Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

Hello, writing because I saw that this page has a mistake, the "sides" Belligerents are on wrong sides, wikipedia aleays putts defenders in left, and attackers in right, please change it, thank you! Rudikkkkkkk (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: @Rudikkkkkkk: That change will need to be done at {{Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_infobox}}. Start a discussion on that template's talk page to get consensus first. RudolfRed (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The documentation for that template does not mention anything about order (Template:Infobox_military_conflict). --McSly (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Cite the guidance being referred to pls. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023 (2)

Brennancarlson08 (talk) 12:25, 22 May 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. — Czello ^(music) 12:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You do have to tell us what you want done. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Internal Russian-Russian armed conflict

Sooner or later, the Russian vs Russian armed conflict may start becoming notable with sufficient WP:RS. What existing or new talk page is appropriate for discussing that and considering whether to start an article? The aim is to focus discussions in one place. Boud (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

When it happens there maybe a place for something like 2023 Russian civil war, until then let's not waste time on idle speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

There's already the one RS that I gave, so for at least today's events, it seems likely that they are notable within the wider context. Whether it extends further is speculation, I agree. It might make sense to start at Talk:2022–2023 Western Russia attacks, since RF (Russian Federation) officials will (or have?) claim(ed) that the attacks are Ukraine vs RF, not Russians vs RF. The incidents of today are within the scope of 2022–2023 Western Russia attacks, it seems to me. The RU vs RU part can be split later if/when the sources justify it. Boud (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

A standalone article 2023 Belgorod Oblast attack already exists, and is 60 minutes old. Boud (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

Hello; Write about the economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in "Impacts". Also, in order to remain neutral, Wikipedia should mention in the beginning of the article that 900,000 Russians fled and became refugees due to the invasion. Also, === Refugee crisis === be changed to ==== Refugee crisis ====. Sincerely, Parham wiki (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Likely very few of those Russians are formal asylum-seekers or refugees.  —Michael Z. 16:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so someone should edit the List of largest refugee crises. So what about the rest? Do you not agree with my suggestion? Parham wiki (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

your refugee crisis change request shows no change - proofread error? HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean that the Refugee crisis is part of the humanitarian impact of the invasion and not separate from it, as written in the article Humanitarian impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Parham wiki (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit Mapped Territorial Control

Following the 2023 Belgorod Oblast attack/counteroffensive by the Freedom of Russia Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps, we should probably include their territorial gains in the infobox map—especially considering they're nearly 11 miles [~18km] deep inside Russian Federation territory.

However, because Ukraine currently declines involvement in the offensive, but the Legion and Corps are fighting on behalf of Ukraine, there might be a possibility we have to change the color of the attack on the map, maybe a brighter yellow or blue?

MateoFrayo (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Legion and Corps are still considered fighting on behalf of Ukraine, as they are part of the International Legion (Ukraine). Hence, the colour of the attack in Belgorod Oblast should be the same colour as Ukraine (Yellow). GodzillamanRor (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s not clear whether this is a raid for psychological purposes, or a serious attempt to seize and hold territory. I guess we’ll soon see 🍿

As far as I know, Grayvoron isn’t even currently on the map, since it’s across the border.

Also, the correct talk page to discuss this would be Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks GodzillamanRor and RadioactiveBoulevardier.

Do you guys know if the images between the two pages (Russian invasion of Ukraine and Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War) are linked in some way? Or does someone usually just c&paste from one page to the other every day?

MateoFrayo (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe they both link to the same file.

To embed images directly into most of the 6M+ English WP articles would consume petabytes of space on the servers. Instead, wikitext embeds a link to files, either local to Wikipedia or from Wikimedia Commons. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Like RB says, they are links to the same image file, which, though I don't understand all the details, is generated semi-automatically via some sort of code module maintained by Wikipedia editors. HappyWith (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2023 (2)

The Azov Brigade has featured within global news media, particularly early on in the conflict, but it is only mentioned in a passing comment and the former voluntary malitia don't feature within the casualties table (even though they were only recently absorpted into the Ukrainian forces). So given it's prominence within the Siege of Mariupol and the events surrounding the "Maternity and children's hospital bombing" it would be appropriate to include the insignia.

Please insert the following before paragraph starting "On 16 May, the Ukrainian General staff announced" in sub-section 'Fall of Mariupol' section:

Insignia of the Azov Brigade trapped in the Azovstal steel plant

Mattmill30 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. No other battalion logos appear in the article. Why this one specifically? Lizthegrey (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it would probably be appropriate to include a section close to the beginning of the article with the details and insignias of both belligerents, but Azov is a special case because they weren't originally Ukranian forces, they were actually a special volunteer police unit, similar to the Black and Tan in Ireland, so I'm not sure they would be classified as belligerents, although that may have changed since their assimilation into the Ukrainian forces.

The main reason for the insignia being appropriate is anyone wanting to do further research following the news reports about the hospital attack will recognise the Azov Brigade logo, but may not know the name of the Brigade. As in my case, it took much longer than necessary because Azov also wasn't listed under Belligerents.

If you aren't going to add the logo, then please create a "Strength" section within the infobox, similar to Irish War of Independence which lists the Black and Tan, and include the Azov Brigade in the Strength statistics Mattmill30 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

No The " Azov Regiment" is mentioned once in the article with a link (that being in the Fall of Mariupol section). Considering the policy on image use and the rational for selection of images, this does not (IMO) add to a readers understanding of the event, particularly when balanced against the existing image used. The link is sufficient. The article is already very crowded with images. In the infobox, strengths are link to Order of battle for the Russian invasion of Ukraine and improvements should be made there. The level of detail you are suggesting would be incompatible with this overview article. There is also the matter of MOS:ICONDECORATION. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read a few paragraphs of Azov Brigade before making futile requests. The original Azov Battalion was officially formed in May 2014 as a unit of the Special Tasks Patrol of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry, as part of the Ukrainian territorial defence battalions. In November 2014 it was formally incorporated into the National Guard, not the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The effect would be to give WP:undue prominence to a symbol the Russians call “Nazi,” out of the scores of former volunteer battalions and thousands of units fighting in Russia’s war in Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 17:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Given that the paragraph I was requesting that the insignia and caption be attached to concludes with "Some prominent Russian lawmakers called on the government to deny prisoner exchanges for members of the Azov Regiment", it would not be WP:undue prominence. Whether the Russians call the symbol "Nazi" is inconsequential, and the fact it features in your perspective means you're giving undue political consideration and are effectively encouraging the burying by omission of any narrative which deviates from the mainstream, rather than providing people with easy access to all information regardless of the narrative.

As I said "I think it would probably be appropriate to include a section close to the beginning of the article with the details and insignias of both belligerents", but in the case of the Azov Brigade specifically within the topic of the 'Fall of Mariupol' it would be appropriate to provide the insignia so people are able to easily find the information.

Alternatively, a Citations section could be created at the bottom of the page, containing the "details and insignias of both belligerents" so that they can be linked via Shortened footnotes, enabling people to locate an insignia of interest and be able to retrace the footnote to the relevant paragraph of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmill30 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Let’s throw in Utkin’s tats and Milchakov holding up a Swastika flag and killing puppies, because the people deserve easy access. —Michael Z. 21:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedias reference sources, especially for contentious topics. If tattoos and Swastikas are relevant to an article, you should cite references using WP:CITE. Please make a separate talk topic for your off-topic comments — Mattmill30 (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Which sources illustrated statements by Russian Duma members calling for Ukrainian blood with the Azov Brigade’s emblem?  —Michael Z. 00:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This topic is about captioning the Azov Brigade insignia against a paragraph which relates specifically to that Brigade. I don't know what you're talking about, but it's completely off-topic, so I won't respond any further — Mattmill30 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay.  —Michael Z. 03:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Attempts at Conflict Management undermind?

Given the drone attacks on Moscow, and considering the pressing need to prevent this conflict getting out of control, might not the damaging way that British MP James Clevely is undermining US policy be highlighted? For are not the war-mongering attitudes of the British Govt at odds with much-needed US attempts at Conflict Limitation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.82 (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, now that there are drone attacks in Moscow it's "out of control", it wasn't before. Interesting insight. Do you have any reliable references discussing this war mongerer's attempts at undermining the US government? TylerBurden (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, a reliable source is needed for any information presented in the article Galebazz (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The civil war on Ukraine and the proxy war

In 2014-2022, there was a civil war in the Donbass, local Russians, supported in part by the Russian Federation, fought against Ukrainian forces armed by the US-NATO western bloc. Now we have another installment of the proxy war as Ukraine, supported by the Western Bloc, fights against Russia. In 2014, an irredentist uprising called the Russian Spring aimed to create Novorossiya from Kharkiv to Odessa and join Russia

• https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/the-g7-ramped-up-the-russia-nato-proxy-war/
• https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/leaked-papers-reveal-proxy-war-in-ukraine-502932
• https://www.france24.com/en/video/20230321-xi-in-moscow-china-sees-russia-s-war-on-ukraine-as-a-proxy-war-between-russia-and-the-west

^https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3214784/ceasefire-may-save-ukraine-wreck-us-proxy-war-plan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we link to the main article about this. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

And "proxy war" is just a point of view by some parties, as reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 00:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Calling the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014-2022 a "civil war" is strange. The war was started by the Russian colonel Igor Girkin and his Russian militias in April 2014. In August 2014, the ordinary Russian army joined in the attack against Ukraine.

Likewise, claiming that "Ukraine fights against Russia" is strange. The reality is that Ukraine is attacked by Russia.

Referring to the war as a "proxy war" is strange. The developed, democratic countries are helping Ukraine to defend itself against an unprovoked attack.

Joreberg (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Strange indeed. A “civil war” in Ukraine against Russia. An “uprising” from Kharkiv to Odesa by people who were not in Kharkiv, Odesa, nor anywhere in between, and were ordered to stop calling themselves “New Russia” and report back to Moscow when Russian battalion tactical groups were sent in. A “proxy war” where the West sent in some hand-held antitank weapons after Russia assembled its invasion force of 190,000 with the intention of destroying the Ukrainian state and nation.  —Michael Z. 14:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Very little mentioning of the extensive Russian terror attacks

It is surprising that so little is mentioned by the extensive Russian terror attacks against civilian persons and other civilian targets.

Already in the first month of the invasion, Russia had attacked more than 1500 civilian buildings.

Russia’s Attacks on Civilian Targets Have Obliterated Everyday Life in Ukraine - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

World Health Organisation says that Russia has attacked more than 1000 health care facilities

Russia carried out more than 1,000 attacks on Ukrainian health care facilities - W.H.O. - Euromaidan Press

As of November 2022, 126 000 private houses and 16 800 residential buildings had been damaged.

As of November 2022, the total amount of losses, caused to the infrastructure of Ukraine, increased to almost $136 billion – Kyiv School of Economics (kse.ua)

Over a 4 month period, Russia destroyed on average more than one Ukrainian school per day.

Ukraine: One school destroyed every other day since September - Ukraine | ReliefWeb

Investigators at the Centre for Information Resilience have verified 381 strikes that damaged educational institutions in Ukraine, including some that took place hundreds of kilometres from the front line.

Ukraine war: Revealed - the hundreds of schools and nurseries bombed in the first year of the conflict | World News | Sky News

Russian forces are completely demolishing lots of cities, towns and villages. One of many examples is Marinka, where 10 000 people lived before Russia destroyed it.

Visit Ukraine - Ukrainian cities completely destroyed by the russian army

Joreberg (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

A valid point that has been raised before, since the article is meant to cover the invasion itself rather than specifically a military focus on battles and fronts this should be better represented given its wide coverage in reliable sources virtually every single day. Russia started off celebrating children's day by killing an 11 year old girl, her mother and another woman in Kyiv just tonight June first. There should be a section dedicated to covering this aspect of the invasion, not just mentions in passing. TylerBurden (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Since the invasion Russia has been declared a terrorist state by Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, the US Senate, PACE, Estonia, the Polish senate and Sejm, the Czech parliament, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the European Parliament, the Netherlands parliament, and Slovakia. Details in Terrorism in Russia#2022.  —Michael Z. 23:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

So extensive, in fact, that these incidents have been spun off to another article, Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Support of Russian side by Belarus

Iran is also supporting the Russian side by selling weapons to them. I request that someone adds Iran to the infobox. North Korea also supports the Russian side. 178.120.53.9 (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There have been several discussions around this previously, perhaps most recently here. Presently there is no consensus to add Iran as a belligerent; even less so North Korea. — Czello ^(music) 22:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

At this point it might be worth just responding with: "see FAQ". Perhaps also alter FAQ #4 to specify both belligerents or shorten it to just ... because it is supplying weapons?. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Well I find that inconsistent, because Belarus isn't even involved anymore. Hasn't been for over a year. But still deserves a mention? But Iran who is currently involved doesn't? 178.120.61.205 (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Allowing Russia to launch missiles from its territory isn't being involved? TylerBurden (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is we have no designation for "former combatant" Also the above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be WP:RECENTISM. The article covers the full time range since 2/24/22. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

Under "Belligerents", it should be noted that Ukraine is supported by NATO. 174.231.24.44 (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Support of Ukrainian side by NATO

Belligerents section should reflect support by NATO. 174.231.24.44 (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#RfC:_Should_the_individual_arms_supplying_countries_be_added_to_the_infobox? closed as "no consensus". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In addition to weapons and finances, NATO supports the Ukrainian armed forces with military intelligence and military advisors. 174.231.24.44 (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And you need to establish a consensus to include NATO in the infobox, as the RfC that I linked above did not achieve such a consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Establishing consensus on this topic would seem impossible since the page is locked to editing. 174.231.24.44 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That discussion is closed. Consensus can only change with a new discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a new discussion. Military intelligence and military advisors in country.

This is a new discussion. Military intelligence and military advisors in country.

This is a new discussion. Military intelligence and military advisors in country. 174.231.24.44 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Worth mentioning, I believe there are multiple novel arguments to be raised regarding specifically US and UK support but I'm waiting until the summer, when I hope to have the time and energy to assemble a sufficiently formidable collection of RS. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing new has been added to the debate, the same arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

At the beginning of the article it is written: The invasion has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides, while according to the leaked documents of the Pentagon and the statements of American officials, over a hundred thousand people were killed. Write that over a hundred thousand were killed. Parham wiki (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The two do not contradict each other, if the Ukraine has lost 55,000 and The Russia has lost 55,000 that is over 100,000, but still only 10,000's on both sides. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's right; THANK YOU! Parham wiki (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Too Graphic?

Hey guys don't you think these photos are a bit to disturbing for Wikipedia I mean there's going to be people wanting to just learn more about this topic and children doing research for this in class don't you think this is a bit to disturbing. TheMaggster (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Read Q3 of the FAQ on this page Galebazz (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

How about we add a disclaimer at the top of this page? TheMaggster (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The page is already subject to the standard content disclaimer, linked at the bottom of the page. Additional disclaimers are against current guidelines, see WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Melmann 09:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

ok TheMaggster (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Invasions are graphic, Wikipedia is not censored. TylerBurden (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Infrastructure attacks - structure

Shouldn't all the info about the infrastructure attacks be grouped under "Missile attacks and aerial warfare", rather than being split between the timeline sections about phase 3 and phase 4 of the land war? I would do it myself now, but it's a pretty big change and I wanna gauge editors's thoughts on this. HappyWith (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"No boots on the ground" Foreign Involvement

No NATO boots on the ground is factually incorrect.

Change to 'Foreign Involvement' section is advised. 2600:1011:B18B:4A02:E4CE:9BFF:FEA5:C142 (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

No its not, as there is no indication any NATO troops have seen combat. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

50 or so advisors do not a belligerent make. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yall just started arguing over the meaning of "boots" and didn't read the source. The passage only references the US. GMG^talk 15:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 UA counter-offensive

2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive has been created. Go over there or to its talk page if you have arguments for or against it existing as a standalone article. Boud (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Years on the map

Hello everyone! I was just staring at the map and I realized something, we don't have the years listed for the capture of various territories by either side, and as this conflict is in year 2, it might be helpful to add such years into the labels for cities and territories. Just an outside perspective! Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll start a thread about it at c:File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. HappyWith (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! It appears whenever I look at the map, either zoomed in, zoomed out, or the file itself, sometimes it shows years, sometimes it doesn't. I think it should just be consistent throughout and with years for the best information about it! Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Storozheve liberation

Ukraine war liberated Storozheve 182.224.89.144 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Zaporizhia Russian 2 defense line breakthrough

Zaporizhia Russian 2 defense line breakthrough 223.39.145.124 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Zaporizhia counter-offensive

2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive 223.39.195.193 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 western Russia raids

There's a discussion at Talk:2022–2023 western Russia_attacks#Splitting proposal that may interest editors of this article, proposing to split off material to a new page about all the ground raids into Russian territory by all-Russian, pro-Ukraine paramilitaries. Please leave comments in the discussion there, and not here. HappyWith (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Piatykhaty liberation

Ukraine war Piatykhaty liberated 182.224.89.144 (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

We can't list every village liberated. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.130.26 (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Size, people have to be able to read this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be censored though. Maybe we can make a new article for each village Ukraine liberates from the Russian invaders. All these liberations are widely reported on by reputable sources and are clearly notable enough for inclusion. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

True, but it is meant to only include relevant and notable information. We will just have 100's (1000's?) of one line stubs, when that material can just be added to the articles about those villages. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s already covered in the more-specific subject of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive.

It is another day’s milestone, so it could be mentioned after the others already here, but at some point soon that would likely become too much detail for this article.  —Michael Z. 13:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that this article has surpassed World War II in length, we're deep into 'too much detail' territory. I don't have any good idea for how to deal with that short of taking a scalpel to the article and excising fat from it sentence-by-sentence. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess pick a section, and transfer the extra detail to its summary sub-article. That way we can feel good knowing nothing is actually deleted.  —Michael Z. 15:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not what WP:NOTCENSORED means. That guideline is about NSFW or upsetting content. HappyWith (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that I think a certain group of people do find it upsetting that Ukraine is liberating villages and are actively seeking to downplay this in various media. I think each village can be mentioned briefly without sacrificing the brevity of the article. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Well those people can't oppose anything on the grounds that they are upset that the war is not going the way they want it to, because as said above Wikipedia is indeed not censored. However the points also raised above are valid, sometimes such specific information is more suited for their main article. As of now content about the Ukrainian advance has been added, which is a lot more WP:DUE than how it was before, only mentioning the counteroffensive being launced and facing "stiff resistance". TylerBurden (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We did not mention their capture by Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not censorship, it's brevity. — Czello ^(music) 13:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Material in "Invasion" section before "Initial invasion" subsection

What exactly is the point of that material? It seems on first glance to just be repetitions of stuff that gets covered again in the subsections of "phase 1" and "phase 2", before kinda running out of steam and stopping in June 2022. Is it supposed to be a summary of all the following subsections? If so, it doesn't work as one, since it doesn't cover the last full year of events and a lot of what it says was established in the lead anyway. I'm kinda surprised no one else has brought this up. Couldn't the material just be removed? HappyWith (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed. It should be an overall summary and address key points across the "invasion" that are general and not specific to any particular location/time. There is a baby somewhere in all that bath water. It certainly needs to be reviewed with the duplication removed from one place or the other. I have done some edits along that line but there is much more to do. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

But isn’t that function already fulfilled by the lead? Maybe it could be made to work, I agree that there probably is a baby along with the bathwater in there somewhere. HappyWith (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead summarises the overall article, which includes all sections and not just the battle/invasion section. When the battle/invasion section is particularly long and complex in terms of space and time (as here) it may be appropriate to have an introduction to the battle/invasion to deal with overarching issues and to briefly summarise events. As an example, see Battle of Buna–Gona. The invasion here is a series of vignettes (represented by the subsections) occurring at different places at the same time or at overlapping times. Reading the sections, the reader is, at times, required to jump back and forward in time. An introduction, while being an overview of the detail that follows, also provides continuity in time. Let's cut out the duplicate padding and see where this leads us. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, good idea. HappyWith (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding Iran to involvement lists

According to the page Iran and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Iran helped fund Russia so should they be listed since they were second hand money mules for the country's army? Raybonam (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Where in the article exactly? In the info box under Belligerents? - I would say no, as many countries also gave money and weapons to Ukraine, so they would be mentioned in their list. (Belarus is different as it allowed Russian troops in to and to attack through their country) Arnoutf (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Beware of socks, Slatersteven. ;) Drmies (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wagner group

Many MANY reports are claiming abut Wagner troops and RUssian troops fighting against each other, should we add on the article? t was about 2 or 1 hour ago Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Give one or two WP:RS and propose which article that makes most sense in. Once WP:RS report on it, it will make sense somewhere, starting off as a paragraph, and (depending on what WP:RS say happens) extending to a section and maybe an article. Boud (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine currently has:

Reactions -> Public -> Companies -> Wagner Group (Andrey Medvedev - Wagner Line); and

Key people -> Russians -> Yevgeny Prigozhin. Boud (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC) (updated Boud (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC))

The events seem to be taking place in Ukraine - Russian forces fighting Russian forces in Ukraine - so something like a new subsection Wagner Group activities in Ukraine#Fight against regular Russian army would make sense if there are WP:RS reporting on fighting. Boud (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) (updated Boud (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC))

Currently seems more like the "event" is Prigozhin (criminal case opened against him) rather than a military rebellion; and some of the events are in Rostov (Russia) rather than in Ukraine. Boud (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Prigozhin as "the event": Yevgeny Prigozhin#Legal charges - a {{main}} or {{see also}} cross-link can be added there later if something more than Prigozhin being arrested and getting lots of online media attention happens. Criminal charges against him are clearly a notable event for a sentence or two. Boud (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS are now reporting on it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66005256 HappyWith (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/06/23/prigozhin-says-moscow-strikes-kill-huge-number-of-wagner-forces-vows-to-stop-top-brass-a81615 I think we might want to make a new article for this, or at least a draft. Things seem to be heating up. HappyWith (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We really only seem to know<ref name="MoscowTimes_Prigozhin_says_Moscow">{{cite Q|Q119860197|url-status=live}}</ref> that criminal charges have been laid, tanks are moving around Moscow and St Petersburg, Wagner offices were raided, Prigozhin is in St Petersburg, and there's no sign of Wagner accumulating any support for its supposed rebellion. Boud (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh well, the inevitable happened - a new article: Wagner Group mutiny, despite no evidence that the whole group has mutinied rather than just Prigozhin. Next step: endless title debate ... Boud (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

If at least two members participate then it’s a mutiny in Wagner Group.  —Michael Z. 23:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"No evidence"? It's reported all over the media, and there are even videos of Wagner troops occupying Rostov and convoys moving north. Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I have seen it said that they have seized more territory in 3 days than the Russian army seized in 18 months. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

Requesting the Wagner coup to be added to the summary at the beginning of the article, following the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive mention. It is a significant event in the war and should have a significant place in the article.

In 24 June, Wagner mercenary group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin announced the beginning of military action against the Ministry of Defense as a retribution to an alleged missile attack to a Wagner camp. TynoPk (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

References

UNsure if this is part of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or the Wagner Invasion of Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

We already treat it as such in its own article and in the 2023 events list though. TynoPk (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

UNsure we should though, it is related to the wider war, not the invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the map now should include the military/political situation in the Russian territories that border Ukraine as now the Wagner group are controlling it. Wlcidar (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

New article - Russian penal military units

Editors of this page might be interested in this newly created page about Russian prison recruitment during the war: Russian penal military units HappyWith (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect use of military terminology: invasion vs. occupation

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.

---

• Invasion is [the] incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. E.g. Invasion of Poland
• Occupation is the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force E.g. Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)

The invasion was the capture of territory by Russia during the early stage of the war. Currently, there are no major changes in the front-lines. Either non-military operation related aspects of the article should be moved to an umbrella article (possibly Russian occupation of Ukraine) or this article should be renamed to something more general, if it is intended to be the umbrella article. 95.12.116.141 (talk) 23:58, 24 June 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.

Belligerents - what to do with Wagner?

Now that it's pretty clear that the Wagner group is fighting the Russian army, and both control territory in Ukraine (respectively, the stretch from Bakhmut to the Rostov Oblast border and the rest, roughly), should the PMC Wagner be in its own column in the "Belligerents" part of the infobox? Or at least separated from the Russian army in some way? They're definitely a major player in the invasion of Ukraine (see Battle of Bakhmut), but they're not on Russia's side anymore. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's much too soon to make any changes like that to the infobox. Officially Wagner is still a "part of Russia". Given this is a developing situation I think we can only wait and see if they become a truly independent belligerent that isn't associated with Russia at all. — Czello ^(music) 10:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Putin ordered the arrest of Prigozhyn and Wagner troops are marching into Russian cities, I'd say they are a 3rd party now ImStevan (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

And now it's already over. Nothing more needs to be done here. — Czello ^(music) 07:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Should the infobox be amended to present Wagner as a 3rd side since there is now clearly a conflict between Wagner and Russia? ImStevan (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say that regardless, it is not a separate belligerent WRT the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Moved from Template talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox by ImStevan

Per Czello. Write the article and then think about the infobox. But one should consider that the infobox is not the place for nuance and at present, this is very nuanced. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, lets leave it for now, its a mutiny. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that when/if the animated map gets updated, this should probably be marked on that map (for however long this mutiny/coup/'march for justice') lasts in a separate colour? 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:2D25:3F88:8C94:8BB8 (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This did not age well, I think we can leave them out. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

This page is not credible. All of the information comes from irreliable outlets that trumpet the same government lines. At least the article should be labelled as government sponsored media, as such are its sources . I would like an article that includes both Ukrainian, russian, LPR&Donbass and third parties information, numbers and statements. Without such this article has no value whatsoever. 2A02:3037:617:8B0B:84E7:66FF:FEAE:43E2 (talk) 08:57, 26 June 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. M.Bitton (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine war Rivnopil liberation

Ukraine war liberated Rivnopil 182.224.89.144 (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As we did not mention its capture I am unsure we need to mention its liberation, we can't list every village that changes hands. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Are we doing that because it would be upsetting to some users? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I would argue we are not doing it for the following reasons 1) wp:notnews 2) WP:INDISCRIMINATE 3) so the reader does not have to read a list of every captured village. And read wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that the liberation of Rivnopil has been widely covered by media all over the world and the mass of reliable sources discussing this topic show that this is not only news, but is notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I am worried that with every liberation of a Ukrainian settlement, there will be people making some argument that they shouldn't be included in any capacity and before long, there will be no mention of them at all. Assuming good faith and playing into state sponsored propaganda efforts are two very different things. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about the village, are we not? The liberation of a single village is not notable, and again is already covered in other articles. For it to be mentioned in this main article it'd have to be far more notable. — Czello ^(music) 14:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that for a topic to be considered "notable" it must have significant coverage in reliable sources over a period of time. It is understandable if this isn't notable because it is a fairly recent event, but the liberation of Rivnopil has been widely covered in reliable sources from all over the world and is at the very least notable outside of Wikipedia's definition. I think we should be very careful about which information is withheld and for whose benefit it is being withheld. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing's being "withheld", it's instead just listed on more appropriate articles (which I've listed for you below). Again, this article is about the broad topic, and if we covered every little village that changes hands it'd quickly balloon in size. Instead we list things like that on more specific articles. — Czello ^(music) 14:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, and I acknowledge that it's being included in other articles. I am speaking more to future cases, in which there may be efforts to remove any mention of Ukraine liberating one of it's settlements from any article. It's important that Wikipedia, even unknowingly, unwittingly, or unintentionally, doesn't fan the flames of Russian propaganda, which in the case is seeking to remove mentions of Ukrainian battlefield successes from the internet (to which Wikipedia, being publicly edited, is particularly susceptible). 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't see a situation where we'd knowingly exclude notable information like that from any article at all. Wikipedia is not censored and most of the editors here have had to put up with (and combat) Russian propagandists in the past, so we're familiar with their tactics and instead use more reliable sources for our information. — Czello ^(music) 14:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Until the next one and the next. We can't keep updating this article as if it's a live news feed every time Ukraine advances a few miles. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it's because it's outside of the scope of this article. It's already been detailed at several other articles (here, here, and here) — Czello ^(music) 13:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Combatting US Trolls and Russian AND Propagandists

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.

---

Given that Wikipedia editors are "not censored", nor some on-line policeforce, then why do they think that they have a duty to combat Russian "propagandists"? Also, do they NEVER have problems combatting paid US trolls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.153 (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If you think any user here is a troll or paid editor report them to wp:ani. But read wp:npa first, WP:BOOMERANG may be invoked if you lack evidence. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

While not attempting point out any trolls, I was more questioning the need for Wikipedia editors to combat what they consider to be Russian disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.153 (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:not wp:v wp:rs and wp:POV. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Then again, while Wikipedia have long-standing rules on the need for a neutral point of view, are not some editors/posters breaking such rules by suggesting that most Russian information is dodgy and needs to be combatted? For are not such comments POV pushing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.153 (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss users actions, you have been told what to do if you think users are breaking the rules, this is not a wp:forum or wp:soapbox and this is a waste of time. So this will be my last reply about this. And read wp:sign and wp:indent. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 29 June 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.

Requested move 2 July 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. This has been discussed several times, please see the talk page archives. This would also confuse naming with Russo-Ukrainian War. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Czello ^(music) 08:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine – As I said, only minor clashes took place in Russia, but the rest of the battles took place in Ukraine. The name that I proposed is much more known. Plus, it’s 1 year and 4 or 5 months since Russia started the war, so it’s no point of calling it an invasion anymore. We must keep the neutral point of view. If you want to censor me, that is fine! 89.122.39.11 (talk) 08:10, 2 July 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.

The introduction lacks information on the damage to the country and people killed

Hi all

The article covers much of the damage to the country and the casualities but this isn't reflected in the lead (WP:LEAD). Can we discuss what we think should be included about this in the intro? Based on the section headings I'd suggest including a short summary (maybe like 2 sentences for each?) of information of:

• Casualities
• Humanitarian and refugee crises
• Destruction of infrastructure/cities/towns etc
• Environmental destruction

I realise there is a small amount of information on the first few listed at the very start but this seems insuficient. Here is my suggestion for the environmental destruction info (since I know a little about this), I think its important to include the description of the damage as ecocide since it ties into one of the ICC investigations (environmental war crimes provisions of the Rome Statute) and Ukraine is one of only about 10 countries in the world with a law of ecocide. The middle section I hope summarises the extent of the damage and the cost estimate shows the huge scale of repair (about a 1/3rd of Ukraines entire yearly GDP).

The environmental damage has been described as ecocide. Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, severe pollution and millions of tonnes of contaminated debris in cities and towns is estimated to cost USD 51 billion to repair.

What do other people think? What have I missed from what else should be included in the lead?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC) John Cummings (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

References

I think this is a good suggestion. I've been at it for about an hour and I think I cleared out at least a sentence-worth of space in the lead just by removing extra words that weren't needed. GMG^talk 11:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, thanks very much for working on this, I realise there's a real issue with space but this feels important to include. Can you tell me if we are hitting the character limit for the article (I remember this from working on some COVID articles), or is it just that the intro is getting just too long to read? Also where do you think the environmental info should go? I feel like the first paragraph could just be extended with some more info on damage caused and this could be added to the end of it? It doesn't seem to fit into the other paragraphs in the intro. John Cummings (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph should fit thematically. There is no character limit. The general guidance (WP:LEAD) is for the lead to be about four paragraphs. The general practice is to assume the average reader has limited time and/or limited patience and they'll likely only read the lead. GMG^talk 12:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Shoot. I should add, the Holy-Grail-sacred-rule of leads is that they should roughly correspond to the body. I prefer the one-step-down rule. I've used it in featured articles and it worked fine. If it has a section, it gets a sentence. There are certainly times when you ignore it, but half the project is built on rules-of-thumb and fuzzy principles. We just keep the reader first and make it work. GMG^talk 13:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi GreenMeansGo Thanks very much for the summary, looking at what is already available in the lead and the section headings:

Prelude: well covered in the second paragraph

Invasion: well covered in the third paragraph

International aspects: mostly covered except it seems like foreign involvement is missing?

Casualties: maybe some more detail on this? Also no mention of prisoners of war

Impacts: humanitarian impact and refugee crisis are mentioned but maybe say a bit more? Environmental impact is missing, suggest using the two sentences I created, I can try to slim down a bit more if needed but feels pretty compact.

Peace efforts: appears to be missing completely

Do you agree with this? Anything I've missed? Should we draft it here and then post? Which bits would you feel comfortable writing?

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you're probably fine. WP:BEBOLD. I honestly haven't read the entire article again after the last little bit. It changes quickly. GMG^talk 15:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much GreenMeansGo could ask your advice on cutting down the draft I've created (new text in bold), it feels very difficult, just the scale and range of th awful things that have happened.... John Cummings (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I can probably look at this in detail in the morning. GMG^talk 17:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Nah friend. I bought you a sentence. This is a topic people are writing books about right now. We're not a book. We're an encyclopedia. You get like...maybe a sentence...only if other people don't take issue with it. There's not part here where you can take the lead and add three para. GMG^talk 00:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in an escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began in 2014. The invasion has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides, and caused Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II. By June 2022, about 8 million Ukrainians were displaced within their country. More than 8.2 million fled the country by May 2023.

Prior to the invasion, Russian troops concentrated near Ukraine's borders, while Russian officials denied plans to attack. Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" to support the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, whose military forces were fighting Ukraine in the Donbas conflict. He said the goal was to "demilitarise" and "denazify" Ukraine. Putin espoused irredentist views, challenged Ukraine's right to exist, and falsely claimed that Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis who persecuted the ethnic Russian minority. Russian air strikes and a ground invasion were launched along a northern front from Belarus towards Kyiv, a north-eastern front towards Kharkiv, a southern front from Crimea, and a south-eastern front from the Donbas. Ukraine enacted martial law and ordered a general mobilisation.

Russian troops retreated from the northern front by April 2022. On the southern and south-eastern fronts, Russia captured Kherson in March and Mariupol in May after a destructive siege. In April, Russia launched a renewed battle of Donbas. Russian forces continued to bomb military and civilian targets far from the front line, including the energy grid through the winter.

In late 2022, Ukraine launched counteroffensives in the south and in the east. Soon after, Russia announced the illegal annexation of four partly-occupied oblasts. In November, Ukraine retook parts of Kherson Oblast. Throughout February 2023, Russia mobilised nearly 200,000 soldiers for a new offensive in Donbas. In June 2023, Ukraine launched another counteroffensive in the southeast.

Russian troops have caused mass civilian casualties and displacement and has been characterized as "genocide" and "democide". Official statistics and estimates of prisoners of war (POW) have varied. UN human rights commissioner Volker Türk reported that more than 90% of the Ukrainian POWs interviewed by his office had experienced frequent acts of torture throughout detention. Several videos have purportedly shown Russian soldiers beheading Ukrainian soldiers. Russia has engaged in "massive deportation" of over 1.3 million Ukrainian civilians, potentially constituting crimes against humanity.

The environmental damage has been described as ecocide. Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, severe pollution and millions of tonnes of contaminated debris in cities and towns has been estimated to cost USD 51 billion to repair. The war has reduced international food supplies and has been a cause of the 2022 food crises. Over 500 Ukrainian cultural heritage sites have been damaged and/or looted by Russian forces.

Foreign involvement in the invasion has been worldwide and extensive, with support ranging from foreign military sales and aid, foreign military involvement, foreign sanctions and ramifications, and foreign condemnation and protest. 41 countries and European Union institutions provided Ukraine with $155.9 billion in financial, humanitarian, and military aid from 24 January 2022 to 24 February 2023. Chinese and the UAE state owned firms have supplied weapons and weapon components to Russia.

The invasion has been met with international condemnation. The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution ES-11/1 condemning the invasion and demanding a full Russian withdrawal. The International Court of Justice ordered Russia to suspend military operations and the Council of Europe expelled Russia. Many countries imposed sanctions on Russia, and on its ally Belarus, and provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. Protests occurred around the world. Those in Russia were met with mass arrests and increased media censorship. Over 1,000 companies left Russia and Belarus in response to the invasion. The International Criminal Court (ICC) opened an investigation into possible crimes against humanity, war crimes, abduction of children, and genocide, issuing an arrest warrant for Putin in March 2023.

References

---

As it is ongoing I fell this will fail wp:v, about 5 seconds after it is made. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven I don't understand, can you explain further? I'm not sure I understand if you mean the structure of the paragraph I'm suggesting, or my example for part of it (which uses reliable sources), or do you mean its likely to go out of date quickly? John Cummings (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean leave this out of the lede until we actually have a stable version that will not have to be updated every day. We can afford to wait, we do not have a publishing deadline. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeeeeah... this is a page getting almost a million views a day. WP:TIND doesn't really apply in the sense of...me writing something on someone from 1890. It'll be a completely different article in a year. GMG^talk 13:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't fail V? Nothing fails V as long at it was verifiable at the time of writing. It just means that the article needs updated. GMG^talk 12:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Additionally I think this info should be fairly easy to update with multiple sources publishing information on these topics. John Cummings (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• @John Cummings: The lead is for someone who doesn't know jack about the subject, and presumably has between 45 seconds and two minutes to get the rough edges. You're looking for broooooooad and simple statements. Again, this in an article getting about a million readers a day. The detail needs to go into the body for those who are really interested and/or have the time. This level of detail for the lead has to be condensed to something like 15-30 words. GMG^talk 12:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much GreenMeansGo, I'll take another go at it, the issue I'm trying to resolve is it seems maybe only 60% of what is included in the article is summarised in the lead currently, I gave the missing sections as much room as the existing topics (about 2 sentences each), I'll try and trim it down to a sentence per section or something. Also looks like its gone down to 'only' about 30,000 a day now, so still an absolutely huge audience. John Cummings (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi GreenMeansGo, what do you think about this? I've reduced it to one sentence per missing section heading to make the article comply with WP:LEAD, I don't really know how I could make it shorter. Perhaps the bit about beheadings videos isn't needed? I don't really know, its all very grim

Russian troops have caused mass civilian casualties characterized as "genocide" and "democide". Ukrainian soldiers reported frequent torture throughout detention and videos have purportedly shown Russian forces beheading Ukrainian soldiers.

The environmental damage including the destruction of Kakhovka Dam, severe pollution and millions of tonnes of contaminated debris has been described as ecocide. The war has reduced international food supplies and contributed to the 2022 food crises. Over 500 Ukrainian cultural heritage sites have been damaged and/or looted by Russian forces.

Foreign involvement has been worldwide and extensive, with Ukrainian forces receiving foreign military aid and sales. Chinese and the UAE state owned firms have supplied weapons and weapon components to Russia.

References

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to be a jerk. I'm just trying to get you in the right head-space for a big article that's only going to get bigger.

Like...I could remove seven words just by replacing past-perfect tense with simple past. "Have" and "had" are rarely necessary. Then just...remove every word you can get away with removing. Do we care about "weapons" and "weapon components"? Does the reader with two minutes of time care about components? Do we need "damaged and/or looted"? Do we need to preface a food crisis by telling the reader with two minutes that a food crisis involved reduced food?

You got a couple minutes for the whole lead, and just this addition is about a 35 second read. GMG^talk 23:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo I really really appreciate you taking the time to explain things, its a great exercise in refining. I think the detailed description of troop movements kind of threw me off. I've made some small changes to the lead to reduce the character count a little bit (38 less) but I feel like there's something baggy about this , it talks about nazis twice right next to each other, I think this may be repetition? Can't quite work it out....

claiming the goal was to "demilitarise" and "denazify" Ukraine. Putin espoused irredentist views, challenged Ukraine's right to exist, and falsely claimed that Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis persecuting the ethnic Russian minority.

Another try, even as a slow reader I've got it down to about 10ish seconds. Its 345 characters in total, I think connecting these statements to other sentences may help reduce the count even more to maybe 300. I feel like this is pretty efficient for the third(ish) of article sections which are not covered in the lead.

Russian troops caused mass civilian casualties, characterized as genocide and democide.

Captured Ukrainian soldiers reported frequent torture.

Extensive environmental damage, described as ecocide, contributed to the 2022 food crises.

Over 500 Ukrainian cultural heritage sites were damaged/looted.

Chinese and UAE state owned firms supported Russia. (currently the lead reads as though only Ukraine was supported by other countries which is misleading)

Again, thanks very much.

John Cummings (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Russian emigration following the Russian invasion of Ukraine

More than 900,000 Russians fled. They should be mentioned at the beginning of the first paragraph, like the Ukrainians. Parham wiki (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Why, they are not war refugees they are draft dodgers? Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they became refugees due to the retreat of democracy, massive sanctions and military mobilization caused by the invasion. Parham wiki (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Russian de-population is important to note in this article, but I'm not sure if equating it to Ukrainian refugees by mentioning the two demographic changes together is the right course of action. Could the Russian immigrants be cited later in the article somewhere? Trilomonk (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Russian de-population is important to note in this article, but I'm not sure if equating it to Ukrainian refugees by mentioning the two demographic changes together is the right course of action. Could the Russian immigrants be cited later in the article somewhere? Trilomonk (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it can be mentioned in the first paragraph if the editors don't want it, although my preference is to mention it in the first paragraph. Parham wiki (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe there was a section in the article on this matter not very long ago, but it was removed on grounds that it's a topic covered on its main article; Russian emigration following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which now exists as a link on this article (though even that has strangely been removed a few times without explanation). Per MOS:LEAD, it should be a significant part of the article body if it is going to be included in the lead. Doesn't seem likely that it is WP:DUE to be mentioned in the way you are suggesting either way though, we're talking about millions of Ukrainian refugees compared to a much smaller number of Russians who have fled to avoid consequences of the invasion, mostly to avoid being forced into the military through conscription. Either way, it needs to be back on the article in a more significant way before it can even be discussed being in the lead. TylerBurden (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote wrongly: "Yes, if the editors don't want it to be written in the first paragraph", I meant: "Yes, if the editors don't want it, it should be written somewhere else". Parham wiki (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, of course, most of them fled because of the sanctions and the retreat of democracy. Parham wiki (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t believe the vast majority are refugees, if any. Refugee is a specific category of asylum seekers, which is a specific category of migrants. Are there any statistics about any Russians getting refugee status? The specific article is Russian emigration following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I think the statistic may belong in the body along with other detrimental effects on Russia of its invasion of its neighbour.  —Michael Z. 01:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

That's right, it should be written next, but in any case, they fled from their country like the Ukrainians, and in the first paragraph it is written: More than 8.2 million fled the country by May 2023. In addition, did all Ukrainians become refugees? Some of those poor people became slaves of smugglers. Parham wiki (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Enormous difference in significance and notability.

In Ukraine, 44% of the population displaced by a war by an invader accused of genocide, half of those to other countries, to escape being kidnapped, tortured, raped, wounded, or killed, placing a huge burden on the state’s economy. Many have had their homes or entire cities completely destroyed. Some have been displaced for over nine years.

In Russia, a fraction of one percent left, mostly economic migrants, draft dodgers, and dissenters, due to internal causes: the actions of their own government.  —Michael Z. 13:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Already in the early part of the war, Ukraine had more people displaced in absolute numbers as a result of Russia’s war, than Russia has had migrants related to it to date. In 2017 the UN refugee agency recorded 1.8 million internally displaced and conflict-affected people from Ukraine.[1]  —Michael Z. 13:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You are right, I am convinced. Parham wiki (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Link to discussion related to the article: Talk:List of genocides#Child abductions in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

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.

---

Participate in the discussion related to this article. Parham wiki (talk) 14:24, 3 July 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.

Should the introduction include a mention of the Kharkiv counteroffensive?

As it is now it seems to document all other major offensive/counteroffensive operations, so why not Kharkiv? Trilomonk (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Russian troops retreated from the northern front by April 2022". Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That sentence refers to the initial Russian attempt to strike Kyiv. The Kharkiv counteroffensive, According to its own page, began in September 2022. Trilomonk (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead says, "In late 2022, Ukraine launched counteroffensives in the south and east." The "east" is the Kharkiv counteroffensive. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 12:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Trilomonk (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

'displaced within their country' vs 'internally displaced' in the lead?

Hi all

I've been doing a little work on the lead trying to reduce its length by improving grammar and including small summaries from article sections which were completely missing (per WP:LEAD). One question I have is was there any discussion of if the lead should say 'displaced within their country' or 'internally displaced'? Internally displaced is the correct term and also reduces the length of the lead by a small bit, but maybe 'displaced within their country' is simpler language? Any thoughts? Its not a bit change but thought its maybe worth deciding

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

internally displaced seems fine. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"Displaced within their country" sounds verbose and less simple than "internally displaced". This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia; we shouldn't be spelling things out excessively for readers. Yue🌙 21:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Merger between Battle of Dovhenke and Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia

Some time ago, Super Dromaeosaurus suggested that the articles for the Battle of Dovhenke and the Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia should be merged into one article the "Sloviansk offensive", because they were battles meant to pave the way for the seizure of Sloviansk in the future- sources proving this are pointed out on the suggestion he made.

Super Dromaeosaurus, Jebiguess, SnoopyBird, and I all agreed with the proposal (me months after the proposal was made, though), while Dawsongfg and an IP opposed it. The rationale for a merger was pretty solid so, upon discovering it, I made a draft article to start merging. If other editors could help with it that'd be appreciated- if you happen to oppose a merger than this could also serve as a place to discuss whether or not it should occur - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 00:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to add information to it from time to time. Super Ψ Dro 07:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. Jebiguess (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

CSTO

CSTO and all its member countries are not enemies of NATO and did not participate or even support the invasion of Ukraine, so remove the image of CSTO. Parham wiki (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, I've removed it. — Czello ^(music) 19:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a link to other invasions by Russia?

The article starts with "This article is about the invasion that began in 2022. For other invasions, see List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine."

It should limit [link] to other invasions by Russia.2603:8000:2942:4A00:A1C9:5E65:BB17:1760 (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No such list exists, nor is it be necessary to create separate lists for each specific invader. I'm unsure why that list article exists – same for the only two other such lists list of invasions of France and list of invasions of Menorca – as they are synthesis. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

If they are examples of what we are talking about, no. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2023

"Rand researcher Dara Massicot" --> "RAND researcher Dara Massicot", as the corporation name is capitalized. Potentially also wikilink RAND to RAND.

2600:1700:38D0:2870:6437:594F:CE03:BAD2 (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

New estimate of Russian soldiers deaths at 47,000

Links: Meduza, Mediazona. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2023 (2)

In the Ukrainian unrest, Russian activity in Crimea and Donbas or Prelude section, write: In mid-2021, the Taliban, allegedly supported by Russia, overthrew the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan during the U.S. withdrawal from the country.Security Council of Russia secretary Nikolai Patrushev compared the situation to Ukraine–United States relations, stating that "a similar situation awaits supporters of the American choice in Ukraine". Parham wiki (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Why, what does it tell us? Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The second round of preparations for the invasion began two months after the victory of the Russian-backed Taliban and al-Qaeda (the group responsible for the September 11 attacks and other attacks on American citizens, interests and soil) in the war against the United States. The Russian government asks itself: "The United States could not defend itself and its main ally outside of NATO, so how can it defend a country that is not a member of NATO? Patrushev predicted that the United States would also abandon its allies in Ukraine, saying that ...Kyiv is obsequiously serving the interests of its overseas patrons, striving to get into NATO. But was the ousted pro-American regime in Kabul saved by the fact that Afghanistan had the status of a principal U.S. ally outside NATO? (No). A similar situation awaits supporters of the American choice in Ukraine. Parham wiki (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Then say "and Russia believed that the USA would abandon Ukraine as it did the Afgan regime". Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, write. Parham wiki (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I will wait for others to agree. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks Parham wiki (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

1. The reference for the claim of support from Russia isn't RUSI itself, but rather, commentary from Antonio Giustozzi: "The views expressed in this Commentary are the author’s, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution." This is WP:NOR.
2. Reference number 2 only covers the claim that the Republic of Afghanistan was overthrown, a wildly broad statement that tells readers where and who but not when, how, or why.
3. References 3 and 4 only confirm the comments made by Patrushev where they highlight a comparison, which is highly subjective.
4. IMHO, putting all these references together to claim that Russia backed the Taliban is WP:SYNTH in all its splendor.  Spintendo  03:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

   OK, thanks Parham wiki (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Typo

There's a typo I would edit if the article wasn't protected, so I'll just point it out here.

Under the environmental section of Impacts "Around 30% of Ukraine's land is now litered with explosives"

It's littered not litered. 184.103.36.165 (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mr rnddude (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Brain drain vs emigration

I am a bit confused as to why we are using the term "brain drain" in this article to describe the uptick in emigration from Russia?

I appreciate that there may be more than 100 million hits on Google for the term "brain drain", Rjensen, but in the same breath there are also 152 million hits for "emigration" when I check. This is also despite the inaccuracy of Google's hit count. Looking at Google Trends though, emigration is much more commonly used than brain drain.

Anyway, the section content is talking about the broad departure of general populous Russians from the country, not specifically the exodus of skilled individuals which is what "brain drain" refers to. Even Wikipedia's page, brain drain, redirects to human capital flight to describe the movement of skilled persons rather than the general population. The term itself is also in itself Westernised slang, and not of encyclopedic tone. Tim (Talk) 04:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"emigration" is the general term and adds nothing. "Brain Drain" says emigration AND highlights three factors that are very important according to the reliable sources: a) who left (the better educated) and b) the impact on Russia (a massive loss of top-of-the line human capital and skills. In my experience most of the news reports on the post 2020 emigration from Russia include the loss of human capital. c) Let me add a 3rd factor: Brain Drain includes the loss of many (or most) high tech western companies and their non-Russian experts--their departure is not called "emigration" but is called "brain drain." I think you will agree that the surge of departures in last 3 years does not reflect the "general population" (which is mostly lower income / less educated people). Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

According to BBC: [{Cite news |date=2023-06-03 |title=Why are people leaving Russia, who are they, and where are they going? |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65790759 |access-date=2023-07-09}}] "They come from different walks of life. Some are journalists like us, but there are also IT experts, designers, artists, academics, lawyers, doctors, PR specialists, and linguists. Most are under 50. Many share western liberal values and hope Russia will be a democratic country one day. Some are LGBTQ+. Sociologists studying the current Russian emigration say there is evidence that those leaving are younger, better educated and wealthier than those staying. More often they are from bigger cities." I added the quote to the article--the BBC was already there. 05:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There are 1,190 scholarly articles in Google Scholar using the terms "brain drain" and "Russia" and published thus far in 2023! see this link to all of them Rjensen (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Was not the real "Brain Drain" here from the press hack that came up with the term? For instead of using this Brain Dead idea - why not replace it with a less loaded term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.57 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the terminology that is devised by the reliable sources, and "Brain Drain" has been widely adopted by the media and by the academics. Rjensen (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Rjensen, brain drain is not in misuse here. TylerBurden (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I can see that this has already been addressed and that the section has been repurposed and renamed. At the time of first raising this, there was no mention in the article about the specific lost of highly trained or skilled individuals, hence my concern with the term "brain drain" versus general emigration. I am glad to see that this has since been rectified. Tim (Talk) 07:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Still an invasion?

This is not really an invasion anymore. Since 2022, it was just another phase of the war. I think it will be good to call it: Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present), just like with the Somali Civil War (2009–present) page. If this phase lasted for only 4 months or less, then it would be just an invasion. Unless we change the Russo-Ukrainian War page to Russo-Ukrainian conflict, which would most likely not happen. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It is an ongoing invasion, that is, Ukraine is still being invaded by Russia. BeŻet (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

However, the brave Ukrainians are resisting it, so it’s no longer just an invasion. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the invasion was until around the time Russians just stopped advancing. Same way how by 1943 or so the German invasion of the Soviet Union transitioned into becoming the Eastern Front. Juxlos (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

True. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If you support my idea, you could simply make a request to move it, since you are an Extended Confirmed user. If you don’t want, it’s fine! WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• The problem with this interpretation of the word "invasion" is that editors never try to define what would its meaning be according to it and how would it affect the articles, which it clearly would. I feel like the invasion was until around the time Russians just stopped advancing and when did they stop? In April 2022 after they retreated from the north? In July 2022 when they took Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk? In May 2023 when they took Bakhmut? When exactly did the invasion end according to this abstract interpretation? All of this is nothing but personal subjectivity. It is why our current practice, calling the whole thing an invasion, which is unambiguously accurate, is superior. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree and with your reasoning + juxlos's reasoning, but there should probably be a formal move discussion given the amount of traffic this article gets. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Leave it as it is, people are always going to want to change the name anyway and WP:RS are still using the term to refer to the full scale war started by Russia in 2022 that is still going on. TylerBurden (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to add the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria to the Ukrainian side, and Iran to the Russian support section

With the direct military involvement of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria’s government-in-exile, I propose that we add it to the pro-Ukraine combatants. After all, it is like Donetsk and Luhansk in a way. All are only recognized by a few countries (Ichkeria, one), but only Donetsk and Luhansk are shown as combatants.

In addition, with the recent Ukrainian strike that killed ten Iranian soldiers, I also propose that we add Iran to the Russian support section, as it is clearly now supporting Russia in an advisory role. Blepii (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Ichkeria is currently only recognized by Ukraine, and only since November (in a similar vein to how DeepStateMap.Live now depicts various areas generally recognized as Russian territory (everything annexed during WW2, as well as Chechnya) as "occupied". There is no real difference between Chechen contingents and other units such as the Kastuś Kalinoŭski Regiment. On the other hand, the DPR and LPR were actually de facto functional governments exercising stable control and administration of territory, and also received a few recognitions from Russian allies such as Syria, North Korea, and (depending on the interpretation of official statements) informally a bunch of others.

More importantly, the DNR and LNR were putting in about twenty times the manpower into the fight, and their level of involvement was so intense that the number of casualties has been estimated at more than the total pre-war size of their armed forces.

As for adding Iran, all I can find is Ukrainian government claims of such a strike from last November. Besides, by that criterion, we would have to revisit the Infobox Wars with regard to the UK and several other countries. While I, for one, actually might want to do so at a later point, that would necessitate novel arguments which I haven't finished carefully preparing, and an overwhelming case would be necessary to avoid a long-running furball over the issue. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

What is “were actually de facto functional governments exercising stable control and administration of territory”? Nonsense.

They were Russian-controlled since May 2014. Current sources label that territory “Russian-controlled territory as of 24 February 2022” (Plokhy 2023, The Russo-Ukrainian War) or simply label the “line of contact before invasion,” or earlier “held by Russian-backed forces.[2] At this point they shouldn’t even be in the infobox as belligerent actors, because they had no independent national identity or statehood, nor any agency in the conflict.  —Michael Z. 00:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Being a proxy/puppet/client or what have you does not mean that they weren’t acting as discrete entities. It’s not as if the Kremlin was micromanaging every administrative decision (far from it) and as we saw, the 1st and 2nd AC were not integrated into the Russian force structure until recently.

A more or less analogous case, Japanese invasion of Manchuria, lists Manchukuo under a bullet point.

About not having an “independent national identity” — you’d have to ask the residents of those regions if that’s an accurate representation of their feelings. As for statehood — it depends on which definition one uses.

In any event, the current question is about the Chechen government-in-exile.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yea, I am not sure this does not fail wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Parham wiki (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Article idea: Telegram during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

There are a ton of articles existing on this topic that could be used as sources: [3][4][5][6]

The main reason I could see against creating an article like this is that there might already be an article that covers a similar scope. Anyone know if there’s some article already existing, like “Social media during…” or “Information ecosystem during…”? If not, I might get started on a draft. HappyWith (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

There are no such articles. Parham wiki (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I incite you to propose this at this article's talk page at Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia. I think its very likely someone at any of the two decides to write an article, which we will later be able to translate, considering the popularity of Telegram during the war. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above that this is a very good idea for an article. – GnocchiFan (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Start with Social media during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and break off sections summary-style as necessary.  —Michael Z. 18:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thanks. HappyWith (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s definitely a topic that would meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements. Mzajac’s suggestion is also a good one. Volunteer Marek 18:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: I’ve created a very initial draft at Draft:Social media during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Other editors are welcome to contribute. HappyWith (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Could the article titled Social media during the Russo-Ukrainian War? From quick searching I found this chapter in a book published in 2015, that chapter cited by 61 in Google Scholar (see subheading "Social Media in the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict"). Hddty (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This may be the best idea, tbh. As I've been writing the article, it has expanded in scope naturally to cover the larger war, and I'll probably move the page after writing a little more. Thanks for the suggestion! HappyWith (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions! The article is now in mainspace at Social media in the Russo-Ukrainian War. HappyWith (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Claims of Human Rights Abuses

At the risk of being attacked as a pro-Russian troll, I have to ask why Wikipedia is willing to publish (unconfirmed) reports of Russian human right abuses - while down-playing claims of Ukrainian war crimes?

For an AP report within the Wikipedia article stared that "several videos started circulating on different websites purportedly showing Russian soldiers beheading Ukrainian soldiers."

Yet, following the links from the AP article, another AP report presented evidence that the Ukrainians killed Russian troops surrendering. This report was not included within the Wikipedia article.

A case of innocent until proven Russian?

Because RS do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

NOw if you want to add claims of Ukrainian ones please do so. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Article for pro-war Russian nationalists / “Z-patriots” / “angry patriots”

They don’t really have an established name in English or Russian (that I know of), but essentially I’m talking about the pro-war nationalists who think Putin hasn’t gone far enough, like Igor Girkin and his friends as well as Prigozhin and others who have criticized Putin. I think they probably deserve an article, given their rising importance in the Russian sphere and all the references to them in existing WP articles.

Some examples of the group being referred to as a distinct faction:

• What Igor Strelkov’s arrest means for Russia’s ‘patriots’ faction: "…It became clear that after the regime had managed to cope with the criticism from the liberal-minded people by either throwing them to prison or forcing them out of the country, the next target would be the “patriots”..."

• Idol of the Z-patriots. Next to him, Putin seems to be a respectable leader.

• Pro-war nationalists say they are entering Russian politics to counter turmoil: " In Putin's Russia, fiercely nationalist politicians and bloggers have since the war began increasingly taken on the role of critics of the military top brass who they say is failing due to incompetence, corruption and even treachery."

• Vladimir Putin’s failing invasion is fueling the rise of Russia’s far right: " Instead, the most serious challenge to Putinism may come from a newly emerging political movement that is even further to the right on the political spectrum than Putin himself. At present, this is a disorganized but vocal movement that has found its voice in the many unofficial Russian “war correspondents” and social media accounts reporting on the invasion while bypassing the Russia’s Kremlin-controlled mainstream information space. Most write from a Russian nationalist perspective while employing ethnic slurs for Ukrainians. They are unambiguously pro-war and often apparently pro-Putin. However, their content is frequently at odds with Russia’s official propaganda and highly critical of the military officials leading the invasion."

I wouldnt really know what to call the article, given there isn’t a clear WP:COMMONNAME at all. If other editors have ideas, let me know. HappyWith (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a common colloquial name arise on social media, but its more of a disparaging term rhyming an ethnic slur, so I don't think it would be appropriate for here as the common name. You could do it in a sorta-roundabout way and make it the term itself (and about the term itself), then use that as a means to include the history and circumstances of the term, where when/if a common name does emerge, it can be replaced with that, but that's getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory.

The other option took would be to just call it something descriptive like "Pro-war Russian Nationalists in the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" DarmaniLink (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the descriptive name you propose would understate their zeal. Lots of Russians are pro war and lots of them are nationalist. What makes these guys different is that they think Russia’s current methods aren’t extreme and brutal enough. Volunteer Marek 04:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just kinda the first thing that popped into my head.

I tried playing with chatGPT for a bit and got something like:

"Proponents of Escalated Russian Military Operations in Ukraine"

Maybe "harsher" instead of escalated

How does that sound? DarmaniLink (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that doesn’t sound right. I don’t think ChatGPT will be useful here. HappyWith (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve created a very bare initial draft at Draft:Z-patriots for now. Feel free to contribute there. HappyWith (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

...Now published to mainspace at Angry patriots. HappyWith (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, as we say be bold. Thanks for making the executive decision so we didnt languish over this too much. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Naval Map recognizes Chinese claims in South China Sea

For some reason the sanction map shows naval territories. It seems to recognize Chinese claims in the south china sea. I propose we switch to a map that does not show naval sovereignty to ensure NPOV on this issue. 86.107.186.224 (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Was a bit tricky technically.

That image had been flagged as problematic before for other reasons, but iirc no action was taken then. I’m going to go and remove it from the other articles too.

The example you gave is only one of the issues as there are a lot of EEZ disputes worldwide.

Furthermore, the unnecessary EEZ markings were cluttering.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

EEZs is important, since the sanctions relate to issues of navigation and the admission of ships to maritime zones. In addition, this map better visualizes the island states. If you have authoritative sources that describe the borders differently, edit the map--Artemis Dread (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Artemis Dread I don’t understand how EEZs are significantly affected by sanctions. Can you explain the mechanics?

In my view, any benefit is outweighed by the issues of NPOV and visual clutter.

Besides, it’s not typical to depict EEZs in similar cases.

As far as maritime borders go, there are so many significant EEZ disputes out there that there is no widely recognized border.

As a proud flag-waving American, I take personal umbrage to your depiction of an oil-rich wedge of the Beaufort Sea as belonging to Canada’s EEZ!!

Just imagine how many other people around the world feel the same way about far more serious maritime disputes.

Afaik there are relatively few island states actively sanctioning as of now, and there are other options to depict them.

The easiest thing to do would be to simply create a new map without EEZs, and let each individual WP decide which image to use. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@RadioactiveBoulevardier, advise a neutral basis for an alternative option--Artemis Dread (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Land borders only would avoid most issues. I believe the template maps for those use dotted lines for disputes. There’s also the option of using stripes for the small number of disputed areas. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Fresh Discussion on Adding Countries to the Infobox

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.

---

Its been over a year since the last discussion on this when a vote was held that was inconclusive and in light of how much support Ukraine has received at this point a new discussion is in order. Ukraine has received or been promised billions of dollars not just in financial aid but also valuable western equipment such as APC's, IFV's, and even tanks. Russia has also recieved albeit less but still support from nations such as North Korea and Iran. To not list these countries in the infobox in some capacity seems more misleading than not including them in my opinion. Nations that only provided medical aid are listed in the infobox for the Korean War article and I'm not going to list them all but you can find other examples so clearly there is precedence for putting countries that aren't directly fighting in the infobox. The aid Ukraine has received has been undeniably important in their ability to continue fighting and conduct operations such as the recent counter offensive and currently a reader that just reads the lead of the article and the info box might not realize this since financial aid and military aid to Ukraine is only briefly mentioned. I read the concerns people had about including NATO in the infobox because it might make people think NATO is at war with Russia but if NATO and other countries are clearly labeled as only providing arms and not as belligerents I don't see this being an issue. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is who do we add, what criteria, as you say Russia has also received assistance. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully in this discussion a consensus can be reached on the critera. In my opinion any nation thats sent military equipment which has been used in the war by either side should definitely be included. Certain nations such as the United States which have provided the most aid should be prioritized for inclusion. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s far too broad a proposal to be likely to gain traction. I invite OP to pore through the archives. Actually, I believe the big banner up top links to the most important archived discussions. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

1. The argument is poor. So many things have such influence on the course of the war. Ukraine’s strong sense of civic national identity. Ukrainians’ ability to adapt to, use, and develop technology. Their defensive advantage. Russia’s high level of corruption and political infighting, Soviet military mindset, and poor preparedness for an invasion. But none of these belong in the infobox. Don’t write the article in the infobox.
2. It certainly doesn’t override all of the arguments against discussed previously.
3. Since previous discussions, there is a new consensus established to just not do this: shoehorning a “Supporters” column, under “Belligerents” where it would never belong, in an infobox where there is no consensus to include non-belligerent supporters. It should probably be removed from most other articles. It should definitely not be added anywhere, and especially not in a highly debated and questionable instance such as this one. See Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter.

 —Michael Z. 16:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

A good point, two wrongs do not make a right. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

In response to point one all those things you listed that aren't included in the infobox are just as important if not more so then the military aid to Ukraine. However I believe it is useful to a reader and improves the article if they can at a glance in the infobox see which nations are supporting who in a conflict and there is no good reason not to include this information. I also was not aware of that more recent consensus you mention but I disagree. I think it is useful to a reader who doesn't have time to read the article to see at a glance which nations are supporting which side in a conflict. If it is clearly labeled that the nations are only supplying arms I don't see what negative effect this could have on the article and a readers interpretation. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Just as a side note, I’d be wary of arguments based on the RfC over there, as 1) we have our own very special infobox all to ourselves 2) adopting the deprecation would raise new issues regarding the continued inclusion of Belarus.

Pinging @Cinderella157 for comment on this point as they have been heavily involved in that side of things. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Support if along with NATO we add mosquitos. Source TylerBurden (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s been about 8 months, I believe. Last RfC was closed Dec 30. I don’t really see that anything has changed. Volunteer Marek 15:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

What about fuel for tanks, tires for armoured cars? Military aid is not just guns and bullets. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If the amount of fuel or other forms of logistical support is significant enough yes that would merit inclusion I believe. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that OP isn’t bringing novel arguments. I believe fairly strong ones do exist, but it isn’t a convenient time for me to get too deeply involved in a discussion like this due to IRL personal tasks consuming my headspace. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Also that RfC was closed with a plea by User:ScottishFinishRadish Also, can we not do this again in a couple months?. I guess 8 months doesn’t qualify as “a couple months” but I think the idea still applies. Volunteer Marek 15:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it does. Lots has changed in the 8 months since that discussion. Ukraine has recieved lots of essential western military and financial aid which it has used to prepare and now conduct a critical counter offensive. I don't think you or anyone else is denying or even can deny how important and useful the aid from countries like the U.S. has been to Ukraines war effort. It says in the counter offensive article itself that its success is important so western nations will see how valuable their support has been and will continue it. Not to mention the leaks back in April revealed certain NATO countries have gone so far as to even send in special forces for secret operations. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65245065 UkraineWarProposal (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think its clear NATO and other nations are doing pretty much everything they can to support Ukraines war effort short of a military intervention which isn't an option for many reasons. North Korea and Iran are supporting Russia to a lesser extent but enough to merit inclusion as well in my opinion. I think the only real issue with including more nations in the infobox is a lack of consensus on criteria for inclusion which I am hoping we can fix in this talk page. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That says one country, and it does not say “for secret operations.” For all you know, they were a security detail for the embassy or for their visiting head of government. This does not belong in the infobox.  —Michael Z. 16:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

As is China. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

My mistake you are correct. Its unknown what they were doing there but why was it classified and why special forces just for protecting a visiting head of state? Anyway I'm not saying that should be in the infobox anyway. I was just trying to illustrate my point that NATO has given Ukraine LOTS of support and therefore should be in the infobox. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The article literally says the UK always treats its special forces’ actions as classified. That’s why. It doesn’t illustrate that, because you have no evidence they had anything to do with support to Ukraine.

And why keep repeating NATO NATO when we know about seventy or more states and many international organizations have provided diplomatic, civil-society, economic, humanitarian, or military support to Ukraine?  —Michael Z. 16:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, "NATO support" does now seem to include most of NATO. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Well put.  —Michael Z. 17:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of completeness, it’s worth reviewing statements Josep Borrell, Jens Stoltenberg, and other intergovernmental officials have made on the topic.

Funny though how people keep suggesting NATO, but not the EU.

Anyway… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Im just mentioning NATO lots because they are the most prominent in the news I guess my bad. In any case let me clarify that my proposal upon further thought is now for any nation that has provided significant military aid to Ukraine or Russia to be included in the infobox. I am not sure what should be considered significant however. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Most, not all, individual NATO member states, the EU, the G7, the IMF, the International Criminal Court, the IAEA, the UN OHCHR, and the UN General Assembly, for example, have all been prominent in the news for their support of Ukraine. But if it’s not supporters that you want to add, please do define what it is and propose an appropriate heading. Leaving supporters out of a “Supporters” field is more of an omission than not kludging the template with a write-in sub-field.  —Michael Z. 17:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And there's the rub, we would have to decide what is significant, and that is far too subjective. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not proposing the infobox be every nation and organization thats ever come out in support of either Ukraine of Russia. I am proposing any nation or organization that has provided notable and significant military, financial, or humanitarian aid be included. I ask that other contributors give their opinions on what the criteria for inclusion should be so we can possibly reach a consensus. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes I got that, my point was "how do we define that?". Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thats the entire problem. We all need to come to a consensus on whats "significant" which I don't think is subjective nor impossible. Colombia and Cambodia for example have given much less support to Ukraine then countries like the U.S. and are therefore not necessary to include in the infobox. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Issue is that OP didn’t suggest a clear standard. It’s one thing to suggest putting a few larger countries in on a case by case basis due to a visible and demonstrable pattern of large-scale support clearly independent of the wider effort. It’s quite another to just suggest that all arms suppliers be added.

The end goal should be to provide something helpful at a glance to the reader. Adding minor European countries that sent some small arms at some point isn’t helpful.

At the same time, the status quo is also potentially problematic relative to MOS and P&G, but that’s a topic for another thread.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the entire approach, unless you label it “Biggest sources of arms,” or whatever specific criteria it’s supposed to reflect.

But “Supported by” looks like a List of supporters of Ukraine. It broadly implies this is who supports Ukraine and those omitted do not. In terms of significance, the insult against “minor countries” ignores that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have contributed 1% of their GDP! It ignores that, again, over 70 states support Ukraine. So if they’re not all listed then there should be a link to the full list, and we’re back to trying to shoehorn an article section, or rather a separate major listicle, or two, into the infobox to convey an entire subject that the infobox has no field for, by design.  —Michael Z. 22:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You are focusing in on the UK and their special forces but remember that the leak says special forces from other countries such as the U.S. are in Ukraine as well. We don't know what they are doing in Ukraine but why do we have to assume it's just something mundane? UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No reason, which is why we also can't assume it's not mundane. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

True. But it doesn’t even say they’re armed, so it’s a stretch to claim they’re “operating.” We know the US has diplomatic security and unarmed weapons auditors in Ukraine. States have military liaison in their embassy staffs as well. Anyway, this is all chatter since you’re not proposing it be included in the infobox.  —Michael Z. 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

OK lets play a game.

What is the better one really good tank or 6 very bad ones? What is better, one piece of intel that stop an attack or 15 pieces of intel that have no impact? Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Well this just prompts another decision in regards to the criteria. Should we include nations that send "bad" outdated equipment in big numbers or not? In my opinion we should concern ourselves more with the quantity of aid sent then the quality since that gets very and unnecessarily subjective and complex for an infobox. Maybe we could decide how valuable the equipment sent is based on monetary value? For example the U.S. is sending only 31 M1 Abrams tanks out of the thousands that they have but that's an almost 9 million dollar very capable tank. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the best approach would be the most time consuming but it would be the best. We could analyze the aid that each nation has sent to Ukraine or Russia on a case by case basis and decide whether its significant or how big of an impact its had. I guess the biggest challenge would be finding reliable sources to make an informed decision but I'm sure they exist. If not then I guess it will have to wait until a few years after the war is over. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And any such analysis must wait till after the war, and historians judge what was and was not significant. So this needs closing until then. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough then thats a good point. I think a good consensus would be then that not just for the Ukraine war but any current conflicts the infobox should be left empty of anyone except directly involved belligerents. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but this is not the place for this discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are no new arguments here, and there’s a recent general consensus against this at Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#RfC_on_"supported_by"_being_used_with_the_belligerent_parameter. It’s a waste of energy to start discussions about what exactly should be listed in a write-in “supporters” field when there is no consensus to have one. Per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-extended-confirmed users are not permitted to participate in project discussions, and this discussion to go against consensus initiated by a WP:SPA has gone beyond the threshold. —Michael Z. 18:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Procedural close but as I stated above, I don’t think the “general consensus” from that discussion is necessarily applicable here, and if it is, then it needs to be applied completely.

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Why isn’t it applicable? This has been discussed multiple times with no consensus to add it, so it is definitely a controversial case. If it’s generally not to be applied generally, then it’s definitely not to be applied controversially.

  What do you mean “needs to be applied completely”? Go right ahead and update 10,000 other articles to reflect the current consensus. But please don’t say we shouldn’t respect it here until you’re done.  —Michael Z. 20:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Responding tp ping by RadioactiveBoulevardier regarding Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#RfC_on_"supported_by"_being_used_with_the_belligerent_parameter. That RfC was worded Template:Infobox military conflict and related templates. The consensus is for this article to have its own infobox as a temporary expedient and regardless, it is captured by the RfC. And yes, it does raise the issue of continued inclusion of Belarus. To comment on the broader discussion here, the overwhelming response to the OP is that no new or novel arguments have been made that would negate the reasons given in the previous RfC and the consensus it represents. While it is appropriate to give them a hearing, the question has been asked and answered. It would appear that nothing would be accomplished by dragging this out further - ie closing the discussion, as indicated by RadioactiveBoulevardier, would be appropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah you guys can close this I don't mind. I still disagree and think every conflict should list major supporters of each side in the infobox but I now better understand the current consensus and the reasons for it. Thank you all for your answers and patience. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that most of what's going on during a war is shrouded in secrecy for understandable reasons. Whatever is made public by a country is what they want their enemies to know, and is rarely everything. A solution is to wait until the end of the war, after the dust settles, then the victor gets to write history. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The right way to include this in infoboxes is to propose the addition of a separate top-level “Supporters” row at template talk:infobox military conflict.  —Michael Z. 14:25, 27 July 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.

Ukraine war liberated Staromaiorske

Ukraine war liberated Staromaiorske 182.224.89.144 (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2023

Add North Korea and Iran in the support of Russia in the belligerents section Napalm Guy (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussed many times, you have offred no new insights. 11:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Access to Article

But how can I include the words Matilda Bogner (head of the U.N. monitoring mission in Ukraine) that they "have received credible allegations of summary executions of persons hors de combat, and several cases of torture and ill-treatment, reportedly committed by members of the Ukrainian armed forces”, when article appears to be locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.175 (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Provide a source, and ask one of us to do it for you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Is their Press Release: "UN Human Rights Ukraine released reports on treatment of prisoners of war and overall human rights situation in Ukraine" a reasonable place to quote from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.175 (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Should be, care to suggest a text? Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"PRISONERS OF WAR

I will turn now to our report on the treatment of prisoners of war, during all stages of captivity – from initial capture, to transit and then places of internment.

Our team interviewed more than 400 prisoners of war, approximately 200 on each side. Ukraine provided us with unimpeded confidential access to official places of internment of Russian prisoners of war. The Russian Federation did not give us access. However, we were able to carry out confidential interviews with Ukrainian POWs upon their release.

I will start with Russian prisoners of war in the hands of Ukraine. We are deeply concerned about the summary execution of up to 25 Russian POWs and persons hors de combat by Ukrainian armed forces which we have documented. This was often perpetrated immediately upon capture on the battlefield. While we are aware of ongoing investigations by Ukrainian authorities into five cases involving 22 victims, we are not aware of any prosecutions of the perpetrators." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.175 (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

We can't add this, at best we can say "According to a UN report Russian POWS claimed to be victims of human rights violations, as well as summary executions". Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Since the report by Matilda Bogner (head of the U.N. monitoring mission in Ukraine) is a public statement - why cannot Wikipedia use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.175 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No one has said that. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Put another way, while allowing claims of Ukrainian abuses, you did say that Wikipedia is not willing to print clear evidence of Ukrainian war crimes?

1. Sign your posts. 2. Wikipedia would need to be provided with clear evidence (from a reliable source as usual) to print it. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:F211:A254:7DA9:FB24 (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

So a Press Release by the Head of the U.N. monitoring mission in Ukraine is not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.138 (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be advisable for you to read WP:COMPETENCE and WP:RELIABLE before continuing to ask questions that you should already know the answers to. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:F211:A254:7DA9:FB24 (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"UN Human Rights Ukraine released reports on treatment of prisoners of war and overall human rights situation in Ukraine" Press Release 24 March 2023

Not knowing the answer, I again ask why the United Nations report is not considered to be a reliable/usable source? Could it be that Wikipedia wishes to avoid showing the Ukrainian Govt in a negative light? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.138 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No one has suggested it not, but it might well be a wp:primary source, and thus we need to work carefully what we use it for. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Is not the UN Report a "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? But if the Report is breaking the rules - please state HOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.79 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Proper English grammar?

In the lead it says:

"More than 8.2 million had fled the country by May 2023, Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II."

Shouldn't there be a word such as "becoming" after the comma? 195.178.166.244 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Works either way. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Not really. While it might parse as acceptable grammar/syntax, no style guide would ever recommend such a construction. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The meaning of the blue areas of the map

The meaning of the blue areas is not written in the infobox. What does that mean? This should be written. Parham wiki (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

See the legend accompanying the map. The blue areas are liberated territory. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Thanks. Parham wiki (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to incorporate that information into the 'controlled by' line below the caption. The legend template seems to suggest that a box can only contain one colour. Since both yellow and blue areas are ultimately controlled by Ukraine, I guess [c]ontrolled by:       Ukraine    Russia would work? That raises the question: why two different colours? I suppose controlled by:    Ukraine    Russia ; liberated by:    Ukraine is another option. Maybe someone has a better idea for that specifically. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest formerly controlled by Russia since there is both an NPOV issue we should avoid and ambiguity with just liberated (by who?), which is used in the actual image's caption. Recaptured by Ukraine or Recaptured from Russia would also work. If we reach a consensus, we should get the actual image's legend changed too. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think yellow is just Ukraine: does it need a label at all? Superimposed over it is red, Russian-occupied territory, and blue, previously occupied and since liberated territory.  —Michael Z. 03:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If I were to colour this map, I would make the yellow areas white or grey, to read as neutral/normal, contrasting only in tone with the territory of other states. There are good precedents.[7][8][9][10][11]  —Michael Z. 03:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Did someone change the particular shade of blue at some point?

It looks different, and not totally pleasing. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it also looks far too similar to the shade of blue used for waterways. BogLogs (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

Couldn't find any previous discussion on it, surprisingly. There is this montage [12] of the war that may be useful for the infobox. Other conflicts, such as the American Civil War, the Second World War, the French invasion of Russia, or the Second Congo War have montages that illustrate the article. Can I get any sort of consensus for putting the photo montage in?

Bremps... 19:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and be bold. Bremps... 22:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That WP:OTHERTHINGS exist is not a valid argument unless they represent best practice as evidenced in articles of the highest standard. My recollection is that the addition of a photo image (and/or collage) has been previously discussed and rejected. At the very least, there have been photo images in the infobox but these have been removed with a consensus. Perhaps a little more time should have been given before acting on this idea but one can also be WP:BOLD.

There is WP:P&G on use of images, images in the infobox and collages. Per WP:MONTAGE: [Montages] illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way. Per WP:IMGCONTENT: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Per MOS:LEADELEMENTS: the image used should be relevant ... Per MOS:LEADIMAGE: It should be a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. and Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see.

I don't see a need to add an image/s other than the map at this time. If there is a consensus to do so, the selection should comply with the prevailing P&G. It/they should be one readily associated with the invasion (ie near iconic) and not just one from the invasion. Collages in an infobox are rarely anything but decorative and ten images is way too crowded. It is also important that such images be undisputedly in the public domain. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I wasn't aware of WP:MONTAGE. Could you clarify what you meant by the final sentence? Would Creative Commons images not be allowed? Bremps... 19:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Creative Commons images should be allowed but before using them to create a montage (ie a new image) I would double check their provenance. In an event like this, images that are not in the public domain have a tendency to creep into the collection. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

WMD

Do we have coverage of all types of weapons of mass destruction threats and use in this conflict in a central place? We do have articles:

• Nuclear threats during the Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory
• Use of incendiary weapons in the Russo-Ukrainian war (some of which fall under international law concerning chemical weapons)

But there have been reports of other chemical agent threats and use, etc. Some random examples:

• “White House warns Russia may use chemical weapons in Ukraine” (March 2022)[13]
• “Russia accuses Ukraine of ‘chemical terrorism’ using toxin” (August 2022, subject was botulism)[14]
• “U.S. concerned Russia could use chemical weapons in Ukraine” (November 2022)[15]
• “Without giving evidence, Russia says it probes Ukraine use of chemical weapons” (February 2023)[16]
• “Have Chemical Weapons been Used in Ukraine?” (June 2023)[17]
• “Commander: Russia continues to use chemical weapons in Ukraine” (today)[18]

We should have an umbrella article about WMD in this conflict (at least a stub with relevant links), and probably a short section in this one and in Russo-Ukrainian War, and possibly a specific article about chemical weapons during the war.  —Michael Z. 17:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A bit dubious about including threats. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Nuclear deterrence has determined the shape of the world for around seven decades. The use of nuclear threats to facilitate the invasion of a non-nuclear state is unprecedented since the signing of the UN Charter. Russia has advertised its intention to commit illegal nuclear acts, and there are indications that it has affected the provision of aid to Ukraine. While invading Ukraine, Russia has moved its nuclear weapons into Belarus adjacent to Ukraine. Hundreds of sources have reported these scores of events as significant.  —Michael Z. 23:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

So policy is clear, just because something can be cited doe not mean we should include it. This has to add something, and I do not think this does. We should wait until sobber analysis determines the real impact, in fact this is why we should not have articles on current events. As we do not know what is oir is not important until after the event. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the threats should be covered in a limited way, per WP:CRYSTALBALL unless it can be demonstrated that reliable sources covering the conflict in its entirety consider them important.

Other than that, I think that it's worth adding information about WMD to the article. Somehow, all your links are about the use of WMD by Russia, but in fact HRW says that [As of November 2022], it is not possible to attribute responsibility for specific attacks, but Russia and Ukraine both possess 122mm Grad incendiary rockets and Ukraine definitely has used incendiary munitions during the conflict [19]. We should make sure we follow WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 18:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Per Slatersteven and Alaexis, we need to be a bit circumspect per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL but people seem so hungry to add every little tidbit they come across and create articles for anything conceivable and some that aren't. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually found those searching for “Ukraine chemical weapons,” but it’s just a quick survey to demonstrate notability and range of the subject. Of course due weight should be given to Ukraine’s use of WMD and threats to use WMD including any incendiary weapons that are considered chemical weapons.  —Michael Z. 01:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

And Russia is using Ukrainian-built nuclear cruise missiles, given up by Ukraine in return for Russian security guarantees, against Ukraine.

• “Russia Is Using Old Ukrainian Missiles Against Ukraine, General Says: The missiles, returned to Russia in the 1990s under an agreement aimed at assuring Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, have shown up in rubble,” NYT.

 —Michael Z. 14:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Wording of lead section

The lead section makes it sound like all this is primarily some sort of "refugee crisis". That is misleading. It is a war. Civilian matters aside, the military side of things is extremely intense with tens of thousands of artillery shells used and many hundreds of soldiers killed or wounded every day. Here is a reliable source referring to it as "the largest land conflict in Europe since World War 2". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjInnRL-HUg (Fareed Zakaria, CNN) I suggest changing the wording to reflect that. Trying to hide, ignore or distort the absolutely massive scale of the fighting and destruction is serious misinformation to the general public.

If the wording has been what it is because of a lack of a "reliable source", well there you now have a source. I suggest we use it.

ShouldIHide (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence could be expanded.  —Michael Z. 14:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think OP raises a point I’ve alluded to before.

Immediately following the brief lead sentence, we have this:

The invasion has killed tens of thousands on both sides. Russian forces have been responsible for mass civilian casualties and for torturing captured Ukrainian soldiers. By June 2022, about 8 million Ukrainians had been internally displaced. More than 8.2 million had fled the country by May 2023, becoming Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II. Extensive environmental damage, widely described as ecocide, contributed to food crises worldwide.

This is a fairly unsubtle WP:DUE issue in that it not only stresses the humanitarian aspects well above anything else, but that it uses a journalistic flow of words to intentionally put a spotlight on Ukraine while almost entirely ignoring impacts on third parties. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to document phenomena in a clear and cohesive manner, not to document a POV in its most literal sense. In support of various aspects of the status quo, we have often seen the same tired old arguments being reprised, which frequently include plain “appeal to” fallacies, or implied versions of the old “with us or against us” line that willfully ignores that there are many possible views on the situation besides the two promulgated in Kyiv and Moscow.

In addition, WP’s unabashed double standards between the amount of coverage granted to white Christian refugees and that granted to other recent refugee crises is mildly abhorrent.

I’ll see if there’s a possibility of smaller adjustments without a full rewrite of the lead (which may be warranted but would be controversial and shouldn’t happen during this discussion). There might not be.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

“Impacts on third parties”?

It’s certainly not great, but what’s UNDUE is the blatant both-sidesism of the first sentence. Russian soldiers and mercenaries being killed in their illegal, aggressive war of choice is hardly equivalent to Russians killing Ukrainians, including civilians and children in their homes and workplaces by strikes all over Ukraine, disappearing them, torturing and raping before arbitrary executions, while being credibly accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, incitement to genocide, and genocide.  —Michael Z. 03:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this - the lead is very sympathetic to Russia in an unjustifiable manner. DCsansei (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't get this at all, the most significant consequences are summarized straight away giving the reader an immediate overview of the effects of the invasion. What kind of “third party“ effects are more due than millions of refugees, mass murder of civilians, torture etc? Do discuss any changes you plan on making first. TylerBurden (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Please make the following change to the article

−

[[Vladimir Putin]] [[On conducting a special military operation|announced]] a "[[special military operation]]" to support the breakaway [[Donetsk People's Republic|republics of Donetsk]] and [[Luhansk People's Republic|Luhansk]], whose [[Russian people's militias in Ukraine|military forces]] were fighting Ukraine in the [[War in Donbas (2014–2022)|Donbas conflict]], claiming the goal was to "[[demilitarise]]" and "[[Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Allegations of Nazism|denazify]]" Ukraine.

+

[[Vladimir Putin]] [[On conducting a special military operation|announced]] a "[[special military operation]]" to support the Russian-backed breakaway [[Donetsk People's Republic|republics of Donetsk]] and [[Luhansk People's Republic|Luhansk]], whose [[Russian people's militias in Ukraine|military forces]] were fighting Ukraine in the [[War in Donbas (2014–2022)|Donbas conflict]], claiming the goal was to "[[demilitarise]]" and "[[Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Allegations of Nazism|denazify]]" Ukraine.

It's very important to clearly state that Russia was involved in creating the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk and supported them. If this isn't made clear, people might mistakenly think they started as local grassroots efforts. Krestenti (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but that’s still way understating it. It was Russian forces and Russian-controlled separatists that were fighting a war, and the invasion and attack on all parts of Ukraine wasn’t to “support” any fake republics but to destroy Ukraine as a state and a nation, and to assert Russian control over it.  —Michael Z. 16:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

propose your change to the article then. Krestenti (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton @Mzajac as far as I can see, only one person responded to my proposal and supported it. Krestenti (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Krestenti I implemented it per MOS:LEAD, because that is precisely how the body puts it. TylerBurden (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Also, that {{td}} template should be made mandatory for edit requests. It'd cut down the number of imparseable edit requests from too many to approximately zero. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the {{td}} template suggestion. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

New article (2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive - South Front)

Two new articles related to the southern front are needed considering the length of time, the amount of army concentration and the number of casualties on both sides. The first will be the Battle of Staromaiors'ke and Urozhaine in which the Ukrainians won or are 1% close to it, and that article should not be included in the Zaporizhzhia campaign, because those two places are located in the Velyka Novosilka Raion, which is part of Donetsk Oblast, and therefore requires a separate article. The second article will be called the Zaporizhzhia campaign, which will also be a sub-article of the current major 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and will include all the ongoing heavy fighting from the city of Kamianske in the west to the city of Priyutne in the east and will last from June 7. First I will create an outline for new articles. — Baba Mica (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Spellings Staromaiorske and Pryiutne, per WP:UKR.  —Michael Z. 03:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't thought about the rest of your proposal yet, but I disagree with your idea that the Velyka Novosilka front does not belong in the Zaporizhzhia campaign. While it's technically not part of the same oblast, militarily it is part of the same effort pushing south. I believe the area does actually fall into the broader Zapo. historical region anyway. We shouldn't put technicalities of administration over a cohesive experience for the reader. If it's really that big of a deal we could also just change the title of the article to include the small parts of Donetsk. HappyWith (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Because of those technicalities, there is general confusion in the article War in Donbass (2014-2022) about the start date, although it is clear that the general uprising began on April 6, while the armed uprising began on April 12. However, after nine years of war, someone "smart" changed the date to April 12 and put the emphasis on Sloviansk and Kramatorsk instead of occupying state institutions, police stations, looting warehouses and general shooting on April 6 in Donetsk, Makeyevka and Yenakiyevo on April 6. For weeks, I led a rhetorical battle that the motive for the outbreak of war is important, namely the events of April 6 after several unsuccessful attempts in March of that year, and that the Russian success in capturing institutions and mass desertion is otherwise the beginning of war events, but it is not worth it. One member of Wikipedia got into an editorial war with me, and then a rhetorical war, breaking a rattle with sources. However, he has a higher position here and I couldn't do anything, so the other members found an intermediate solution neither there nor here, ie. "early April 2014" which is nonsense. I gave up on that topic because that is when the Syrian Civil War would be treated as having started on April 4 (after the first use of the military) or July 29, 2011 (the formation of the FSA) or April 21 (the collapse of the first ceasefire) or July 19, 2012 ( the bloody battle for Aleppo) instead of a general uprising on March 15, 2011, when a large part of the population took to the streets and clashed with the forces of order and security. If we form an article Zaporizhzhya campaign from the town of Vasilevka to the town of Velyka Novosilka, then we have to create another article Ukrainians are conducting major operations, and that is the city of Bakhmut. Then we have to do the Bahmut campaign, which started a month before the official counter-offensive, on May 10 to be exact. Then they would have to change the start date of the counter-offensive from June 4 to May 10, and look back on the Kherson campaign, which has been going on since June 26 and is part of the Dnieper campaign. And what will we do with the Russian summer campaign on the Svatov-Kreminna line that has been going on continuously since June 19, where the Ukrainian side is suffering defeat after defeat with terrible losses and is still planning a retreat similar to the Russian retreat from Kherson during last year's Ukrainian Kherson counter-offensive that forced General Surovikin to urgently withdraw forces from Kherson without any fighting? The matter is complex and then double standards immediately appear. That's why I think that we should keep the cities of Staromaiorske and Urozhaine out of the Zaporizhzhya campaign article and give them a special accent because enormous human casualties fell on both sides, as well as military equipment, just at those two places, perhaps the most in this war after the Battle of Bahmut, and it only lasted month. Maybe the Russians won't like it, but realistically, the Ukrainian side, with much greater casualties, won the battle that lasted from July 16 to August 16. Krasnohorivka in the Pokrovsk Region and Donetsk Oblast, 25 km west of the city of Donetsk, still has a special significance because it is a rather remote place, but a large enough fortification like Avdiivka and Marinka to be able to bombard the city of Donetsk every day without any problems, and it is a big dam for Russian troops to connect the corridor between Marinka and Avdiivka and to try any kind of quick penetration from Donetsk towards the city of Kurakhovo, which is a huge military force in that part of the battlefield. I'm not counting Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, which are the main military operational centers for the entire front. The Battle of Krasnohorivka has a draft and is waiting to heat up if there is one at all and that article can wait as well as the Battle of Dvorichna which is higher in the air and awaits the outcome of the Battle for Svatove-Kreminna line. Baba Mica (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is way, way too long to read. Please try to keep your talk comments concise and to the point. HappyWith (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

So how do I cooperate with lazy people who can't read or don't have the will to do detailed work? This is the end of my cooperation. Thank you for the discussion so far. You have said it all. I will reach out to other members and admins. Baba Mica (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't need more articles. All notable battles of the war have their own already. It's been 18 months. It's time to drop this recentist attitude. Not every skirmish in any random village can have its own article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. It is so much easier for me to devote myself to other things, and not to waste time here, from which I have no benefit, only damage and annoyance. I thank you. Baba Mica (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Economic impact

So I'm reading through the Soviet-Afghan War and I see a lot about the economic impact on the Soviet Union in that article, but nothing in this article under impact. Does it have it's own article? Or should it not be mentioned under the Impact heading? There are plenty of detailed economic reporting from varied trusted sources available. In particular how much the Russians are spending on the war could be relevant to mention directly in this article. 85.165.160.51 (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The article you're looking for is presumably Economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (it's broader than just Russia or Ukraine). For some reason it is not linked as a main article in any section and there isn't a summary of it in this article. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine war liberated Robotyne

Ukraine war liberated Robotyne 223.39.180.91 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. HappyWith (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Hostomel#Result in infobox 2

Input is requested at the subject discussion as to how or whether a result should be reported in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Please make change to ‘belligerents’ section.

I noticed in the ‘belligerents’ section that it shows that Belarus supports Russia (which is correct) but not NATO supporting Ukraine. Should NATO not be seen as a supporter of Ukraine as they have supplied almost all of Ukraine’s weaponry, tanks and now fighter jets as well? Could also be generalised as just ‘The West’ as non-NATO countries have also given support. 51.37.77.186 (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

See talk page archive, regularly discussed, you have added nothing new. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/FAQ, specifically Q2 and Q4. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I deleted Belarus. Parham wiki (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You should not have, not the same. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see them making any edit on the article history, but Belarus no longer appears in the infobox. It has been discussed plenty why Belarus belongs there, so yes that should not have been removed without consensus. Is my WP acting up or has this change been made in some strange way not showing up on the history? Either way, it should be restored. TylerBurden (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The infobox transcludes a unique template, a questionable practice that has been discussed extensively at TfD and elsewhere in the past. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Use of "Supported by" in the belligerent parameter is deprecated per Template:Infobox military conflict. Why shouldn't this procedure be implemented in Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox? Parham wiki (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

As I recall they were listed as a belligerent, it was removed without discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I’d prefer to wait and see if someone cares enough to revert as removing Belarus would likely limit the amount of back-and-forth about the issue, especially among EC editors. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Well I restored it, odd indeed that the infobox is handled on a seperate page. @Parham wiki since Belarus's inclusion is long standing and has been discussed extensively, you would need to gain consensus to remove it. TylerBurden (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: OK Parham wiki (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Deprecation of "supported by" is the result of a recent RfC. In light of the broader community consensus, this should be removed unless there is an equally strong consensus to retain. A goodly number of participants at the RfC edit here and supported deprecation. If the presence of Belarus is disputed, there is probably only one way to resolve this? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said I seem to recall them being listed as actual combats as attacks were in fact launched from their territory. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Belarus is not fighting therefore not a participant in hostilities, but it is guilty of the crime of aggression by enabling Russian aggression through Belarusian territory. It is also participating in kidnapping Ukrainian children which is possibly a war crime, crime against humanity, and genocide.

I would argue its role is more than just support, but integral to the aggression committed against Ukraine, and it should remain in the infobox. Unlike supply and training, the provision of territory for invasion and attacks is not something that goes on routinely during peacetime, but can only happen during war.

Perhaps the legend can be changed from “Supporters” to something more specific. “Co-aggressor”?  —Michael Z. 17:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This was always going to be a consequence of the RfC. I recall that it even rated a mention in the discussion. Changing the heading to get around the letter of the RfC does not change the spirit and intent of the RfC and would be considered pettifogging. If we are to retain this, then the consensus to ignore the RfC here needs to be as strong as the broader community consensus to remove it - ie an RfC to retain Belarus as "supported by" is probably the only way to resolve this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

A) Belarus is not supporting Russia’s war in the same way 70 other countries are supporting Ukraine’s defence, and labelling it with clear language is not “pettifogging.” B) Yes, it needs consensus.  —Michael Z. 01:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Many of us have heard this argument to retain Belarus multiple times. Yes, it needs consensus. The inclusion has been challenged in the light of the RfC on "supported by". Do you agree that we need to confirm there is a consensus to retain Belarus in light of the RfC on "supported by"? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 Can you link to previous discussions specifically on Belarus? Was there ever an RfC that demonstrated a positive consensus to include it?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No, there has not been an RfC on Belarus' inclusion as it has existed in the infobox since the earliest revision of the article.It was initially listed as a belligerent, not as a supporter. However, in every discussion opening with a comment along the lines of 'well Belarus is listed, so why isn't NATO?' Belarus has been re-affirmed because the invasion was launched in part from Belarusian soil.

Could you please reformat the comment below more compactly? Either use the <br> tags without listing them in separate lines or use the {{pb}} template. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I would only be repeating what Mr rnddude has said. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, please provide RS that Belarus has been involved in the involuntary relocation of Ukrainian children.

And please provide RS that Belarus's role has been integral to the aggression committed against Ukraine. Obviously it enabled the Kyiv offensive for geographic reasons, but it's difficult to fathom why Belarusian support would, and would continue to be, necessary for the campaigns in the south and east.

The distinction you drew is also less than solid given that 1) there is extensive RS analysis, and reporting of official statements, that the provision of arms and materiel are far from isolated acts, but part of a large-scale coordinated effort of support for the stated purpose of helping Ukraine achieve victory; and 2) the also extensively well-documented provision of large amounts of intelligence at all levels, including tactical targeting information (which, while it may well be legally justified, is inarguably "support" according to the same legal norms you appeal to).

Finally, this last suggestion to nakedly insert POV into the infobox, whether ironic or otherwise, is going much too far, and given your experience you must be aware of that. Given the context of previous discussions and your previous activity, I don't understand why you believe this is constructive behavior. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not about the latest phase, and yes Belarus was vital in the early stages. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"Vital" is a poor choice of word, since it implies "necessary for life", while a war is all about death, on both sides. Dhrm77 (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It also means "necessary or extremely important for the success or continued existence of something:". Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This article, as has been extensively discussed in the past, covers the entire period of high-intensity war. Putting a spotlight specifically on one campaign of one phase is problematic for multiple reasons. When people think of WW1's Western Front, most of them almost forget about the 1914 defense of Paris, but everyone thinks of Verdun, the Somme, etc.

And I'd like RS for that claim anyway. The Russians could easily have concentrated on fewer axes to invade and plenty of RS analyses suggest that that would have been the more strategically sound course of action. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Belarus is involved in the war on a different level than any other country supporting either side, it's wrongful to imply Belarus was only "enabling" in the first phase of the war, as it continues to allow itself to be used freely by Russia, including as a launching pad for Russian missiles striking Ukraine, which is covered on the article. No NATO member, nor Iran or other Russia supporters have gone to the lengths Belarus has when it comes to direct involvement, that's why it is included in the infobox and other countries are not. TylerBurden (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Belarus not only let Russian forces attack across its border, it also let them retreat and take refuge when they were defeated. And Belarus has let Russian Wagner PMC forces move onto its territory as an escalation of the threat against Ukraine, fixing Ukrainian forces that are then unable to,otherwise participate in the defence from invading Russians. And Lukashenka has explicitly threatened to go to war if Ukraine strikes in Belarus.

Not incidentally, Belarus says it has allowed the proliferation of nuclear weapons on its soil during the war, while Russian nuclear bombers continue to launch cruise missiles from its airspace across the Ukrainian border.  —Michael Z. 01:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: RS, for example:

• “Belarus Red Cross says it helped deport Ukrainian children to Belarus ,” CNN.
• “Ukraine: The Latest - Belarus implicated in kidnapping of Ukrainian children,” The Telegraph.
• “Belarus Is Abducting Ukrainian Children in Plain Sight,” Foreign Policy.
• “Belarusian leader approved forced transfers of Ukrainian children, says opposition figure,” ABC News.

Committing war crimes also implicates one in war.

“It enabled the Kyiv offensive for geographic reasons” is enough. Although it’s not necessary for inclusion, it is easy to fathom why it continues to be important, because Ukrainian forces continue to have to be prepared to defend the 1,100-km border of Belarus, where Russian forces and Wagner PMC are stationed, and they continue to have to position air defences to defend against Russian cruise and ballistic missiles crossing the 1,100-km Belarusian front. And they are politically unable to strike Russian forces in Belarus for fear of Russia and Belarus escalating in response.

You see, this is more than “support.” Belarus is legally a co-aggressor because it has violated international law against aggression (see the definition, art. 3f).[20] If you think this is POV, blame the UN.

Provision of arms is something that goes on in peacetime, it does not create a state of war, and it does not involve the providing state in a war. I don’t know about any “tactical targeting,” but giving Ukraine satellite photos of Ukraine isn’t waging war either.

That is exactly support, and nothing more. It’s support of Ukraine’s defence, which is the legal right of Ukraine and its allies according to the UN Charter ch. VII art. 51.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Trying to cast the illegal aggressors and a state conducting its own self-defence as two equivalent sides would also be pushing a POV. And cf. the irony in ignoring that Putin cynically cited article 51 in his declaration of war, three days before openly invading his neighbour.  —Michael Z. 02:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate your provision of RS about Belarus and the children.

About targeting information, there are many sources but just as an example: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna26015

Regarding participation, here's a West Point professor suggesting that Starlink is a legitimate military target, albeit one that can't really be hit kinetically without unlawfully disproportionate collateral damage: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/can-starlink-satellites-be-lawfully-targeted/

And to be clear:

1) Jus ad bellum is separate from jus in bello.

2) The fact that one side's supporters are presumably justified in giving aid and comfort, and the other one's presumably are not, is of legal/ethical significance only. There is plenty of room in the body to make cited characterizations, but using the infobox as a pulpit to proclaim Belarus' guilt is totally inappropriate. I'm sure you're familiar with the relevant guidelines and essays that outline the problems with that.

Trying to cast the illegal aggressors and a state conducting its own self-defence as two equivalent sides would also be pushing a POV.

This is the nub of the issue here. With respect, the argument you put forth is sophistry that runs roughshod over the relevant guidelines. These explanatory essays, among others, may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Let the facts speak for themselves and Wikipedia:Let the reader decide.

Also, for the record, RS (including but definitely not limited to repeated statements by ISW) say Wagner's move has little to anything to do with Ukraine (or Poland) and that Wagner is currently not a significant threat to any of Belarus's neighbors, except perhaps Russia. The narrative that it is a sock-puppet Sword of Damocles or whatever is more or less propaganda to encourage more support for Ukraine and motivate the Polish people in particular to be less complacent. It might be for a noble purpose, but that doesn't change its factual inaccuracy. That could be said of a lot of things, in fact. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Losses still not updated

RuAF: 120000KIA 180000 WIA

UAF: 70000 KIA 120000 WIA

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/18/ukraine-russia-war-battlefield-deaths-rise

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/troop-deaths-injures-ukraine-war-nearing-500000-nyt-citing-us-officials-2023-08-18/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html 02:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The Slow-Motion Counter-Offensive

With growing MSMedia and US Govt disappointment at the slowing, halting (failing?) Ukrainian offensive, could this article have a section highlighting the problems facing the Ukrainian army facing fixed Russian defences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.169 (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous posts don't get a lot of respect. Sign with four tildas (~ ~ ~ ~) -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This stuff is covered in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in better detail, but yes, we should probably add some of the challenges they face to this main article in a brief summary. HappyWith (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Putin gave up (?)

[21] [22] 79.185.130.94 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I woud rather have better sources for a claim he has given up. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, why not list other Russian invasions?

By listing other times Ukraine was invaded ignores the many other times Russia invaded other former Soviet states. The title is "Russian invasion of Ukraine", a list of other countries invaded by Russia should be offered.2603:8000:2942:4A00:29C1:C6A7:60C0:5856 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion

2603:8000:2942:4A00:29C1:C6A7:60C0:5856 (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wording of lead section, again

The lead section, the very start in particular, makes it sound like all this is primarily some sort of "refugee crisis". It is not. It is primarily a military conflict, a high-intensity military conflict at that. A conventional war with enormous amounts of artillery, minefields, machine gun nests, fortifications, trenches etc. as opposed to anything else. Stating however many civilians were "internally displaced", for example, is completely out of place being mentioned even in the first paragraph. Why and what exactly "has killed tens of thousands on both sides"? And what are the "sides"? Inside Russia's borders and inside Ukraine's?

The military casualties number in the several hundreds of thousands with hundreds daily as opposed to sporadic strikes on civilians that usually cause a dozen or so casualties. Are the lives of civilians more precious than those of soldiers who fight to defend their homeland, including defending the lives of those very civilians? (Or for that matter, of convicts who are forced to fight against their full free will, if you want to consider that). Due weight.

This is the "largest armed conflict in Europe since World War 2" ([23]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjInnRL-HUg (Fareed Zakaria, CNN)). It should be made very clear that this is not just some natural disaster or "humanitarian crisis" or any other seemingly vague or random occurrence. Rather it is very deliberate military action. That is what the lead should reflect. ShouldIHide (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

"larger than WWII" is such a loaded phrase, as if people somehow forgot the break-up of Yugoslavia. 184.189.163.229 (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of anyone having "forgotten" that at all. However, things like number and type of weapons, munitions and troops involved are not comparable I don't think. Ukraine operates over a 1000 tanks, for example. The scale of fighting is not nearly the same. The total deaths of the Yugoslav Wars are presented as "c. 130-140,000" over a period of over 10 years.

This "special military operation" phase of the Russia-Ukraine war has now gone on for one and a half years and a similar number, going by "US estimate" (before May 24 2023)... 112,000 people are already estimated dead. Between 5-10 times the death rate. Without getting into too much specifics. The Yugoslav wars were deadly and horrible? Yes. The situation in Ukraine looks to be potentially even worse. That's exactly why it should be described on here as correctly as possible, so that people would understand.

Also, not "larger than WWII", obviously. The direct quote is "the largest armed conflict since World War 2." Coincidentally, it is also larger than the Yugoslav wars combined if you would prefer to put it that way instead? ShouldIHide (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II. It has passed Greece, but I'm not sure it has passed Yugoslavia yet. Has a long way to go before it ranks with Korea, Vietnam I and II, Iran-Iraq, or the civil wars in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Columbia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Yemen or Zaire. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in Europe. The correct direct quote from the mentioned CNN piece is "the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War 2." ShouldIHide (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and I was actually going to mention Iran-Iraq as another example of maybe something similar in recent history (last 50 years). That can quite well be considered as a peer and high-intensity conventional conflict, both sides flying at the time modern fighter aircraft and so on.

And the point I would have made was that that conflict also went on for almost 8 years and in the end total deaths are estimated at 300,000-1,200,000. Again pointing out that the estimated 112,000 deaths in Ukraine occurred in just a little over one year.

So even considering everything outside Europe, you're not going to find that many post-WW2 conflicts with the same magnitude of death and destruction than in Ukraine right now.

This is not even considering things such as, unlike in practically any of those other mentioned conflicts, soldiers in Ukraine have modern "luxuries" like personal bulletproof vests that have saved many, many lives that would otherwise have been lost. ShouldIHide (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added this fact to the lead and main body of the article, with references. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing support for this, particularly as written. WP:ONUS applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I added four references to support the claim, and many more could be found. I don't see the issue? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS. The wording does not appear to have support here. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Biggest war in Europe since WW2

Following on from the discussion above, should the article note that this is the biggest military conflict in Europe since the Second World War? Or if not, why?

There are many reliable sources for the statement, but here are a few:

• "Not Since World War II: The Worrying Precedent Many Are Evoking For The Ukraine War". Forbes. 29 November 2022. - which quotes various organizations
• "Missiles rain down around Ukraine". Reuters. 25 February 2022.
• "Ukraine war: major developments since Russia's invasion". Reuters. 24 February 2023.
• "The ripple effects of Russia's war in Ukraine continue to change the world". NPR. 22 February 2023.
• "A Year of War in Ukraine: The Roots of the Crisis". The New York Times. 27 February 2023.
• "The Invasion That Shook the World". Council on Foreign Relations. 22 February 2023.
• "Biden: 'Ukraine Will Never Be a Victory for Russia'". US Department of Defense. 21 February 2023.
• "Russia's invasion of Ukraine plunged Europe into 'biggest land war' since WWII, says report". ThePrint (India).

– Asarlaí ^(talk) 14:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

How it compares to Greek Civil War; it seems that the number of troops involved is similar, while the deathtol is still lower in Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

According to the numbers on their articles, this war has far more troops involved and a higher death toll (Greek Civil War saw 158,000 killed over 3½ years, Ukraine has at least 200,000 killed already). There's also the many sources saying it's Europe's biggest conflict since WW2. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 14:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know any sources that give 200k+ casualties in Ukraine Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's one. Even if the death toll is half that, it would still be a higher death rate (the amount per month) than the Greek Civil War. Nevertheless, death toll isn't the only way to measure the scale of a war. Also, you're still overlooking the fact that sources say it's the biggest in Europe since WW2. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 19:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Casualties =/= death toll. As stated correctly in the BBC article: The most senior US general estimates that around 100,000 Russian and 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or injured in the war in Ukraine. The actual death toll estimates are close to half of that. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"Even if the death toll is half that, it would still be a higher death rate (the amount per month) than the Greek Civil War. Nevertheless, death toll isn't the only way to measure the scale of a war. Also, you're still overlooking the fact that sources say it's the biggest in Europe since WW2". – Asarlaí ^(talk) 22:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If it’s helpful, here’s a more recent article that puts the number of dead on both sides combined as 190K: Battlefield casualties in the Ukraine war have surged to almost 500,000 killed and wounded, US officials say HappyWith (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems useful to update the estimates table. I'd prefer to use the originating source by the NYT that's linked in the Business Insider article. It affirms the same numbers, though cautions that estimates vary widely and gives an example from leaked Pentagon documents a few months ago that have the estimate at around 60,000 troops killed (which is exceptionally low among available sources). Mr rnddude (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Crimean raid

Reports say Special forces landed on the western shore of Crimea, near the settlements of Olenivka and Mayak, Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance group landed in the area of Cape Tarkhankut, shelled the camping on the seashore and fled in the direction of Odesa, Special units on watercraft landed on the shore in the area of the Olenivka and Mayak settlements,” HUR said, it is unknown what Ukraine goals was but it is said to be achieved,Unofficial Russian social media accounts have spoken of firing near a campsite at Cape Tarkhankut – the westernmost point in Crimea – before dawn on Thursday, also Ukraine has flew it flag over Crimea once again. HuntersHistory (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You should maybe change the map to include this becuase it is unknown if they are still there. HuntersHistory (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It been stated by representative of the Defence Intelligence, the special operation is still ongoing, therefore, the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine does not disclose all the details.[24]https://mil.in.ua/en/news/yusov-soldiers-of-the-defence-intelligence-landed-in-crimea/ HuntersHistory (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The map used here is updated by @war_mapper on Twitter. They are gone on break until September 2. Jebiguess (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Has there been any updates regarding the raid by the Defence Intelligence? I haven't found anything online so far. - MateoFrayo (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

International aspects

The sentence The European Union and other Western governments financed and delivered humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. is inaccurate, because there are many non-western countries who also support Ukraine with aid. Marko8726 (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

49 states and the EU listed with references in List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War.  —Michael Z. 18:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes Western means democracies like Australia and South Korea, but often not. Should be clearer.  —Michael Z. 18:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to: “Over seventy sovereign states and the European Union delivered humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and nearly fifty and the EU provided military aid.”  —Michael Z. 16:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2023

This sentence in the existing article is a false statement : "...and falsely claimed that Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis persecuting the Russian minority..."

Change to be made : Remove the statement. This was not a "false claim".

Source to justify : https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/2/540581.pdf The OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) is a valid source and has made shown several relevant accounts and claimed Ukraine committed war crimes against Russians in Donbass.

I request Wikipedia to correct this error. Thank you. TLS Rocketry (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. I'm not sure if you couldn't be bothered to read your own source or if you were hoping that nobody would check, but that document states on its very first line that "The OSCE Secretariat bears no responsibility for the content of this document and circulates it without altering its content" and that it is "Distributed at the request of the Russian Federation". So obviously not valid to support the change you are requesting. --McSly (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Rediscussing the Arms Suppliers Infobox proposal

PROPOSED INFOBOX
Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War
Date 24 February 2022 (2022-02-24) – present (2 years, 10 months, 1 week and 6 days) Location {{{place}}} Status Ongoing (list of engagements · control of cities · timeline of events)
Belligerents
Russia  Donetsk Republic  Luhansk Republic Supported by (pending above Belarusian involvement RFC)  Belarus	Ukraine Arms Suppliers: Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Spain Sweden United States United Kingdom

(Infobox references)

• References

So I did some research into the Q4 discussion, and found a proposal which placed the arms suppliers in a collapsible infobox list. Proposed by @Viewsridge, this gained a little bit of traction in the discussion which otherwise placed no consensus on listing the Ukrainian arms suppliers in a collapsible list, titled Arms Suppliers. I think we should have a separate discussion for this proposal since this gained a bit of traction but never quite a concrete proposal in the FAQ4 cited discussion. I personally support this as it's a more precise title than "supported by" (the US hasn't supported Ukraine in the same way as Belarus), and we are able to give proper credit to all nations which do more than pass joint resolutions or issue support statements. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: The proposed infobox seeks only to demonstrate the Arms suppliers section. It should not be used as a model for the unrelated parts of the infobox. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I take it that Australia has been omitted from the list because it is not a NATO country. [25] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, (yet again) what about Iran or China? Why is it only we see NATO, and USA in these suggestions? SOrry, but lets not clutter up the info box.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

“Arms suppliers” is selective.

Is it intended to include military financial aid (which often but not always buys arms). Is it intended to not include suppliers of dual-purpose and non-lethal aid, like training, medical treatment for soldiers, first aid kits, helmets, uniforms, rations, body armour, drones, radios, trucks, some types of armoured vehicles, combat engineering and mine-clearing equipment, etcetera? Of ammunition?

”Non-lethal” military aid, and “defensive weapons” were major issues of debate, especially early on. A lot of arms supplies are restricted in their employment, typically to “not in Russia.”  —Michael Z. 18:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War includes 49 states and the EU.

Obviously, Iran and North Korea would be included on the left, and possibly Armenia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan if the inclusion criteria includes dual-use or sanctions-busting items.  —Michael Z. 18:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. This is an end run around the consensus not to include a write-in “Supporters” heading in infoboxes, and is contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Whether intended or not, the result supports those who want to portray this war involving soldiers of two states in the territory of three as Putin’s “civilizational struggle” of “USA-controlled NATO vs. poor innocent Russia” that’s only defending itself. Making this exception is not NPOV.

If “arms suppliers,” “Military aid suppliers,” “Humanitarian aid suppliers,” “Financial supporters,” or any other broadly inclusive heading is to be added to change the contents of conflict infoboxes, then please get consensus to add a new row or rows to {{infobox military conflict}}.  —Michael Z. 19:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I should add, just like “Supporters,” suppliers are not belligerents as defined in international law and in the subject field of international relations, and should not be added as a subcategory of belligerents, as this is misleading and supports a non-neutral POV.  —Michael Z. 20:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Because (1) Mzajac's argument any such discussion should be at the template military conflict and not here (2) Given that truth is always the first victim of any war, the list will miss out on potentially many parties that provided weapons in secret creating a very biased (and therefore useless) listing (3) As mentioned above, what constitutes weapons? Would we include personal protection (helmets) and how about fridges that can be dismantled to harvest computer chips that be used in weapon systems? The list would be either biased or a hopeless original research nightmare (4) practically such listings may be unreadably long when, as the war grinds on, dozens (if not more) different countries supply weapons. Indiscriminate listing of facts (especillay long lists) is not providing information to the reader. Arnoutf (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments by Slatersteven, Arnoutf and Mzajac. And it would be a much longer and a disputable list. How about Turkey and China? Moreover, should not USA be included as a supplier for Russia? A lot of electronics in Russian drones were made in the USA. My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  That is ridiculous. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  The electronics were not just made in the US: US companies continue to deliver them. That US companies help Russia evade sanctions, often by shipment through Turkey and China, is well established. [26] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I am aware. It's still a twisted and stretched analogy that is always brought up whenever this is discussed in this talk page. No, we cannot say that the US is supplying military aid to Russia, we cannot compare it to weapon deliveries to Ukraine. Enough with the technially. I also remember someone saying that if we included suppliers of weapons to Ukraine in the infobox, why didn't we also include Russia because Ukraine captured so many Russian tanks after the counteroffensives last year. Really? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. That was just an argument to show that providing weapons is not such a clear-cut criterion. I do not think this is outright ridiculous. For example, a private company in country X (let's say Turkey or China) provides components of weapons to Russia - despite to the officially declared policy by the state. This is a de facto delivery. It also well could be because some people in the country X government deliberately do nothing about it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Looks to me too much like and end-around the spirit and intent of the RfC. There are still issues with inclusion criteria, infobox bloat not remedied by drop-downs for mobile users etc. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mzajac's and Cinderella's arguments. Same inherent problems as "supporters", and dropdowns don't format properly on mobile, etc. If it's necessary for this information to be presented prominently, it can be put in the lead, not the infobox. HappyWith (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all the comments above Volunteer Marek 22:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Russian attacks against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure

there have of course been many strikes against civilian infrastructure, but this section is almost entirely about whether Iran is or is not supplying drones to Russia. While this is a worthy topic -- that deserves its own section or even article -- and the drones are no doubt used to attack civilian infrastructure, there is a mismatch between the header and the content, and apparently content is needed here on what the header says the topic is. Also the section relies heavily on what looks like a blog, called Militarnyi. Do we know that this is a reliable source? Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This should be a brief summary of main page on the subject, Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present). My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have a lot going on RL but to follow up, consensus at RSN so far is that Militarnyi is not RS and in particular one editor said they misrepresent a video on the specific point in question, so I will remove those references when I come across them again, unless someone else does this first Elinruby (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine war liberated klishchiivka

Ukraine war liberated klishchiivka 182.224.89.144 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

As above, there are sources for this and detail already written at the article on the village or town or whatecer. Elinruby (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Casualties section

In the table captioned "Estimated and claimed casualties", under "Russian forces (VSRF, Rosgvardiya, FSB, FSO, PMCs Wagner, Redut & others, DPR & LPR)" is an estimate of 69,600+ killed, 243,400+ wounded for 24 Feb 2022 – 23 June 2023 attributed to BBC News Russian & Mediazona.

In a separate row, under "Russian forces (VSRF, Rosgvardiya, FSB, FSO, PMCs Wagner, Redut & others)" the number given is 52,000+ killed, 183,300+ wounded for 24 Feb 2022 – 18 August 2023, also attributed to BBC News Russian & Mediazona and cited to the very same source.

I assume that the reason for the discrepancy is that the earlier set of figures includes the DPR and LPR but we should use one or the other it seems to me, for the figures to have any kind of validity. Perhaps My very best wishes or any other Russian speaker who happens to be around would be good enough to verify the numbers against the source. Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. Both lines refer to the same source (currently [496]) and provide different numbers! Focusing on the BBC source [27] and quickly looking, I do not see such numbers of wounded (183 or 243 thousand) at all. It does say 69,600 killed. It does not really explain where this number came from, but based on context, this appears to be a combined number of confirmed killed in action (i.e. something for the previous table) and expected to be much lower than any actual number. It also says: "С учетом раненых общие безвозвратные потери пророссийских сил за 16 месяцев войны могут превышать 313 тыс. человек.", i.e. "total number of irreversible losses" (including wounded) of more than 313,000. As about DLR and LNR "militias", I am not sure. All people mobilized on LNR and DNR territories and the former detachments of their "militias" are included to regular Russian army and counted as such for a long time, to my knowledge. I also doubt in numbers by ref [498]. This is Fox News, and they do not link to any source where such numbers could come from. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

aha, I hadn't noticed the Fox news yet. I will tag it RS. I got the impression from Mediazona also that these were confirmed numbers. So I guess I should move this row to the table above? Unless there are better numbers out there, of course. but these are good sources even though poorly presented. And probably also delete the confusing mention of LNR and DNR in the caption? Finally, are these number through August or June, can you tell? Thanks for the Russian reading. Elinruby (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I see you took care of it, thanks

Elinruby (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have a lot of time to check this. There are wild discrepancies in these numbers. One way to check them is to look at the wounded to killed ratios (as appears in Table 1 here). But again, such estimates, i.e. 3:1 and 5:1 for Russian and Ukraine forces, respectively [28] are questionable. Some say that it is actually closer to 1:1 for Russian forces, due poor or delayed evacuation of wounded. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't giving you homework ;) just expressing a willingness to look at other sources. I am as always just grateful for the language help. Your NIH source looks pertinent. Reading it now. Elinruby (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is the problem with data on Russian soldiers. The data in a typical source (e.g. [29]) are based on official Russian mortality data/statistics. However, in most cases, the bodies are left to rot, burned or placed to mass graves [30] and the soldiers are not registered as dead anywhere (they will probably became missing in action). This is done to avoid payment of money to relatives of killed soldiers. Therefore, the actual number of killed maybe several fold greater than in sources like above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have read that. I haven't gotten down to the nitty-gritty of the casualty section, but there is some discussion that follows the tables. Maybe I can find a source for why the numbers would be low. I think that to a lesser extent the numbers on Ukrainian civilians may also be low for systemic reasons. I seem to remember reading that in some cases there are still bodies in the rubble. The art school in Mariupol comes to mind. I don't think we can get the numbers to be truly truly accurate, but I do think they clearly total more than 100,000. But since I am verifying I may as well wait until I have had a better look to say that for sure.

Do you know why we are keeping the historical estimates in the table? Elinruby (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Along the lines of what you said last night: [31] Elinruby (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear on this... Everyone familiar with this subject knows that a lot (probably a majority) of Russian KIA are not registered as dead anywhere. However, many sources (like Mediazona linked above) ignore this and present the derived data as true numbers: "To be absolutely precise, we can assert with a 95% probability that the true number of casualties falls between 40,000 and 55,000". I think this is an obvious misrepresentation, one that we unfortunately multiply here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

to whom it may concern: the table for *confirmed* deaths has been verified against its sources. I commented out the Mediazona source because come on, that's an estimate. If it isn't already in the estimates table I will put it there. Whether there are better or more updated sources is now the question, and in the next table, which I have not finished yet, under "estimates", as far as I can tell the most recent authoritative-sounding numbers are from the NYT on August 18 2023. But I guess somebody is going to oppose using one American source for everything, so do we have recent casualty figures from a source other than the military of a combattant country? British generals or German cabinet ministers? I have the Mediazona article as a source, for one, if it isn't already there.

TL:DR A suffusion of carnage. That NYT article says that Russian wounded often have to evacuate themselves on foot and are left behind if they cannot, so I would call that validation for your 1:1 ratio. I think they just took the paywall down for that article. In any event I just read it all the way through and it is worth the read Elinruby (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The US estimates have also at times even lagged behind other ones. I remember quite a while ago, might've even been last year, Russian casualties were already estimated at 180,000 according to I believe the Norwegian chief of defence. This was months before the US (Pentagon, I think) announced figures in that general range.

Cross-checking this stuff might require some digging but probably not impossible at all. Unless there are people who will oppose French, Swedish, Australian intel or really whatever else as "just NATO propaganda", which unfortunately also is not impossible at all.

What's good about the current US estimates is that, at least for the military side, they cover both Russian and Ukrainian forces and they're for the same time period. So it's coherent.

As discussed previously, civilian casualty numbers are probably imprecise and outdated. I can't imagine there would only be X number killed, surely there are wounded on the civilian side as well. Bombs and flying shrapnel don't check whether anyones wearing a uniform.

ShouldIHide (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

feel free to post some sources here. Out of morbid curiosity I looked at the sourcing for what was there in the confirmed casualty table, and there were a lot of problems with incoherent numbers and I am pretty sure there is another big one in the table for estimates, which is why I am currently on some other sourcing. It looks like 8 million internally displaced Ukrainians was a total for 2022 and 5.1 is the number of currently displaced as of a couple of weeks ago but I am still not completely certain of that. I threw out the Euromaidan Press number because it was so much higher that everyone else's, but realistically they probably have better contacts in the local morgues. You are right to note that the NYT's 500,000 number is total military deaths and does not include civilians; I meant to come back and correct that comment. Meanwhile, don't mind me, I am just out in the weeds here trying to figure this out. We may wind up with a little more material than due in the casualties section while I work on this. Once we come up with good summaries we can always spin off some historical detail, but my plan is to finish checking what is in the casualties section, then update it as best I can -- which I am starting -- then propose something with the lede. It's actually an interesting case study in what's probably true and what can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of wikipedia. I added a number to the table from the OHCHR for Ukrainian civilians btw. It's the best updated number I have found so far. Elinruby (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine war liberated village of Andriivka

Ukraine war liberated village of Andriivka 182.224.89.144 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

is this an edit request? Elinruby (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Followup: I see. Ukraine claims it re-took Andriivka and Russia denies this. The strategic importance of the village is unclear to me, but the article on the village does mention this already, so calling this something for the purposes of this article should possibly be revisited in a week or so... Elinruby (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Touching on this, as these sorts of announcements come up on here relatively often, I think it's worth mentioning (to everyone) that Ukraine is very big. It is considerably larger than any single EU member state (and many US states), Ukraine being for example about twice the size of Poland.

This of course has several important consequences... but one of them happens to be that liberating one "village" is not noteworthy unless indeed it is of some exceptional strategic (or other) importance. Off the top of my head there is something like 20 cities in Ukraine with population in the 100's of thousands. Now if one of those was liberated, that would be big news.

Also there are 17 (!) different places called Andriivka in Ukraine. Based on where the biggest fighting is now, I'm assuming whatever might've been liberated would be in Donetsk oblast. There, there are six different settlements with that name, the largest of them seems to have had a pre-war population of roughly 2500. Notable? I don't know. ShouldIHide (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes but I like to tell the people why. And I guess it's the one where they just had some fighting, and Ukraine said it won, and Russia denied it. It is documented in some detail on the page for a village that is smaller than you imagined. If the village (decribed in source as "destroyed village") turns out to be significant because of railway capacity or something we will expand on it if that turns into something, no? But it seems to be mostly taken care of at the moment, was my point. And yes, I realize that there are a lot of child articles of this article and this would probably be for the one on the Ukrainian counteroffensive, maybe.

It is mentioned in the counteroffensive article, yeah. HappyWith (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Nitric acid

In the environmental impact section, a photo caption says that an explosion is due to the shelling of a tank filled with nitric acid. I have questions about this.

1. How do we know this? (I am on a mobile where it is hard to switch screens without losing place. If there's a reference there, my bad and this question can probably be deemed answered)
2. Why would a tank be filled with nitric acid? Does this happen a lot?
3. If this is a deliberate booby trap, can we infer that soldiers are transporting this stuff with into battle with them?

It's a small point in the greater scheme of things, but if I am wondering this so are other readers probably Elinruby (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Aha, never mind. I just realized that these are industrial holding tanks we are talking about here, not armored vehicles. May reword that a bit. I'll go re-read it and see Elinruby (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I was the one who inserted that image - could have worded it better. Honestly, we should probably replace it anyway - plenty more iconic and relevant images to choose from, like the destroyed Kakhovka Dam. I think I just chose that one because it was the first one I could find that was somewhat relevant to the section. HappyWith (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I remember the first says of the invasion as somewhat rushed also; that is sort of what I was trying to convey about the background section in the discussion about that. For whatever reason I read "tanks" as the armored vehicle, though; thank you for the confirmation about the counteroffensive article and I wonder if you can confirm that these were storage tanks for chemicals at industrial sites? I appreciate the comment about the image; I feel pretty much the same except about the Bucha massacre, which I would like to discuss if someone wants to remove it, since I've encountered denial of that event. Elinruby (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The source for the image is this facebook post by the Ukrainian military. Plugged into google translate, they’re saying something like:

"WARNING! In the Luhansk region, the occupation forces carried out an airstrike on a chemical plant. As a result, hazardous substances were released in the city of Severodonetsk due to hitting a tank with nitric acid."

I don’t know if there's any independent confirmation - I just took the original caption from whatever source wiki article I found the image in, if I remember correctly. HappyWith (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Again with the tone, POV, especially in lead

This has been discussed at least twice before and an edit was even reverted for whatever reason.

The lead has for a long time said "The invasion has killed tens of thousands on both sides." This is completely vague statement, without a citation for any source. And just remove the "both sides", it's completely unnecessary and potentially misleading.

First of all, the estimated death toll from Feb 2022 to May 2023 is already 112,000. So forget "tens of thousands" and say it like it is. Well over a hundred thousand.

Total casualties, military only, during that same time: 380,000. Almost certainly over 400,000 now, three months later. Huge numbers.

Humanitarian concerns such as how many civilians were "internally displaced" or what kind of "refugee crisis" the invasion caused should be slightly further down. It should not read like "well, something happened and now there's a refugee crisis". People being "displaced" is quite a different type of crisis compared to people being killed.

In contrast to the above, there are several sources provided indicating this is "the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War 2." Please do change the lead to reflect that. If you have something against this wording, then please do tell what do you suggest instead. In any case, underplaying this conflict is not acceptable. Forget what-aboutism and other deflection tactics, it makes no difference if some other conflict also had possibly roughly similar numbers of casualties. That doesn't make this conflict any smaller than it is. ShouldIHide (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the Casualties section of the article, the US estimates of civilian and military deaths alone add up to 112,000, for example. The confirmed deaths add up to over 63,000, and all of those sources say there are certainly more. All analyses of war casualties say that the number of wounded is larger than dead, by anywhere from 1.5 to 10 times.

I think any reasonable reading of estimates must tell us that there are likely well over 100k deaths and hundreds of thousands of casualties. The article should say what the sources say is likely: that the number of casualties is not known with certainty but is likely in the hundreds of thousands.  —Michael Z. 19:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

When broadly describing numbers, we should use the appropriate order of magnitude. Accordingly, just because a number is (slightly) over 200,000 we should not describe it as hundreds of thousands. Its order of magnitude is still 10⁴ and it is appropriately described as tens of thousands. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Says who?  —Michael Z. 02:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it wrong to describe a number over 200,000 as “over 200,000”?  —Michael Z. 02:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read the linked article - order of magnitude. To say, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands is describing an order of magnitude. There is a clearly defined and widely accepted basis for ascribing an order of magnitude to numbers. I did not say anything like [it is] wrong to describe a number over 200,000 as “over 200,000”. Please do not insinuate that I did, since it is a misrepresentation. Also, we have had this discussion before (changing to hundreds of thousands). What of substance has changed that we should revisit it again. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t say you did. Your constantly being touchy and wilfully misrepresenting everything as an attack is disruptive.

Try to notice what I am contributing: I don’t know if your example is real or not, but there’s a clearly more precise way to rephrase it that completely sidesteps the argument and judgment call about orders of magnitude.  —Michael Z. 13:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What was said, where it was said and when it was said is a matter of record. I would see your response here as gaslighting. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I see other editors below are alluding to the exact same point.  —Michael Z. 13:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Arguing about the mathematical concept of order of magnitude, here is pointless. It is irrelevant, as you point out.

Saying "more than 100,000" instead would be very clear, it's more precise than the current phrasing and I see no reason why this change is not made.

Also this is not new information. The source for 112,000 deaths (between Feb 2022 and May 2023) is in the article already. The change I'm suggesting is for this information to be in the lead.

There have been 112,000 deaths in Ukraine, not tens of thousands on "both sides".

Do we need to have "consensus", and from "both sides", to state in the article a simple matter of fact? In a world where there are people whose day job is to oppose things (or deflect, or engage in what-aboutism etc.) online? ShouldIHide (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen any discussion about changing anything specifically to "hundreds of thousands" which would imply many hundreds of thousands.

By the way, the mathematical concept of order of magnitude is not a matter of opinion. Things in mathematics are not "widely accepted", they are proven, they are fact.

The suggestion is to change "tens of thousands" to "more than 100,000". ShouldIHide (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If you are asking, where has there been another discussion relating to "tens of thousans" please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_13#Hundreds_of_thousands here. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asking that. This is not about (however many) "hundreds" of anything.

The suggestion is to change the wording "tens of thousands" to "more than 100,000".

More than one hundred thousand. Is the suggestion clear now? ShouldIHide (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The order of magnitude of any number 100,000 or larger is 10⁵. This very simply is larger than "tens of thousands" (10⁴), speaking either broadly or more specifically. ShouldIHide (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Which is exactly what the problem was last time, sources do not support 100,000's of dead, they still only support 10,000's of dead. Casaulties and dead are not synonymous (as 63,000 is not even 100,000). Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Like said, the estimated ("US Estimate" in article) deaths add up to 112,000.

The moment a number exceeds 100,000 indeed the magnitude exceeds "tens of thousands". For numbers over 100,000 the order of magnitude is 10^5, not 10^4. It's not that wrong to describe it as "dozens" (or whatever, really) either but that certainly wouldn't be the most "appropriate" like discussed above.

So the term "tens of thousands" could simply be replaced with "over 100,000". The reference, in that sentence, to "both sides" should just be removed because as it stands you could get the impression there were significant deaths or casualties in Russia which is not the case. Thus the "both sides" is potentially very misleading. The deaths and casualties have occurred practically exclusively in Ukraine.

I suggest to simply change that sentence to "The invasion has caused more than 100,000 deaths." even if you won't agree on anything else.

Source for "largest armed conflict in Europe since World War 2" has been provided twice within the last month, along with many other sources by other commenters. This is certainly a very notable piece of information and worthy of mention. Not only because of number of casualties but other reasons as well. For example this is not a civil war, insurgency or just a local conflict. The UN cannot intervene because Russia has veto power etc. The stakes are a lot higher than most of us would like.

So in addition, I would change that sentence actually to "The invasion is the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War 2 and has caused more than 100,000 deaths." (a much higher number of total casualties could be mentioned if you like.)

I looked briefly at how to make an actual edit request but the syntax on how to do that was confusing and the help pages I could find did not explain how exactly to do any of that properly... so for now I'm asking more knowledgeable users to make changes.

ShouldIHide (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request (which will not be done without first getting wp:consensus) or RFC? Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not an RfC question. RfCs are not appropriate for questions of fact since facts are facts regardless of the opinions of RfC respondants who may be trying to help but will almost never do any reading before opining. I agree that "tens of thousands" could be 30,000 and should probably change. On the other hand "hundreds of thousands" could be 900,000. So if the current number is 200,00, which I am taking on faith from the above discussion since it's been a while since I edited this article, probably the most neutral representation would be "more than (number) as of (date)". And +1 on minimizing the conflict. Elinruby (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm quoting from the top of this page "...editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests..." (my emphasis).

I'm not requesting anyone's "comments" on whether or not 112,000 is a larger number than 100,000. I'm requesting someone to actually make this edit because I can not do it myself.

So if you don't mind me asking, who are you to say what "will not be done"? Best regards. ShouldIHide (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion: note that the war has lead to more than a hundred thousand casualties (back up by the main body). Note high Ukrainian civilian casualties separately, as Russian civilian casualties are low. Cortador (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think indicating the corresponding ranges of numbers ("estimated", rather than "confirmed") in the infobox would be good. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no simple "range of numbers" that can be reported or would be appropriate to report in an infobox. There is no consensus in sources we can rely upon. That is why a consensus was reached not to report casualties in the infobox while the conflict is ongoing. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

oh this is an infobox question. In that case I agree that this is too complicated for that format and we should send readers to an appropriate section where sufficient context is given. Elinruby (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No, this is not an infobox question. I started this topic and I suggested making a change in the lead. I have suggested this twice before as well.

At least change the sentence "The invasion has killed tens of thousands on both sides." to "The invasion has caused more than 100,000 deaths."

There are further changes that should be made but seeing as this really simple matter of fact kind of change seems to be somehow controversial for some reason, I don't want to discuss anything else right now. ShouldIHide (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby, the thread is about the lead. I was responding to My very best wishes, who would also add information into the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

OK? Then leaving aside the infobox question for the moment, what is the issue with updating the number? Apparently there is a source that says it is more than 100,000? If that's an estimate, then we say so, no? If it's no doubt higher, it sounds like this can be sourced as well. Even though this is the lede we are talking about and we don't source statements in the lede, I am spelling out that according to the above discussion, there seem to be sources for this. I am not seeing the problem. Elinruby (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not (however) the only estimate, and we can't imply it is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

/me stares: feel free to explain what you are talking about. Other estimates? Which, where, source? Elinruby (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Have you looked at the table "Estimated and claimed casualties"? Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

have you looked at the source you asked for? If you think it somehow isn't RS, there's a little thing we like to caLL attribution that should address your concern, ie "According to the New York Times, US estimates put Russian dead at x". I have closed the window now but I believe the number was 112,000. But as you should very well know. NYT *is* RS and we would be updating this in the body. But you asked for a source even though one is already there: here is another. You are welcome. Elinruby (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I've been trying to emphasize in many of my posts here. The source for "more than 100,000 deaths" has been there for months now. In the previous discussions there were about ten additional sources supporting this claim.

There is nothing that I can see that would prevent this change from being made. I don't even honestly see that many counter-arguments here but still for some reason the change has not been made.

I urge anyone who can, to make this change. Still claiming "tens of thousands" is incredibly misleading when the real number of deaths according to RS is over 200,000 now. The scale of this conflict can not be allowed to be underplayed in what is it, the second sentence of the lead?

Please, make the change.

ShouldIHide (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

[32] seems to confirm over 100,000 dead Elinruby (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

These RS all believe the NYT report. But if there is another estimate, fine, we report that also.

• "Russia’s military casualties are approaching 300,000, the officials claimed, with as many as 120,000 killed in action." [33]
• "Russia is said to have 120,000 dead (out of 300,000 total casualties) and Ukraine 70,000 dead (out of 200,000)." [34]
• "Russia's military casualties are approaching 300,000, including as many as 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injuries, the newspaper reported. Ukrainian deaths were close to 70,000, with 100,000 to 120,000 wounded, it added"[35] Elinruby (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

In the lede? Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Scroll up Elinruby (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

We give a reage in the body, but "The invasion has killed more than one hundred thousand" is referring directly to the text in the lede, so what are we talking about? Discusions need to be focused, not discussing separate issues. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

well yeah, which is why I don't know why you are second-guessing the sources. You have another estimate, produce it and update that too. But the RS are quite clear that its over 100,000, so why would we not say so? Specifics in body, summary in lede. That's how these things are done. Elinruby (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem in adding an "estimated" qualifier somewhere in there, if you prefer.

The main problem is that "tens of thousands" is severely underplaying the real number of deaths that are now (according to the newer estimates) not just well over 100,000 but well over 200,000. (old to new estimates: 112,000 -> 232,000)

These 120,000 additional deaths in only about 2 months should also be a pretty clear sign to everyone about the magnitude of this war, and further supporting the (already reliably sourced) statement that this is indeed legitimately "the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War 2." which I also suggested to be added as a very notable piece of information.

ShouldIHide (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I am saying it is not the only source, so we can't use it alone. This is about saying something in the lede as fact, its not its an estimate. Nor is 112,000 "100,000's" its is 10,000'S". So not I do not think it can be used to say anything more than "and higher estimate put the casualties at over 100,000". 10:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

ShouldIHide, you would clarify and narrow your OP. My understanding is that the sentence in the lead that presently reads, The invasion has killed tens of thousands on both sides would be amended to read, The invasion has killed more than one hundred thousand. Please confirm. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggested changing "The invasion has killed tens of thousands on both sides." to "The invasion has caused more than 100,000 deaths."

ShouldIHide (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Given the war is not over, and we do not really know how many have been killed maybe just remove the line from the lede? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

why would we do that? Elinruby (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopedia, and this is not even vaguely encyclopedic, as it will (by wars end) be way off. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Your argument would have us strip information from hundreds if not thousands of articles, starting with census and economic data. It is usual to add a date. We go by sources. Sources say over 100,000 and and probably higher. We update articles sometimes. It happens. Elinruby (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

And some say lower, we do not know, so either we remove it or we say "between x and Y", or we leave it unchanged as 100,000 must be 10,000's. I have no more to add, and so I oppose any chan get expect removal. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, source? Elinruby (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

100,000 is indeed in the "hundreds of thousands" range by definition. Yes, it is "only" one hundred thousand but the range or order of magnitude is "hundreds of thousands". This is a simple fact.

There is however nothing preventing changing the "tens of thousands on both sides" to "more than 100,000".

We do know because casualties well exceeding 100,000 have been listed in the "casualties" section in the same article for a long time now, with accepted aka reliable sources. The estimates have very recently even been updated and they now add up to a total 232,000. What the sources imply is likely, is definitely "more than 100,000" because in fact it is now "more than 200,000".

More than 200,000 deaths. ShouldIHide (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument to remove something. Everything is always off. Every single casualty figure in Wikipedia is an estimate at a certain time with a certain precision. Including the best, latest figures according to reliable sources is encyclopedic.  —Michael Z. 20:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that. Like I said above, there is nothing wrong with providing ranges of numbers per multiple RS in the lead and infobox, just as on many other pages. Yes, the numbers must be based on most recent publications. Yes, there is no consensus about any single number, and it will never be. The numbers are estimated or claimed, but they are reliably published. My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There is also a clearer picture of the magnitude in quotations like this: “According to the latest casualty estimates, Ukraine has lost 200,000 soldiers killed or wounded, and Russia a staggering 300,000.”[36]  —Michael Z. 21:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No doubts, the losses by both sides exceed 0.5 million. That could be stated somewhere in the lead. Other than that, the numbers are highly imprecise to say the least. Perhaps it was a good idea not to show them in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I also very much agree with this.

In this case, we should report the most recent numbers that are based on reliable sources.

Our own guesses or speculation don't even matter, what matters is what's published in reliable sources and thus can be verified. And we have that. ShouldIHide (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I took a critical look at the Casualties section. The NYT article is already there but only for the Russian casualties for some reason. It was late in my time zone so I just added an update template for the Ukrainian and civilian deaths, though on reflection I am not sure if the NYT source covered civilians. However the total of the most recent numbers in each category still exceeds 100,000 afaict. I get that some may question American numbers, but this is a matter than can be discussed, no? I would be inclined to agree with My very best wishes. There are three categories; two sets of numbers (+British?) would be six figures and three (+British +German or Australian?) would be nine, which seems like too much for the infobox and maybe for the lede too. But if you throw out the top and bottom numbers and report a range, expanded on in the body, that seems doable to me. Question: there are rows in that table for numbers through January 2023. Is there a reason for those to still be there? In any event, I support updating the table. If people prefer a range rather than "more than 100,000" then I would support that as an improvement Elinruby (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not as simple as some editors would present. Firstly, we are dealing with estimates. Estimates are not facts (ie confirmed). Despite what one editor would say, not [e]very single casualty figure in Wikipedia is an estimate. If we write into the lead something like what is proposed, it should explicitly include that it is an estimate. Anything written in the lead must be supported by the body of the article and be clearly supported and readily apparent to the reader. If the NYT report is the primary basis for asserting >100,000 killed, then the casualty section does not clearly indicate this, in that the tabulation splits this figure in three. In such a case, either the body should be amended and/or the statement in the lead accompanied by a citation. I also see some cofusion over the reliability of sources. While the NYT is considered "reliable" it is nonetheless within the context of WP:NEWSORG, which inherently sets limitations. The NYT attributes the report to a "US official". The report is reliable as to who said it and as to what they said. The information, however, is a primary source for what is attributed. I see there is presently only one recent report that gives an estimate for the total killed (NYT). I would not oppose an amendment to the lead reading The invasion is estimated to have killed more than one hundred thousand provided there is a citation accompanying this and/or the body of the article is edited to clearly support the statement. However, I do not see a need to change the existing wording nor would I oppose striking the existing sentence since all we can say with any confidence is that a lot of people have been killed. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Which wars’ casualty figures are not either estimates or confirmed casualty lists which are known to be incomplete? We must accept that many or most facts have a level of precision that is not infinite.  —Michael Z. 04:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

For any war involving Australia, there are quite accurate records of casualties. There is a distinction between an estimation and a measurement. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No Australian medical officer ever made a bad entry and no clerk ever made a transcription error. No Ozzie boo-boo remains unrecorded. Maybe they’re more precise, but your claim that they are perfect is likely wrong.  —Michael Z. 23:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You would appear to miss the main point of what I have said, and that is that we should not conflate what is actually measured (counted) with an estimation that is based on inferences. Though yes, our MOs and chaplains are quite particular about who they consign to the ground, while our platoon sergeants are quite particular about accounting for where their soldiers are. Also, since we are dealing with what is a matter of statistics, precision and accuracy are not interchangeable terms. Please note the change to "quite accurate" which means, the accuracy has a high confidence limit. An estimate might have a confidence limit of tens of percent. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So you are then now opposed to conflating estimates with "actual" casualties? Do I understand this correctly? Is this the basis for your opposition?

This is a valid point to consider. However for one this was not the reason people were previously opposing the change. Instead they tried for example to claim an incorrect order of magnitude for numbers in the 100,000+ range and argue about that. Stuff that had nothing to do with estimated vs. "confirmed" casualties.

However. Wikipedia is absolutely full of "estimates", in different forms. Basically verifiability on here is more important than "the truth". If we only reported what is simple scientific fact, this entire article couldn't exist. All of it is just based on what do the sources say.

There isn't now, and there is never going to be a source available that will with 100% certainty tell the exact sum of every single confirmed death. There isn't one for World War 2 either for example, those figures are also estimates.

Regardless, what we then do is go with the best information we have. We don't here, we don't ever have "the truth" available to us, we go with what the reliable sources suggest to be most likely.

When a casual reader reads the "tens of thousands" in the current article, they are left with an impression of the casualties that is 10 times lower than the actual current estimate. This is the core of the problem.

ShouldIHide (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

ShouldIHide, I think you have probably grabbed the wrong end of the stick. You have replied to my post that is immediately above yours (indenting tells us that). My statement you replied to was made in the context of what preceded that, which was a response to Michael. My views on the subject are expressed in the initial post in this sub-thread here based on the change that I understood you to be advocating. You have now clarified this in the new subsection. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not against editing the body and have been doing so; it actually seems to need this very badly. I haven't so far in *this* section really because I have been hoping someone will answer this question: is there a reason why the casualties table includes for example figures for Sept 2022 through January 2023? Elinruby (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I did some work on it back a little bit. My recollection is that there is/was a general reluctance to remove anything sourced and/or people have just not considered removing dated information. As for myself, you are welcome to take the razor to it. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

thank you for the reply. I think it would be less confusing to do so, but this should be done carefully due in part to some of the concerns that you have expressed. At the moment I am somewhat distracted a need to prepare for an important RL event on Thursday. I did just remove one row of one table that was cited to Fox News. I intend to come back to this but it may take a few days.Elinruby (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

In the current lead text, there is no explicit reference given to support the "tens of thousands on both sides" text, even though this has been very misleading for a very long time.

What I am proposing, the source for that is in the article, in the casualties table so any claim here does not need to be sourced a second time. They are already reliable sources, otherwise they would not be cited in the casualties table.

The basis for saying, in the lead, "more than 100,000 deaths" is very clear.

Especially now that the estimates have been updated. The new estimates say Russian military deaths alone exceed 100,000 by quite a bit. The estimates for 24 Feb 2022 – August 18, 2023 support 120,000 + 70,000 military deaths, and the 42,000 dead civilians from an earlier time range. That sums up to 232,000 total deaths. So far. ShouldIHide (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I presume that does not include Wagner and other PMC, Rosgvardia, Kadyrovsty, FSB, &c.  —Michael Z. 23:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point. Actually, mostly I think it's understood that "Russian forces" does imply everyone who fights on that side (aka against Ukraine). That's how I would understand it if they are not separated in the estimates.

I know this is not a general discussion forum but reputable sources (high-level military officers in outside countries) reported very high Russian casualty estimates, approaching 200,000 already about a year ago. People who have followed this conflict closely have understood a long time ago that the casualties are eventually going to be incredibly high. The current estimates are not surprising at all. Fortunately for this Wikipedia thing, these estimates are also done by professional military analysts and published in reliable sources so they can very well be used here. ShouldIHide (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what you are proposing. There is no need to add a second source if the table reflects figures cited in the article. It would be redundant and serve no real purpose or give additional value. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Make change in lead concerning death toll

The article (casualties section, "US Estimate") itself now supports a total of 232,000 deaths. (btw, on Ukrainian territory, not on "both sides".)

In the lead, change the sentence "The invasion has killed tens of thousands on both sides." to "The invasion has caused more than 200,000 deaths."

I repeat, the source for this is already in the article. This change can be easily made without any further arguments.

Thank you.

ShouldIHide (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No, obviously. An estimate is not a statement of fact. We will not represent it as such. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

How do you suggest to represent it instead?

"The invasion has so far caused an estimated 232,000 deaths." is also fine by me.

ShouldIHide (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a specific text ready as I have so far been concentrating on verifying the sources, but maybe the information is too granular for the lede. We could say something like "(source) has estimated x and y Russian and Ukrainian fighters killed , with confirmed numbers of a and b." However, that's going to impede readability and for the lede it might be better to zoom out and say something like "massive Russian and Ukrainian civilian and military casualties" THEN have some version of the casualty section that we currently have, spelling out high and low estimates, casualties versus deaths, and all the caveats about under- and over-reporting. A lot would depend on the quality of the sources, but I am verifying sources already, and now that I am past a RL distraction that was looming over my concentration before, I can put some time into this section also. To answer a question from above, I asked a Russian speaker to look at the BBC Russia source that is cited in the table and they improved the somewhat incoherent numbers. I believe that they said that that Wagner etc were included, I agree that it should be clear, if it is not, whether they are or are not.

ShouldIHide, I agree that we probably inappropriately minimize the carnage, but in order to say "over 200,000" or even "more than 100,000" we need those numbers in a source. If you want to increase the odds of an update you could compile some numbers and where you found them, and we could probably turn *that* into an actionable proposal, but much checking and discussion will have to happen before it is implemented. Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I got my suggested numbers from this article itself, currently 232,000 is simply the sum of all deaths currently listed in the casualties table (US Estimate). What is the problem with using this as the basis for the suggested change in the lead as well? I don't understand this, since obviously the reported numbers are already based on reliable sources, there doesn't need to be a separate source that would say "more than 100,000" verbatim. I wouldn't be surprised if there were such sources but again, why would this change need double sourcing it?

The current "tens of thousands" is simply stated there with no explicit reference at all, it has been there probably for a year, people are completely ok with that but some are strongly opposed to simply changing that to reflect more current estimates.

I don't know if you have read anything in the archives but this has already been discussed quite a lot over the last almost two months. Something like "consensus" is impossible because there is always someone who will oppose it no matter what. They will go off arguing about things that are not at all, or only tangentially connected to the actual matter at hand. That's what we're dealing with, unfortunately.

I thank you for your work and sincerely hope this issue will be resolved properly. ShouldIHide (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

ShouldIHide I understand what you are saying but I hope the people currently in the conversation can agree that we will proceed on the "best possible information".

That is certainly my intention, and while I haven't edited the topic area for a while, I spent about a year in various subpages of this one in the earlier stages of the invasion. I have faith that we will resolve any disagreements. I myself don't insist on a source that specifically says 100,000 (or whatever number) but having one would preclude the sort of thing you are describing. So no, you don't have to hide, ok? Thank you for your persistence. Elinruby (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

To put this in perspective the most recent really good number for total casualties in all categories is 500,000. That is the NYT August 18 and the article gets quite a bit more granular from there, including the high death rate amoung Russian generals. Elinruby (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The numbers in the casualties table seem to add up to roughly 500,000 as well. 502,000 to 532,000 if my math is right. That is military KIA + WIA + civilians killed (no data on civilian wounded). Although the 42,000 civilian dead are only up to 21 May 2023.

Thanks for making the change, the lead is in any case definitely better now. One thing I would still also change would be to remove the mention of "both sides". That I see as problematic because the fighting and killing is taking place virtually exclusively on Ukrainian territory. The current phrasing can give the impression there were "tens of thousands" of people killed in Russia, which is definitely not true.

Indeed one might say that the entire war is about enforcing borders that are internationally recognized and changing them with force can't be tolerated or accepted. In fact, I'm sure someone reputable enough has said that.

ShouldIHide (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually I have been updating numbers further down the page; I have not changed the lede yet. I do see that another editor has made a change there, and slso a separate issue with it though; I just added something about 6.6 internal refugees to the humanitarian section, where it should have been mentioned if it was going to be in the lede, but I see now that the lede says 8 and I don't know where they got that number. Will look some more, but just because the lede is supposed to be a summary, that doesn't need references doesn't mean that the claims in the lede shouldn't be verifiable. I think though that given the date on my number and the one on the 8 million number that it is likely that they are both true. Elinruby (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I would change specifically in the lead the part " tens of thousands on both sides" to simply: "more than 100,000 deaths". The more important part being to remove the "both sides" altogether for the reason provided many times now. People are dying in Ukraine, not on "both sides" (not in Russia).

Do the sources not support the "more than 100,000 deaths"? I was under the impression that they quite clearly do. Russian military killed alone are reported as 120,000 now. [thats [User:ShouldIHide|ShouldIHide]] (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

the question is whether the New York Times front page story for August 18 2020 is considered a reliablw source. As previously noted, the CBCGuardian and Le Monde have all written stories based on the numbers in that article, and that is just where I stopped looking, so *those [ublications rely on the NYT story, and they are each themselves all reliable sources with a long history of getting stuff right. I think peeople are leery of the number because it is so much bigger than the last one,but that was a long time agoandthey have had Bakhmut since then, and frankly if the NYT is not a reliable source for a big miliary story,it's hard to say who else would be. Yes I know they have messed up badly once or twice, but nonetheless. Don't we all. it's still themost reliabel thing that is like ly to be found to upWould there even still be such a thing as a reliable source? I am going to be completely sure of the sources in the casulty section before I express any opiniom about the numbers, but if you are impatient you can askabout it at the Reliable Sources noticeboard or even start an RfC. I consider it a really dumb question to have to get an opinian on butI can't imzge anyone at RSN saying that this is NOT a reliable source, even for an explosive little nugget like this. That is what I know and I am mostly interested in how far the go by sources people will go to ignore this source. If you have to go to RSN you should have a text already written out, because when they are doing theit job right over there they won't say anything without seeing the souce, tstatement it's sourcing and the article that this is for. This is what I can tell you about this. In my opinion, if the unimpeachable source says 500,000, we should say 500,000 and not 100,000. That is a total numwber for everyone involved with the UKRAININA ARMY PLAU EVERYONE INVOLVED WITH THE rUSSIAN aEMY TWe go by sources, right? I have already been to RSN a couple of times for Militarnyi (sp?) and Amnesty International press releases.

oh and by the way RSN said that while there was nothing wrong with Amnesty International's compiled data, a press release issued by one official in one office is not a reliable source, and good thing too, because that press release was being uawd to source an error of fact. Russia did not commit a war crime by invadng Ukraine, because a war ccrime can only be committed by an individual. This is why the lede to this article used to say that Russian committed a "crime of agression, byt that may not be the right word for everything that Russia does. Bombing a power grid would perhaps be a violation of the Hague Convention, maybe. iff the power plant was not a military target.I have not tackled that one yet, but it came up in the section on the section on strikes against civilian infrastructure, and I think I found "volation of the Hague Convention" in another source, but I wanted to look into it some more and get a better source. There are a couple of other statements about Russia committing war crimes, which would also be wrong and were also as best I can rememeber may also have been sourced to individual agency officials. Sorry to dumot this here, but it is something that remains to be done.Elinruby (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

First to touch on just this one point... I'm still confused why we can't (?) say in the lead what is in any case said later on in the article and is properly sourced enough to be stated there ('Casualties').

And that would be saying "more than 100,000 deaths" instead of "tens of thousands on both sides".

I personally would accept "more than 200,000 deaths" as well, or "more than 500,000 casualties". I would also accept having "estimated" in there because yes, they are estimates (everything is). The only reason I've so far stuck with the lower-end 100,000 is that some others don't seem to be willing to accept anything except "tens of thousands".

ShouldIHide (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the relevant policy: Routine calculations

WP:CALC

Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also Category:Conversion templates.

Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote.

Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies.

That is why it is nice when a source keeps you from having to argue about this, becuae some -- not all mind you, but some -- definitely will arguw for the sake of arguing. Therefore I want to be very clear about the sources and the numbers