russia." p. 29.
The closer of that discussion noted, "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)"
Indeed, it is now more than a couple months, and the academic sourcing referring to US "support" in explicit terms has begun to percolate. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Not a germane question as you’ve phrased it. You’ve only noted one form of support mentioned by this RS, when there is also financial support, support in the form of sanctions, and the support via the provision of intelligence. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Do we normally list financial support , intelligence sharing or sanctions in an infobox anywhere? Moxy-03:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
What, you’re saying you want to add Ukraine to the infobox? The proponents of this change need to be more specific about the text changes they want if they’re not obvious. —MichaelZ.16:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a valid argument. "The United States, our allies, and our partners worldwide are united in support of Ukraine in response to Russia’s premeditated, unprovoked, and unjustified war against Ukraine." Source: https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/ on April 4, 2023.
Specifically, "Since 2014, the United States has provided more than $37.8 billion in security assistance for training and equipment to help Ukraine preserve its territorial integrity, secure its borders, and improve interoperability with NATO." Further, "Pursuant to a delegation by the President, we have used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on thirty-five occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine approximately $20.4 billion in military assistance directly from DoD stockpiles."
The nature of this support is distinctly different from that U.S. neutrality policy in 1930's where "The Neutrality Act of 1937 did contain one important concession to Roosevelt: belligerent nations were allowed, at the discretion of the President, to acquire any items except arms from the United States, so long as they immediately paid for such items and carried them on non-American ships—the so-called “cash-and-carry” provision. Since vital raw materials such as oil were not considered “implements of war,” the “cash-and-carry” clause would be quite valuable to whatever nation could make use of it." Source: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/neutrality-acts
This to me says that the United States belongs in the infobox as "Supported by: United States" even if NATO does not. Litesand (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Scottish asked for a re-evaluation, and the situation of USA supporting Ukraine with blood and treasure remains the same at this time as it did in February of 2022 last year when the invasion began. Although Biden said that he will defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression with blood and treasure, Biden has significantly insisted that he will only provide treasure and supplies to Ukraine and 'no boots on the ground' to Ukraine. That's a significant contrast for Biden to make and its direct implications should be followed in the Infobox here. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
USA is a signatory of NATO. Same for NATO; the only appreciable change on this since last year is Finland, because if Finland is now attacked or invaded by Russia then NATO (and the USA) are open to send boots on the ground and planes in the air to defend Finland as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
That is not an answer, A number of nations are part of NATO and have not sent arms, a number of nations have sent arms who are not part of NATO. So I ask again, are we discussing NATO or the USA? Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
It is a direct answer. NATO is a military alliance which includes the USA. Under the terms of this military alliance, the signatories decide which signatory nations will do what in response to any military challenges to that military alliance. This is foreign policy 101 in case you have not studied it in your readings on this topic. Since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, then it cannot invoke the conditions and responses of a military alliance which are specified by NATO. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
OP suggested NATO with no analysis. My comment citing an RS was that I would support at least Supported by: United States. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Or, is it their fear that once it becomes public, the Russian government, through this wikipage would actually use it as legitimacy to send the world into WWIII considering it’s UNDENIABLE that NATO is supporting Ukraine militarily AND economically? 2603:9001:7500:3242:FCCF:E04F:C45C:73D9 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
There are some Telegram reports on the liberation of the villages of Lobkove and Marfopil in Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Ukraine's counteroffensive may be close to starting. It might be useful to create a 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article to facilitate things and include relevant information that might come up. I doubt it could be considered WP:CRYSTALBALL at this point when even classified American documents talk about an upcoming Ukrainian counteroffensive. So I incite someone to go create an article for it. SuperΨDro22:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd say we should hold off on making a subsection and separate article for the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive until we have more verifiable sources that its happening other than some rumblings on telegram and social media (ie: and ISW report on the liberation of Lobkove and Marfopil), and a leaked document that might either be outdated, or have resulted in the entire offensive being drastically changed or even scrapped. Scu ba (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I presume the counteroffensive will happen at some stage. But creating the section now will require relying on sub-standard sources. I suggest waiting.Qayqran (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Several videos (videos themselves not in the link, so safe to click) have recently surfaced showing Russian forces beheading Ukrainian soldiers, drawing comparisons with ISIS. Since war crimes and treatment of POW's are mentioned in this article, these brutal acts may also be worth mentioning as examples of how Russia conducts itself in the war. Additional sources: The Guardian, Al JazeeraTylerBurden (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Of course we can't, but given the notability (specifically in regards to amount of media coverage), I say we put in 1 or 2 sentences as a passing mention within that section.
Something like "Throughout (whatever range of dates the videos were found), several videos of Russian forces beheading Ukrainian POW's came to light. Many reliable sources liken these beheadings to those preformed by ISIS."
The example I wrote lacks encyclopedic wording and form, but an altered version would be nice to include in a more general sense. Nice argument (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I think there's maybe enough coverage, but I'm not totally sure. There's WP:NODEADLINE, so we might want to wait another 24 hours for WP:GNG to become completely clear, but after that, I'm pretty sure an article could be made. HappyWith (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree with above about a brief mention, that is what I was thinking as well. The coverage has been immense. Detailed content related to it is of course better suited for the linked articles above, or possibly a new one. TylerBurden (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I probably won’t be contributing that much to it myself - the subject matter is just too horrifying and graphic - but I’ll try to clean up some of the material relating to government reactions, etc. HappyWith (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The article really needs a short section of a few paragraphs about Russia’s atrocity crimes: the persecution lists, the systematic organization of torture chambers for military and civilian victims, the mistreatment of PWs, the dissemination of videos of killings with sledge hammer, mutilation, or beheading, the kidnapping and reeducation of children, the incitement to genocide, etcetera. And about their investigation and prosecution. —MichaelZ.01:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Recent news about an Ukrainian soldier beheaded by Russian soldiers are another evidence of Russian war crimes on the battlefield : [26], [27].---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)07:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The article already mentions the Putin indictment for crimes, with a link to the main article. Should this precedent of waiting for indictments to be made, be observed for other infractions by other persons and other crimes from Russia? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Z Not it doesn't. Wikipedia is not an echo chamber for war propaganda. There are hundreds of examples of war crimes committed by both sides. Qayqran (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
"Echo chamber" is a bit odd: we are to represent what reliable secondary sources say, weighing the attention given to matters by those sources. It is pretty obvious that this has gained traction worldwide. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Qayqran that is false. “Both sides are the same” is a main point in Russian war propaganda, but reliable sources tell us that Russian forces have committed the great majority of atrocity crimes and commit them systematically. Ukraine has not systematically set up torture chambers for Russian civilians and kidnapped tens of thousands of children from Russia for reeducation, for example. Please stop POV pushing immediately. —MichaelZ.21:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Michael Your tone and attitude is concerning to say the least. You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I see you have had a hand in many of the gross policy violations which plague articles related to this conflict. Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda. We should stick strictly to policy and particularly WP:NPOV. If you cannot, it is not the place for you. You will not win the Ukraine war by edit warring on Wikipedia. You will, however, contribute to discrediting and damaging the project's reputation.Qayqran (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@MichaelAnd for your information, yes. Pro-Kiev forces have set up torture chambers for Russians, pro-Russian forces. They have also raped and killed woman and children in the Donbass and this is perfectly provable with reliable sources - both Western and Ukrainian. The question is that it doesn't matter in the context of this article. This article is not the place to engage in propaganda and communication warfare. The objective should always be to seek consensus and present information out there in the most neutral and reliable way possible. If you are not here to do this, if you do not operate under this premise, you should not be here at all. Qayqran (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you should either immediately drop the Russian propagandistic narrative or stop talking altogether. SuperΨDro22:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Qayqran's behaviour is being quite concerning. Not sure what do they attempt with this out of nowhere hostility towards Michael. SuperΨDro22:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not hostile towards any particular editor. I'm opposed to what is clearly an open breach of WP:NOTHERE which seems to plague articles directly or indirectly related to the Ukraine conflict. And behind many of the most flagrant violations I do notice Michael's hand.Qayqran (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Qayqran, what do you have, like 80 edits and maybe a handful of un-reverted article edits? You showed up and created a user page with a fake description having nothing to do with your planned activities, and by edit no. 7 you were pushing your POV by trying to wipe an important article from the record. You’re obviously on a mission to “fix” Wikipedia because it doesn’t conform to your worldview. Stop your disruption. —MichaelZ.03:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
"I'm opposed to what is clearly an open breach of WP:NOTHERE", says an account that was created only a month ago and edits exclusively in support of rotting autocracies and their sympathizers. Very funny. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Well only more reliable references have reported on the beheadings since this was posted, and other than a new editor here having a meltdown accusing administrators of being WP:NOTHERE and throwing whataboutism all over the place I do not see any serious resistance to a brief mention. It should be implemented reflecting what the references say. TylerBurden (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I would observe that the various news sources reporting on these videos are near universally circumspect in their reporting, using purported or similar. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The beheading video has also been condemned by Russian authorities and an investigation is underway. Anyhow, I don't understand editors here arguing "We should include a paragraph on the beheading as an example of how EVIL Russia is since this is TYPICAL Russian behavior. By the way, mentioning anyone else is doing anything bad except Russia is Russian propaganda and a breach of NPOV. Stop engaging in EVIL Russian propaganda!". Literally. Its this bad. And there is no warnings, no supervision, no control. Its the "Slava Ukraina" exception to WP:NOTHERE. The perfect example is this insane article Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Qayqran (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
There are several reasons to the phenomenon you describe. Firstly, Russia has committed far more crimes than Ukraine. Secondly, Ukrainian crimes have... not sure how to say this. Let's just remember the Amnesty International report on Ukrainian human shields. I don't know how much truth or falsity did it have but Amnesty International received a lot of backlash after it. Finally, Western sources are biased towards Ukraine and against Russia due to the political situation, and they happen to be the best quality sources. Almost everything that comes from Russian media about the war is pure garbage.
you got any source about the case having been condemned by Russian authorities? by the way, this really seems like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT case, you are simply whining about stuff, plus a lot of strawman fallacy to unpack here, you are exaggerating A LOT, no one here is saying any of the things you said we are, Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine also has none of the errors you claim it has.
More misrepresentation. Russian authorities did not condemn this. They only cast doubt on it implying it may be fake. Meanwhile Wagner propaganda tried to normalize it.[28]
There are two different beheadings by Russians currently in the news.[29] There was another case in August.[30] This is in addition to Wagner openly disseminating video of murders conducted with sledgehammer blows to the head, Russians castrating and murdering a Ukrainian PW, and literally hundreds of people killed in Russian torture chambers and civilians murdered by Russian forces in Bucha, Izium, and elsewhere (and another video of Wagner members torturing to death and dismembering a man for kicks in Syria).
Russian authorities have not condemned any of these crimes. They have not published results of any investigations. Their state media has simultaneously denied, excused, normalized, incited, and glorified them. We have articles about this subject: Atrocity crimes during the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Your words. Sources tell us Ukraine condemned the Russian perpetrators, and some governments condemned them pending verification. The Kremlin merely called the video “awful” and deflected responsibility in preparation for either ignoring it, denying it, blaming the victims, saying they deserved it, exonerating it, and blaming Ukrainians/EU/CIA/Masons as it did for MH17, Bucha, genocidal deportation of children, and all of its other crimes. If you’re not aware, Wagner-associated media acting for Russia are already doing so. —MichaelZ.16:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this means in terms of not waiting for actual outcomes to be published for both Bucha, as well as for the indictment for arrest against Putin; wouldn't it be proper to wait for the RS regarding progress and actual outcomes on these? (Separately, I'm not quite sure why "Z" is being used as a greeting and salutation for Michael's account in the above discussion, since this is the Russian emblem being used to denote tanks and troops invading Ukraine since last year; is this some private joke that not all of the editors here know about?) ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
More actual indictments to start with would be a significant addition to answer your question. I'm the one who added the Putin indictment in this main article and I'm seeing no difficulty if someone wants to add a link to it to the Wikipedia articles you just mentioned. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually, its already linked in the lede. And what is the backstory to someone else calling you 'Z' on this Talk page when no one else seems to call you 'Z' (in newspapers, its used as the symbol of the Russian invasion of Ukraine)? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
This article from Reuters provides estimated casualties per recently-leaked documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency:
“
According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.
Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."
”
Probably worth including this info in this Wikipedia article. Mere numbers cannot fully capture the magnitude of this war’s devastation, but they can begin to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I've seen this article; should editors wait for some traction on this breaking news before adding it into the main article here? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The doctored images have already been called out, and the number of casualties that were listed above by @Anythingyouwant are the original numbers in the leaks. The only major doctored image was the one swapping Russian losses with Ukrainian losses. So we know which files were doctored and which ones weren't. As for @ErnestKrause's question, the leaks have already been mentioned in multiple articles already, so I would say Anythingyouwant's request is viable. As for Ukraine's official claims, I believe we should use the original Minusrus website, is that is where all of the Ukrainian sources like the Kyiv Independent and Ukrainska Pravda are getting their numbers, as well as the Ukrainian General Staff's official Twitter account. Vivaporius (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that this is at Snowden level of concern? I've haven't seen a large scale political response to this leak; possibly the news weeklies should have a chance to respond in the press to assess better the relative impact of this? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Ref7 is a total, blatant falsification
Numbers (50,000 of any sort, 300,000 in relation to mobilised) and words (Wagner, mercenaries, mobilised) supposedly "cited" by this reference do not exist there are at all.
I've pointed this fact already back in February, but instead of the hoax being removed, a part of my comment was removed as "unconstructive" and the rest was entirely ignored.
Also someone should verify all the other references, because I verified only one and yet found it a 100% hoax (you should also find out who did it). 94.254.153.61 (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually it's no longer there, even if it was just earlier today when I did check again, and now I can't even find it anywhere in the article history (where it's the same as right now even in January). Extremely strange. It was claiming "300,000 (including mobilised)" and "50,000 Wagner mercenaries" separately in the infobox, with this ref (diffeent than the Ref7 now) falsely used twice, and I didn't imagine it. So Im totally perplexed what the hell even happened there but at least it's not longer an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.153.61 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
But there's still problem since the infobox does not mention the LNR-DNR so-called "separatist" forces (now officially added to the Russian military and security forces after the annexation, and extremely heavily conscripting in their territories all the time since early February 2022), assorted mercenary and volunteer forces (there are various, including militias), newly recruited additional contract soldiers/policemen (and they do use police forces heavily, including on frontlines), new normal conscripts (normal annual drafting of young men), and so on, making ""In February 2023: + 200,000 newly mobilised soldiers[1]" completely misleading as if it were the only additions. You should find and use only any estimates of the total strenght, as you do for the Ukrainian side ("July 2022 total strength: up to 700,000[2]"), or else just write something like "Current strenght: Unknown" or simply nothing (but you should still add some estimate of the "sparatist" armies and police from at least Feb 22, when there were tens of thousands of them already even before the mobilisation and just their standing forces - and by mobilisation I mean their total mobilisation of almost entire adult male population that started in early Feb 22). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.153.61 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
It would be of use if you could write these long comments in short sentences. One of your sentences appears to be over 60 words long. Try to keep the sentences under 10 words per sentence or other editors are likely not to try to read them. Also, you might try to sign your edits. You appear to be saying that you are displeased about something in the Infobox about LNR. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Be specific about request wording changes.
The infobox doesn’t list anything under units involved, so none of those Russian organizations belong there. (“DLNR” were under overall control of Russia since May 2014.)
But “In February 2023: + 200,000 newly mobilised soldiers” does seem inadequate. I understand about 300k were openly mobilized, and maybe 200k or more stealth mobilization: including volunteers, reservists, PMCs, 3rd Army Corps, convicts, illegal recruitment in Ukraine, and most recently by corporations. There must be sources with usable estimates. —MichaelZ.15:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
This was a front page story in the New York Times. If the wording can be improved then the New York Times account should be followed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
NYT isn’t wrong, but it doesn’t try or claim to be a comprehensive figure of Russian total strength, and so we lack an estimated Russian total strength. Russia has a lot of forces in Ukraine in addition to newly mobilized soldiers. —MichaelZ.16:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
^"Ukraine", The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 2023-01-18, retrieved 2023-01-19
Restructuring
I don't feel exactly comfortable making a large change to the structure of the article, but I feel like the Dontesk front should be its own separate subsection in the invasion section, instead of being a subsection to the Russian annexation subsection. In fact I feel like the same could be said for the Kherson counter offensive. Would anyone support a change like this? Scu ba (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Until there is resolution in Bahkmut, its seems unlikely that the restructuring is needed at this time. The front page of The New York Times today is stating that Ukraine military supplies are dwindling and that Bahkmut's fortune appears more bleak now at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Im not saying Bahkmut should get its own subsection in the invasion section, but rather a subsection in a subsection about the Dontesk Front. Scu ba (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd prefer to group Donetsk and Luhansk in the invasion subsection if it goes through as the 2 fronts are closely linked. FusionSub (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I've went ahead and made the changes, if for whatever reason its agreed that this wasn't the right move feel free to revert the edits Scu ba (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause, here is where you can discuss how the restructuring doesn't reflect "the real world", something you're supposed to do on a contentious article like this instead of just taking it upon yourself to make the changes. Scu ba (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Scu ba, your proposed changes were reverted by ErnestKrause but you have reinstated these with no difference (see here). Scuba, you said feel free to revert the edits and that is what has happened. Yes, there is a reasonable obligation for the parties (both) to discuss the edits but simply restoring them without discussion or amendment can be seen as disruptive. I would suggest self-reverting this edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
This section restructuring really does not match with real world events. Bakhmut is still unresolved. When Bahkmut is resolved then there might be updates. Talk page is needed for this. It can all be revisited when Bahkmut is brought to some resolution which The New York Times says may be soon. Discussion of changes to TOC should be done at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Again I don't know what you mean by "does not match with real world events" what part of the Bahkmut section is incorrect? Scu ba (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
For myself and others, I think that 'real world' needs to refer to the siege at Bakhmut with daily casualties on both sides until the battle is completed. Once its completed, then it will be more clear if Russia has new objectives for massing troops for new targets. That would then give the best indication of what direction the TOC might take for a realistic approach to understanding the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
So in your 'real world' battles don't happen until they're over and done with? The battle of Bahkmut is an ongoing engagement, as was every other entry in the invasion section of this article. They're updated as it happens, when the battle is over they're trimmed down, but until then all relevant information should be present. Scu ba (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I don’t understand Ernest’s argument either. Why would the battle not being over yet prevent us from treating this part of the war as a separate “phase”? HappyWith (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Since April 2022 this article has followed the Fall of Mariupol followed by the fall of other cities as the outline of this article. That is the way military articles are generally written; which major cities were taken and which were lost. If you are suggesting something better then you can put it forward. At this moment, the Fall of Bahkmut appears to be the most prominent new headline for the last month in the international press. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Honestly, I think it would be best to just use what reliable sources consider to be "new phases" rather than using our own analyses. I'll see if I can find sources on that topic. HappyWith (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
New subsection proposal: "Winter stalemate and Russian Donetsk push"
Following up on my comments in § Restructuring, I propose that we make a new subheader under "Invasion" titled along the lines of "Winter stalemate and Russian Donetsk push (12 November 2022 - present)", which covers the events in that time. I think this has clearly been a new "stage" of the war separate from the previous "stage" that we've labeled "Russian annexations and Ukrainian counterattacks" in the article: Over the past few months, the pacing and intensity of the fighting have changed significantly, with fighting shifting towards Bakhmut, the Svatove-Kreminna line, and Vuhledar and the failed Russian "counteroffensive" that fizzled out in Luhansk. But it's not just my analysis; Here are some sources that delineate this as a different "phase":
South China Morning Post: "Ukraine war enters new phase with first winter since Russia’s invasion"
New York Times: "With a weather-enforced pause in major military movements, the war will enter a new phase.", "the coming winter is expected to bring a slowdown in military advances on both sides."
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: "Russia's withdrawal from the southeastern city of Kherson marks another victory for Kyiv as the front lines on the battlefield continue to be redrawn. But as the fighting shifts into a new phase with winter looming, what's next for the nearly nine-month war?", "[During the winter, the war] will be fought at a different tempo…and it provides political and military leaders an opportunity to plan for what is likely to be a brutal and bloody year ahead."
We already have a timeline subarticle covering the scope for this "phase" at Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (12 November 2022 – present). I propose we use this article's scope for now. The specific day could be adjusted later, but I think this is clearly a different stage of the war that should be treated as one - it makes more sense to the reader. My proposed title is very clunky, and obviously should be tweaked a bit, but I think something along those lines would be good. HappyWith (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The news headlines for the past month in the international press has been Bahkmut, Bahkmut, Bahkmut. It would make sense to wait for the outcome which seems to be likely to take place within 2 weeks. Second important news appears to be that USA is sending several dozen Abrams tanks to Ukraine in the next few weeks which could be significant. If you are both pressing for a new 'phase' at this time, then I'm thinking that one could be made to single out the Battle of Bahkmut in progress now, if you both cannot wait for it to be resolved. Could we wait one week, and then it might make more sense to start a new 'phase' for the on-going Battle of Bahkmut. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Second important news appears to be that USA is sending several dozen Abrams tanks to Ukraine Source? Only found it on NYP which is not very reliable. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Why would it make sense to wait for an outcome? The sources I listed are already calling it a new phase, and have been for months. Just because a battle is ongoing doesn't make it not notable. HappyWith (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the NYTimes article on the Abrams from 2 days ago here: [33]. Separately, the name which you have suggested above, I'm not sure would work for this. Presently the new animation map in the article shows what appears to be Russia making deep entrenchments in its occupied territory, and Ukraine reports are that they lack sufficient military supplies to mount any Spring counteroffensive. That leaves the Battle of Bahkmut as the center of your claim. Could you suggest a new name for the new section you are proposing, as well as the preliminary TOC for its starting sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
My idea of what the section would conceptually cover would be kinda how the timeline article describes it: as a "Second stalemate", or something along those lines. This parallels in many ways the campaigns of summer 2022, where Russia did these grinding, slow advances at large costs, and Ukraine tried to minimize losses while holding out for Western supplies. I've had a bit of trouble coming up with good wording, but honestly it doesn't have to be perfect when we put it in - it'll be improved over time with input from other editors, per Cunningham's Law. "Winter slowdown and continued Russian offensives", or something along those lines is what I'm thinking of.
For the subsections, a possible organization could be:
"Bakhmut axis" - covering Bakhmut, Soledar, and how the rising prominence of the Wagner Group is tied in with that. Avdiivka could also be in here, or maybe somewhere else - I haven't been following that battle as closely.
"Zaporizhzhia front" - covering the disastrous assaults on Vuhledar and the skirmishes in Orikhiv and the other frontline villages that Ukraine has hinted may form the beginning to a counteroffensive.
"Infrastructure attacks"(?) - These seem to have been covered a lot, even though they're not part of the actual combat. They could maybe be covered, discussing the strategy and different analyst's takes on whether it has been effective or not
Btw, I think we have pretty clear consensus here to add this section. I'm gonna make the preliminary edits, but others can feel free to adjust things a ton. HappyWith (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Sources describe this as a series of failed Russian offensives, not a “stalemate,” with the main one at Bakhmut, significant efforts at Vuhledar and Avdiivka, and others on Luhansk oblast’s Kupiansk–Svatove–Kreminna line. See, for example, the analyses by the ISW.[34] Stalemate is not a useful term because it implies nothing is happening, omits who is making what efforts and whether they are successful or not. —MichaelZ.21:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
That's true. If you can think of a specific better terminology to use in the section title, feel free to replace "stalemate" with that. HappyWith (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
In military terms, a stalemate does not imply that nothing happened but that there was not substantial change in the status quo. Both the Western Front (World War I) from 1915 - 1917 and the Gallipoli campaign are often described as a stalemate despite the numerous battles (mainly by the Allied powers) to break the stalemate. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, you have changed the heading to your preferred version here with the edit summary: Edit by agreement with Michael. See Talk page. No further reverts without consensus on Talk following Wikipedia policy. [emphasis added] Your amendment has been challenged. There is no WP:P&G that makes your edit sacrosanct. Rather, the WP:ONUS rests with you. The is no explicit agreement with Michael and, even if there was, nobody died and gave Michael a supervote. I suggest you stop trying to WP:BLUDGEON the process. Entrenchment does mean immobility - to dig-in. It is quite reasonable to argue that it is a worse description than stalemate and that Michael's perception in opposing stalemate is incorrect. The original heading, Winter stalemate and continued Russian assaults [emphasis added], resolves that the stalemate was not a period of inactivity. This discussion is still ongoing. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Michael's words were fairly plain and I'm in agreement with Michael on this: "Sources describe this as a series of failed Russian offensives, not a “stalemate,” with the main one at Bakhmut". Agreement with Michael on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Can you provide some examples of how sources call it that? Rather than arguing over definitions, I think it would be most productive to just see how RS describe this phase and go with the most common descriptors. HappyWith (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
This search shows that, while some sources would predict a stalemate, others are referring to the existence of a stalemate. As I said above, stalemate does not mean inactivity and no attempts to break it. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
TASS
@Osterluzei Please stop adding TASS citations to the article. If you read my edit summary, you would see that I was citing WP:TASS, which explains that TASS is a Russian state propaganda outlet that is completely unfit for use in Wikipedia. HappyWith (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Involved in editing for over 10 years. Do not delete legal citations from Russian-based sources as they are accepted by the wikipedia community. Thanks. Neutrality. Osterluzei (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? If you read the policy I linked - which you keep blindly blanking from the talk page - you'll learn "In a 2022 RfC, editors achieved a strong consensus that TASS is a biased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and that the source is generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context." This is very clearly not a situation where we can use that source. HappyWith (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not. I think your browser's preferred language is Chinese, so the image is automatically translating itself to match your settings. HappyWith (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
A siege is a militaryblockade of a city, or fortress, with the intent of conquering by attrition, or a well-prepared assault. This derives from Latin: sedere, lit. 'to sit'. Siege warfare is a form of constant, low-intensity conflict characterized by one party holding a strong, static, defensive position. Consequently, an opportunity for negotiation between combatants is common, as proximity and fluctuating advantage can encourage diplomacy. A siege can be a partial siege or a full siege. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Ernest is referring to disputes over whether we should call it the "Siege of Bakhmut" or "Battle of Bakhmut" in the subsection header for the most recent "phase" of the war. HappyWith (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Yet the name of the article is "Battle of Bakhmut", not "Siege of Bakhmut". Why use this terminology that is unfamiliar to the reader? HappyWith (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
During the last few weeks, the international press has started to speak of Bakhmut as on its last legs with a collapse being seen as immanent. The final stages of a siege and the fall of Bakhmut, similar to Mariupol last year, has been the preference for describing this in the international press. Michael did not like to use of the word 'siege' which he seems to see as worse than 'stalemate', which he also dislikes. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Siege is not worse, it’s just wrong in this case. Bakhmut was never surrounded or successfully blockaded. It wasn’t successfully cut off to besiege its occupants and force them to surrender. Russian flanking manoeuvres have so far failed to create a siege.
The Russian operation remains an offensive, assault, advance, etcetera, not a siege.
Random House (dictionary.com) “surrounding . . . as to isolate it”[37]
ODE: “surround . . . cutting off essential supplies”
I guess “partial siege” isn’t wrong: file it under “unhelpful,” right after partial pregnancy. Please don’t use technical vocabulary informally or imprecisely in articles on the respective subject. —MichaelZ.16:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The NYTimes disagrees with you here: [38]. Global News disagrees with you here [39]. Chr Science Monitor disagrees with you here: [40]. Your reading of what siege means in the 21st century appears incongruous with them. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
One sentence you’re citing for writing style includes the spelling Ukranian. Please try a bit harder. Anyway, not fair to use text only appearing in an article head or subhead: these are typically written by editors without consulting the writers.
I would say the NYT Kramer story is using the phrase “brutal siege” informally for its effect; do you want to move the article to Brutal siege of Bakhmut? I don’t believe this is appropriate for the encyclopedia, just as “seesaw fighting on the city’s artillery-blasted streets,” “Russia’s signature tactic has been to send waves of assaults by small units that suffer fearful losses,” or "a stony-faced Mr. Shoigu” might not be. —MichaelZ.23:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
First sentence
It doesn't sound right. I've corrected the tense but 'occupied' should be removed IMO. Occupy means more than just being on someone else's land - it means to settle down and make a home of it. Initially I think Russia's intent was to get a Ukrainian surrender, the occupying part came later with the annexations. In any case 'to invade and occupy' sounds a bit awkward, like pushing a point. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Russian invaded and (militarily) occupied parts of Ukraine. They left soldiers in the territory they conquered and advanced from to maintain control over it. That's an occupation. Russia's initial military objective is wholly irrelevant, unless you want to make the Russian government's case that it just sent soldiers through Ukrainian lands in a special military operation and did not invade or occupy territory at the start whatsoever. Yue🌙20:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The Russians invaded with the intention of imposing régime change by force. They immediately imposed a military-civilian occupation régime on Ukrainians everywhere they could (they spearheaded invasion forces with riot troops for this purpose). They’ve occupied territories for fourteen months now. They’ve declared parts of them Russia. Not saying it would be flagrantly pushing a point. —MichaelZ.23:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
No, this article isn't a news site for domestic Russian issues, regardless of how much Russia screams that it was Zelenskyy personally piloting the drone. TylerBurden (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
This isn't a forum for your opinions, the incident has no place on this article, which is about Russia invading Ukraine, not drones blowing up in the Kremlin. TylerBurden (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
There is so much speculation surrounding the topic that it would be difficult to get anything solid into this specific article I feel, though it certainly belongs somewhere, perhaps in the articles you linked, unless something concrete is uncovered about the attacks I don't think this is the place for it. TylerBurden (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Probably shouldn't add it. It's almost irrelevant to this article (excluding Russia blaming it on Ukraine). The only real way I could see this being added is if Russia decides to use this as an excuse to start something big, and even then it will probably just be a line in passing due to the lack of info we have about it right now. Nice argument (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2023
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.
Since there is a risk that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" could be considered to be pushing an anti-Russian point of view, might not 'Russian/Ukrainian conflict' seem more to the point/less problematic? For might not any impression what Wikipedia is supporting a pro-US undermine it as a world-wide media outlet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.158 (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
No, as Russia invaded Ukraine. That is the objective fact of the matter, and is the most neutral description of the event. There is another article in Russo-Ukrainian War that discusses the broader conflict, however. — Czello(music)08:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
What planet do you live on where Russia didn't invade Ukraine? An armed force entering a country with the intent to subjugate or occupy it is the literal definition of an invasion, to call it anything else would be anything but neutral. TylerBurden (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Russia has invaded Ukraine. I don't understand how stating this is controversial when it's a simple statement of fact. I just find it incredibly bizarre to describe this as pro-US, when this has nothing to do with the US. Just baffled by this proposal. BeŻet (talk) 10:28, 15 May 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.
Foreign Involvement Single Source False Claims
There is a claim on the main page of this article under "Foreign Involvement," of course claiming increased CIA/SOF presence in Ukraine, but also falsely claiming the article they link to says those forces are aiding Ukrainian forces. Here is the quote on Wikipedia: "...the United States has significantly increased the secret involvement of special operations military and CIA operatives in support of Ukrainian forces since the beginning of the invasion." Now here's the Intercept quote (https://theintercept.com/2022/10/05/russia-ukraine-putin-cia/, from *James Risen & Ken Klippenstein* mind you, "There is a much larger presence of both CIA and U.S. special operations personnel and resources in Ukraine than there were at the time of the Russian invasion in February, several current and former intelligence officials told The Intercept." There is no indication that those CIA/SOF personnel, assuming this Intercept reporting to be accurate , are assisting Ukrainian forces. In fact, it's been extensively reported those SOF personnel are providing security for the US embassy in Kyiv. The CIA is an intelligence gathering organization first and foremost, so why exactly is this Wikipedia article falsely claiming and emphasizing alleged US intelligence community involvement in the *fighting* in Ukraine? So much inherent bias. There is other reporting detailing extensive European security service involvement on Russian territory, but that is for some reason not emphasized... 2600:1700:FC80:1CC0:CFB:FC01:51:BF7D (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Yep. Thanks for catching this. I’m gonna look into it more carefully later, but I’ll remove the most egregious parts now. HappyWith (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Add Iran as supporter of Russia!
Iran really has to be added as a supporter of Russia.There are plenty of sources for this including iranian military personell on ukrainian soil, drone deliveries, munitions deliveries and so on. I am not a wikipedian, so I dont have the knpwledge of how to add this, but someone has to do so. 2A02:1406:62:5816:E021:CC11:7CA3:3625 (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I’ve argued for this in the past, but changed my mind. Iran is not a belligerent in this war. It is not at war with Ukraine. There is no invasion or attacks into Ukraine from Iran’s territory. —MichaelZ.23:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, while that is true, i believe there is plenty of precedent on other wikipedia articles which would make it viable to place Iran as a supporter alongside Belarus. Just like the Americans have been listed as supporters in plenty of conflicts where there were no american boots on the ground. 2A02:1406:62:5816:1DE:9BFD:F86A:4B78 (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The realities in Russia’s war in Ukraine show that those precedents are wrong. Supporters that aren’t belligerents cannot with integrity be listed under the “Belligerents” heading. The correct action is to consider adding a separate “Supporters” row to the infobox, in an appropriate forum. —MichaelZ.13:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they can, and they have been before. The reason that arms suppliers are lumped under the heading "Supported by:" or "Arms Suppliers:" is to specify that they're supporting one side with supplies of various sorts, rather than actively contributing troops. NATO and Iran and other arms suppliers are not active belligerents in the war, but they are arms suppliers, and that is specified. Israel and Russia are not said to have had boots on the ground during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, but they are shown to have supported their own sides in the conflict, and that is detailed in the infobox. Same with Angola and the First Congo War and the Tigray War- the foreign actors shown to have supported some side in those wars with weaponry and other stuff did not have soldiers on the ground, fighting for one side, but they gave aid to one side. There's an entire article about Iranian support for Russia and Iranian military advisors helping in the operation of loitering munitions for the Russians; surely it would not be harmful or inaccurate to add Iran to the "Supporting Russia" camp in the infobox. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
It would be a clear failure to adhere to NPOV to name 1 arms supplier in the infobox and ignore the remaining 50. It is entirely undesirable to have that many items listed in the infobox, so no arms suppliers are listed. They don't need to be anyway, because they aren't party to the conflict. The template documentation also advocates against listing more than the 3-4 most significant participants on either side of the conflict, suggesting that other involvement be mentioned in prose. There is a section of the article dedicated to that: 'Foreign involvement'. Further, NATO is not an arms supplier in this conflict. Individual member states are suppliers, as are some states that are not in the organization. NATO should not be listed. The rest is WP:OTHERCONTENT, upon which an argument should not hinge. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying we shouldn't list supporters of Ukraine in the infobox- we should. It'd make sense to add a collapsible list of arms suppliers to Ukraine and Russia, similar to what is done in the Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine page. But to not list arms suppliers in the infobox when there are so many cases (that I already went through) in which it'd make sense to add them to the infobox doesn't make sense- when you are detailing their involvement to be limited to arms supplies, it does not, at all, imply that they are directly involved belligerents with soldiers on the ground- rather, it implies that they are supplying arms to one side. So Iran should be listed as an arms supplier, and nations that are sending considerable amounts of aid to Ukraine should also be listed as arms suppliers. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
As the objection is "how big it will be" what we call it does not address that. a list of 100 countries is a list of 100 countries calling it "support" or "arms suppliers" change that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Picture with missing windows
"Damage to a residential building in Zaporizhzhia following an airstrike on 9 October 2022. Putin has been labeled a war criminal by international experts.
National Police of Ukraine - https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=434181438851892&set=pcb.434184062184963 (the whole post)
9-storey residential building in Zaporizhzhia after Russian rocket attack on the city in the night on 9 October 2022"
- there is no know weapon who would be able to strip a large building of all windows (including frames) - even not a nuclear.
Sorry this seems to be a standard demolition of an old building ...
And what is a "international expert" ?
(did ALL international experts label Putin as a war criminal ? How many: less than 50% - or a qualified minority ?)
I am against any violence - but also against any propaganda and misuse of Wikipedia for hybrid warfare :( 188.167.251.60 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
You are not qualified to make judgments about what can or cannot be done to a building by an explosion, that would be WP:OR. Considering that the only edit you have made on Wikipedia is this comment, I'm pretty sure the person trying to conduct hybrid warfare is yourself, just saying. Galebazz (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
There’s an article about this specific October 9 Russian attack with multiple missiles, Zaporizhzhia residential building airstrike, and a broader article about the repeated Russian shelling and bombing, 2022 bombing of Zaporizhzhia, which also includes photos of the October 6 and October 10 attacks.
There are hundreds and hundreds of photos of Ukrainian buildings in similar condition after Russian strikes on civilian targets. Anon is completely wrong. —MichaelZ.17:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Military leaders
There’s no longer any excuse. ISW has written an article on the notable subject of Russian leadership in this conflict, and even included a handy graph.[41] This should be included in the article as soon as someone can incorporate it, and into the infobox immediately as it’s a key aspect of this subject. —MichaelZ.23:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The gallery to the right has no relationship to the cited graphic: 1) Alexander Dvornikov is mentioned as a speculative theatre commander, not a confirmed one; 2) Shoigu isn't mentioned anywhere, it should be Surovikin; 3) speculated threate commander Zhidko is ignored; 4) the fact of the theatre commander being unknown (even speculatively) from the day of the invasion to April 8th is omitted; 5) Gerasimov took the post from Surovikin not from Dvornikov, and Surovikin took the post from (speculated) Zhidko. Is a different source being consulted for the gallery? Mr rnddude (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that Surovikin took the post on October 8th, 2022, not in 2023, as stated in the caption. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay. The point that the subject is notable and belongs in the article is still supported. Please go ahead and collect the sources to support the best version. —MichaelZ.05:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I don’t know how to respond. The gallery was appended by someone else and I have nothing to do with it. Dvornikov is mentioned where and what has that to do with my comment? Etcetera. —MichaelZ.05:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
The assertion: that The ISW chart definitely proves this is “a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text”, is a statement made without substance. Nothing is proven. Rather, it is belied by the statement: This should be included in the article as soon as someone can incorporate it. For information, the ISW article can be seen here. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Right now, in the infobox's "leaders" parameter we've got a serious case of great man theory going on with only Vladimir vs. Volodymyr.
Can anyone recap any previous discussions that were held regarding that line of the infobox?
RadioactiveBoulevardier, the discussions relate to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and that entries to the infobox should be supported by the article and show how the leaders reported are key and significant. The infobox has only Vladimir and Volodymyr because the article as written doesn't really mention others except in passing or as a talking head (x announced) that would show any others are significant. The infobox is a reflection of the article. If this is a serious case of great man theory, then that is a criticism of the article and not the infobox. Dropping in a name in the infobox (without any other context because that is all it is) doesn't fix the problem. It doesn't tell us why they were important or what they did that was significant, remembering that articles should to stand alone. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The great man reference was tongue-in-cheek.
About determining significance, I'd say people like Syrskyi and Zaluzhnyi on the Ukrainian side, and Shoigu, Gerasimov, and Prigozhin on the Russian side, are self-evidently important enough. Usually military infoboxes have several top leaders listed. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Well then, the article should explain how and why their role was important. Your great man theory may have been tongue-in-cheek but the truest things are often said in jest. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't seem out of the question to add actions and decisions made by specific commanders that have had notable impacts on the war, the sources exist, here is one on Valerii Zaluzhnyi for example. If such content is added, it would be logical to include more people in the infobox. TylerBurden (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Last year there was an image of Putin seated next to General Shoigu in the article, which has been since removed. It looks like Archive #12 from this Talk page has one of the previous discussions about the military command images. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The civilian supreme C-in-C’s (VVP and VZ) are already present.
What’s most important for this war is the supreme commanders of forces, because of the contrast and effect. Ukraine’s military C-in-C of the Armed Forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, and commander of Ground Forces Oleksandr Syrskyi have been constants, and are credited with the competence that has resulted in Ukrainian success shocking the world. In contrast, Russian forces started without a supreme commander and five uncoordinated military districts. After initial failures, Putin has pushed various officers through a revolving door based on his whims and favours and fear of any “war hero” accumulating political clout (cf. Stalin and Zhukov), most of them retaining other commands, to the point that the ISW resorted to a timeline chart to represent its understanding of it.[42]
Much of what has been written above could be incorporated into the article with appropriate sources. It belies the assertion that commanders fall to the exception under WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. As I stated above, simply adding names to the infobox tells us nothing about how or why those named are key or significant - unless that is supported by the body of the article. And a WP article is written to stand alone. This particular point was not raised in the RfC linked. On the other hand, the type of information exampled as an exception at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE such as physical properties of chemicals or language classification codes do stand alone as information. Commanders clearly does not fall to the spirit and intend of the exception at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The closer of the RfC stated: maybe everyone can take what they've learned so far, and if wanted, start a new discussion. Do we? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
This is I think the 3rd Talk page discussion of this with the last one in Archive 12. At the diplomatic level this has been Putin versus Zelensky, with Shoigu occasionally coming forward to support Putin. There was a photo of Putin with Shoigu in this article last year which was deleted and I'm not really seeing a difficulty if Michael would like to bring it back. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
And none of it is about images. If you want to discuss adding photos of leaders, please start an actual discussion on the topic. Continually making tangential comments about photos in discussions about the infobox is unproductive and disruptive. —MichaelZ.19:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Opposed, to this addition to the Infobox as fully inappropriate. The current article does not support, as Cinderalla indicates above, the level of discussion to support this addition. Mzajac your comment on what is productive/unproductive for this Talk page seems to be off-base and I'll ask you to retract or strike that comment. You are now re-hashing your viewpoint on this issue of 'military commanders' a third time on the Talk page, without any apparent effect on editors, as you have done in Archive 11 here [43] and Archive 12 here [44]. I'm opposed to your request to add this information to the Infobox based on my support for Cinderella's comments above. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
What..? I am also quite confused why you are bringing up the image, unless you are implying someone sitting next to Putin in an image on the article is enough to include them as a commander in the infobox that doesn't seem very relevant to the discussion, and wildly contradicts Cindarella's points above about establishing notability in the article body that you say you agree with.. TylerBurden (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm opposed to the inclusion of Mzajac's material in the Infobox, as stated by Cinderella above: "...simply adding names to the infobox tells us nothing about how or why those named are key or significant". I'm supporting Cinderella on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
That’s nonsense. It is perfectly clear why the commander of a campaign is key and significant to the subject of the campaign. Furthermore, the very data itself conveys key and significant facts about the campaign’s conduct:[45]
This is clear, visually organized, and easily understood in the infobox, key and significant information that would be lost on anyone that didn’t read the whole article or zero in and read the paragraphs where it is described, if it even is. In fact, it is precisely “a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text,” that belongs in the infobox per INFOBOXPURPOSE. —MichaelZ.15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
While I'm a random reader on phone, I do support that point, and the info box Michael Z shows seems quite clear at:
- showing who is the current commander
- showing that rotation happens /had happened on the Russian side, which seems to be a key information
I would oppose that specific formatting as 1) outside the scope of the consensus indicated by other examples of conflict infoboxes 2) a textbook example of the kind of insidious under-the radar POV (subconscious/good-faith or otherwise) that the Encyclopedia is supposed to avoid. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Huh? While it’s an example of the type of information, and not a format, it is very close to what we have in Russo-Ukrainian War and War in Donbas (2014–2022).
Insidious? What the heck? Numerous articles talk about the comparative effect of Putin’s bungling, politically motivated appointment of leaders vs Ukraine’s professionalism. This lays it out graphically and clearly. I can find some sources and bring them here if you don’t know about this. —MichaelZ.20:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
ISW is publishing a special edition campaign assessment today, April 30. This report details changes in the Russian military command since Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine without a clear and doctrinal command structure and his reluctance to appoint an overall theater commander have had lasting effects on the structure of the Russian command in Ukraine. Putin’s regular command changes have led to an increasingly factionalized Russian military and disorganized command structures that are degrading the Russian military’s ability to conduct a cohesive campaign in Ukraine. Factions are not a phenomenon particular to the Russian military, although their current dynamics within the Russian military are shaping decision making to an unusual degree.
Support adding the commanders to the infobox. Haven’t really seen a reason that makes sense not to have them there. HappyWith (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
How is a bare name in an infobox useful if the article does not support it by indicating how or why that person was key or significant, remembering that an article should be written to stand alone? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Looking back at @Michael Z.’s OP, it’s not totally apparent what he meant.
So I’d ask him to restate his proposal in unambiguous terms in order to make it clear what we’re actually discussing.
If someone (especially an uninvolved editor from the larger extended-confirmed community) were to simply add a few leaders to the infobox (and on other topics I’ve barged in blindly and done that sort of thing once or twice without reading the talk page), it might not even get reverted.
But it seems like Michael is proposing that we include something like ISW’s chart of the various Russian theater commanders in the infobox. This would run counter to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE so obviously that I’m a little surprised that such an experienced Wikipedian would suggest such a thing, much less multiple times.
I’m simply proposing that some military commander be included in the infobox, and want to find consensus to do it and which ones to include.
I mentioned the chart only as an example that military commanders are “key specialised information” to counter perennial assertions that INFOBOXPURPOSE prohibits their inclusion unless every single one is discussed in the article. —MichaelZ.20:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The chart is part of an article sixteen pages long in total (when viewed as a pdf) and occupies about one-third of a page in the article. How does it then example that this is key specialised information making it an exception to INFOBOXPURPOSE and how is a bare name in an infobox useful if the article does not support it by indicating how or why that person was key or significant, remembering that an article should be written to stand alone? The fact that a bare name does not stand alone without further information is the reason why this does not fall to the exception of key specialised information at INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Frankly the time spent going back and forth here could have been used to just add the notable commanders and their actions to the body, that would satisfy the criteria of the MOS with establishing content in the body for inclusion in the infobox, which seems to be the only push back to adding more people. TylerBurden (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but with the amount of bickering about Wikipedia infoboxes across the whole site I think it makes sense to establish some content in the body so the more MOS centric type of editors aren't going to be constantly removing the content, then again it's not like it is an absolute must on a website that literally has WP:IGNORE all rules if they get in the way of improvement. Personally I wouldn't have anything against adding someone like Zaluzhny, who is already mentioned on the article as a "major Ukrainian commander during the war".
Good call with a dedicated subsection, was thinking that might be the way to go as well when it proved a bit more difficult than expected to find where it would be best to mention Zaluzhny. TylerBurden (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
More can be added. Needs something about Zelenskyy’s “not a ride” and international diplomacy. Could include defence and foreign ministers, Syrskyi, and Russian MD/direction commanders, Prigozhin and Kadyrov. With a bit more detail on their significance, actions, and interaction, it might logically become “Command and conduct.” —MichaelZ.18:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
That’s not exactly true. But I did include more material (dates) and logical formatting (bullets showing hierarchy) than just bare names, all consistent with other related articles as I pointed out above, which you removed. You’re arguing against your “improvements,” not my proposal. —MichaelZ.18:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The template doc tells us to add just bare names. Adding more is just a case of trying to write the article in the infobox, which INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to. My position has always been, improve the article and the infobox will follow. I has been a spurious claim to assert that such material cannot be incorporated into the article [easily]. Even if the present material is little more than a passing mention, it is a foundation than can be built upon. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Are you in the habit of drowning a comment with a string of disinformational responses? This thread isn’t even discussing changes, apparently just you objecting to my explanation of my intent to RadioactiveBoulevardier. NOTCHAT. —MichaelZ.01:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Michael, your comment was indented one in from mine. By indenting conventions, your comment was clearly intended for me and it is quite reasonable for me to reply. The template parameter of commander is for the names of commanders/leaders. Ranks and position titles should be omitted. In the context of this discussion and all of the material to the infobox, it is quite reasonable to paraphrase this as "bare names". {{KIA}} and {{POW}} templates are not at issue. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/WP:OTHERCONTENT is only valid if otherstuff represents best practice. WP does not work on the principle of precedent. I view your rhetorical question as an aspersion of misconduct and the balance of your post to have significant inaccuracies. You might consider redacting it? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Reasonable to reinterpret it meaning “bare names” when it doesn’t say or imply “bare names”? Why don’t you get consensus to update the docs to say “bare names”? Until then, I hope you can agree to disagree.
My indentation is correct. It follows back to my reply to RadioactiveBoulevardier. I didn’t imply malicious misconduct. But I do wonder whether your modus operandi in discussions is all you know or whether you consciously believe it works for you.
Anyway, you entered this thread with a couple of questions. I assume you’re now as satisfied as can be with the response and we can put this to rest. —MichaelZ.22:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm gonna WP:BOLDly add back the flags in the infobox for now, given precedents at countless articles like War in Donbas and Iraq War. If an editor objects, let's discuss it in a separate talk section given that this one is already very long and cluttered. HappyWith (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Indenting the subordinates[46] conveys the same thing at least as clearly (might work without bullets). Just flags[47] is noisier: decoration without hierarchy. —MichaelZ.03:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The flags weren't added back in, they weren't extant to begin with. The material that was removed were the dates, which they should remain removed. The dates provided are specific to the commanders holding the post of 'overall theatre commander', but this suggests they held no position of command both prior to and after that time. That is misleading, albeit unintentionally so. Dvornikov, for example, was the commander of the southern district from the onset of the invasion and removed from the post in late July. So listing him as a commander from (8 Apr–26 May) is plain error. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
As both Michael and Mr rnddude confirm, flags were not included with the commanders recently added. Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, flag icons are acceptable in this infobox to differentiate information when there are co-belligerents. This can be done by adding icons against each particular entry of a commander or by grouping commanders under single icons. Both options serve the purpose but I do agree with Michael that flags against each name is noisier. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Cinderella, can anything be done about the very large number of flag icons in that part of the Infobox; it seems like too many of them. Also, it might be useful to make a distinction between the active ones and the inactive commanders. Note that on the WWII page that none of the Generals, not Eisenhower and not MacArthur, are listed in the analogous section of the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Mr rnddude was right in pointing out that even though not in overall command, these commanders remain active in their own main command roles (any of them totally fired yet?).
Indent the generals under their supreme commander: zero characters add info about relationship, obviates any justification for the flag parade. —MichaelZ.00:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Fronts and commanders
On the initial invasion, the Russian lines of advance were referred to as theatres in this article. Ukraine is now referred to as a theatre and these lines of advance as fronts. However, save the coast, there has been a continuous front that has subsequently coalesced. Within a front, there are sectors, commands or perhaps, some other hierarchical term. Within these, there are lesser terms for subsectors and so on. Within the section Southeastern front (8 April – 5 September), there are subsections: Kharkiv front, Kherson-Mykolaiv front and Zaporizhzhia front - a mixing of terminology. The article is largely written from news source as events occur. As time passes, there have been better quality sources viewing events retrospectively and using different terminology/categorisations. More recent retrospective sources will also (potentially) use different terminology/categorisations than earlier ones. The challenge for the article is to use consistent and coherent terminology/categorisations, both within a section and across the article so that the reader does not become confused. This is a challenge to be addressed.
Why am I raising this as a subsection to a tread on commanders? Since the addition of the Command section, I have been rationalising some passing comments in the article about command and have come across this statement: In June 2022 the chief spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Defence Igor Konashenkov revealed that Russian troops were divided between the Army Groups "Center" commanded by Colonel General Aleksander Lapin and "South" commanded by Army General Sergey Surovikin. While I don't question the accuracy of the statement, conflicting terminologies in the article make this statement confusing - or is this a new and undefined term that makes it equally confusing for the reader. How then, should we move it to integrate this into the Command section? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The terminology in the green quotation refers to Russian military organizations active in the areas of operations, and not directly to the areas. The military districts of Russia were each given responsibility for a portion of the invasion. It is unclear whether these are just MDs, or operational organizations closely based on them (historically called front (military formation)), which in that quotation are referred to with the international generic name army group. Each of the Russian fronts/army groups consists of one or more combined-arms armies (field armies). —MichaelZ.16:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
To the quotation, I had figured that might be the case. I did look at the source and whether it is referring to a region or a formation is a subtlety of translation for one familiar with the language. You might be able to confirm? Thank you for reminding me that Russian formation terms at the higher levels are roughly one level lower than a Western formation with the same name. The MDs are regions within Russia, not regions within the Ukraine theatre? There is very little known of the Russian formations as committed. Command is therefore probably best described by operational areas rather than formation? The Russian use of front for a formation equivalent to a Western army group is likely a source of confusion for readers when it is also used in the article to describe an operational area. The article is mixing (mixing up) terminologies to describe operational areas rather than having a hierarchy of terms that are consistently applied to represent relative areas and locales. The initial question was how to best move and integrate the quote into the Command section. To say, "Lapin commanded Army Group Centre" is pretty much a gratuitous statement (meaningless), since it tells us nothing about where it is or what it is - it may or may not be a formation about the size of a Western army somewhere in the centre of something (maybe). The second issue is then about making the descriptions of operational areas within the article more consistent and robust with respect to time. The first thing to do might be to tighten up the terminology in section headings? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Done Cinderella157 (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Note: removing the link won't make any difference as Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(disambiguation) redirects to it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect PRussian invasion of Ukraine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29 § PRussian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached. Mvqr (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:R3 probably applies to that creation. The intent behind Cinderella's invitation was to reflect on policy, not to engage in pointed editing. This only succeeds in wasting a minimum of three people's time: one editor to create it, one editor to nominate it for deletion, and one admin who now has to assess whether R3 is applicable or if a half dozen more editors' time needs to be lost debating it at WP:RfD. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
(on spec that it might have whale bone stiffening. One should be aware that supported by is not an infobox parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
03:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
![[41]](https://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Slide2.jpg){kind=link}