Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reflist overhaul welcome?

I am considering overhauling the references to split them into buckets corresponding to the article sections, with the help of the "group" attribute of the reflist template. Is there opposition? Maxorazon (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not a form of organising references I have seen before, is it common on military related articles? As a concern of mine, though, are there references used in multiple sections; and, to which I think the answers are both yes: 1. could there be dup refs in future and 2. could the system be too hard to interpret for other editors to easily add new references in its format? Lots of ways to break up the references without needing to label everything. Kingsif (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not widespread at all. I discovered this way of handling references on the French article of graph theory. I would need to test, you are right, handling cross-references this way could be tedious. And it definitely puts a higher cost on maintenance and addition of new references - the last point could be welcome? Maxorazon (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Maxorazon: I started using index style referencing, based on harv refs, for articles with lots of references. It is not very common, but I get compliments for it, particularly its navigability (real word?). There are other options, though, even a traditional bibliography style can be more accessible to readers. (I posture a lot on how to make the refs just as much part of the article and just as easy to use for readers!) Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Would suggest not trying to optimise refs until the editing on this article calms down. It will just make the article harder to edit, for one, and most people will ref normally which means someone will have to keep coverting into the new format. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Casualties Section

Very good overall effort, especially the top map of invasion progress. But re Casualties Section: Very unclearly done, as with "per Russia" etc.. Should say According to who: Losses suffered by who, and so on... 188.65.190.65 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Great idea. Wtoteqw (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Removing UK stats (for now)

The section may be more representative, if the numbers according to the UK are removed (around the time of writing this point) because it's almost two days old and being included makes it seem like a competing calculation, rather than the practically continuous updates from Ukraine and Russia. To be clear, I'm not saying it's necessarily inaccurate or irrelevant, just outdated. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 00:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Having thought about it, maybe if there aren't more new stats from the UK, within a few days, that's when it may be more useful to move to the article or remove: if Russia don't say, Ukraine say it's over 40, UK say 137, the notably higher count from the UK makes it a more significant comparison point. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 01:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Foreign aid to Russia

There should be a section on foreign aid being supplied to Russia. Do you agree? Wtoteqw (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Got any sources listing what this might b? Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I’m just suggesting that idea. Maybe two countries that are supplying aid to Russia are Belarus and Moldova? Besides, if you want information, just Google “ who is on Russia's side 2022 invasion”. Wtoteqw (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Belarus is already listed and Moldova isn't going to dig its own grave anytime soon. Super Ψ Dro 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe not, Until some RS are brought forward discussing this is a pointless debate. We do not speculate on what might be happening. We can't and must not have an empty section just in case. So I am bowing out of this until some RS are posted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Would this and this be good sources? Wtoteqw (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any aid coming from Belarus. It is Russia giving aid to Belarus. --Robertiki (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh. If you can’t find where they talk about them sending Russia aid, just use the article as a generic reference. Wtoteqw (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This thread doesn't make sense. What specifically is it that you want people to add into the article? Because Belarus is already listed as a belligrant in the page's infobox. You're also not giving people a concrete source or a concrete part of a source but asking them to search or read them, when that'd be your job. Super Ψ Dro 17:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

To be more clear, what I want added to the article is a section about countries that are shipping arms to Russia to aid in the invasion. Wtoteqw (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian forces remaining in Belarus

Has anyone seen any news on what percentage is still left there (or estimates made by the Belarus opposition)? While a great deal of them were placed there pre-invasion for this planned attack, I don't see Putin letting go of his large physical footprint in the country for later re-incorporation into his empire. Also, has there been confirmation of Belarus troops in Russian uniform in Ukraine? That info should absolutely be in the article.50.111.36.47 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Only one third of the troops on Ukraine's border have been deployed. Here's a source [2]. There probably are still some left in Belarus. I saw there were movements in Brest in southwest Belarus but I can't provide a source for that. Super Ψ Dro 18:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A moving target, quite literally, though there are already different sources claiming it's more like 50%. To be fair I think those were referring to the entire buildup, not just in Belarus. One should keep in mind at any rate that the numbers never only included (mobile) elements supposed to move into Ukraine at any stage. There are of course different sorts of (long range) missile and rocket forces, air force ground personnel, various support, logistics, reserve, etc. Not sure what's meant by a footprint regarding Russia and Belarus: Russian military has always had a presence in Belarus, more or less, and more or less officially. There are even Russian bases in the country (and some joint). -88.70.121.115 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

NATO support

Maxorazon As My very best wishes has stated only a few NATO countries have been providing arms or made a pledge to send arms, I think NATO as an alliances should be removed and replaced with the countries that are actually involved. Also further clarification is needed to state the degree of support, which is thus far only limited to providing weapons. Viewsridge (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The head of NATO has pledged to send arms. Please Viewsridge see the Reuters ref in the infobox. "Indirect defensive military aid" is sufficiently soft in my views. Maxorazon (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

NATO is composed of 30 different countries but only about 10 of them afaik has so far agreed to send weapons, clarification is needed here. Viewsridge (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you questioning the chain of command and the legitimacy of NATO head? This is a collective mutual defense, even if only one "marginal" state was sending weapons to Ukraine it would be binding. Maxorazon (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Be advised that the NATO leadership decides what is best sent for defense of Ukraine and what is best left for local defense in Europe - it is a matter of who can provide economically and effectively - it would make little sense for Luxembourg to empty its coffers, so to speak, for Ukraine when Germany, for example, can give so much more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Map of UN security council resolution

Under the reaction section the map incorrectly shows the Republic of China (Taiwan) as being a part of the PRC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.11.122 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the description of the map: Shouldn'd that read "voted in favour or co-sponsored/supported the resolution"? (https://www.axios.com/un-security-council-vote-condemn-russia-98ff868e-6ee4-412e-b643-36e30061adb1.html) The actual Security Council members are only the P5 plus the 10 elected for a two years period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Members). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.67.44 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Lukashenko: Belarusian troops are not participating in the operation in Ukraine

"Here I read: "At about 5 a.m., the state border of Ukraine in the area of Russia and Belarus was attacked by Russian troops supported by Belarus." The scoundrels are extreme! Our troops are not taking any part in this operation," BelTA.

Recall that Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he had decided to conduct a special military operation to protect people from bullying and genocide by the Kiev regime, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, bringing to justice those who committed numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including Russian citizens.

On Thursday morning, Ukraine's military facilities were subjected to massive strikes. The DPR reported fighting along the entire contact line. The Russian Defense Ministry stressed that the Russian Armed Forces do not strike at the cities of Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry said. Precision weapons only hit military targets. Later, the Russian Defense Ministry announced the suppression of Ukraine's air defense systems. 185.19.176.100 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

We can report what he said, but we'll need objective reporting rather than the statements of a tin-horn, murdering, grasping dictator says for a definitive call.50.111.36.47 (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

War crimes article and related page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is this a separate article already? Mellk (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian Major Leonid Petrovich Shchetkin captured

This [3] is only semi-reliable reference I could find of the issue, if anyone else can find reliable references, this could be added under Russian commander with the  (POW) tag. Viewsridge (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't add since it's not a notable commander. Beshogur (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Germany will send weapons to Ukraine

I'm not an extended confirmed user. German chancellor Olaf Sholz has announced that Germany will send weapons directly to Ukraine. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60541752 -- Sentimex (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, it is already mentioned, please read the article in depth! Regards Maxorazon (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed that part when reading over it. Should this section be deleted? -- Sentimex (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We can archive it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please check news before posting

This news: A Russian tank from a military column was filmed crushing a civilian car in northern Kyiv, skidding across the road over it. The driver, an elderly man, survived and was helped out by locals.[238][239][240] is likely a fake news as Russian tanks are painted with a white letter (for example the "V"). If you see the video is likely the driver of an Ukranian armored vehicle that lost control. Please check news before posting and mind that in a war the first victim is the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.32.144 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this incident was covered in detail and proven to be, at the very least, not a Russian Strela-10

It's not 'fake news' - many Russian vehicles entering the war have no markings, confirmed by many sources. As long as RS's support the incident, so must we. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for map of airspace sanctions

Can someone make a map of countries that have blocked flights from Russian airlines? Similar to the Financial Times's map on [4] (direct image URL, doesn't require subscription). Scale can be kept to Europe (i.e. countries close to the vicinity of Russia and any common flight trajectories). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Split over into Russia?

A section of the location says there is spillover into Russia due to the Ukrainian missile attack on a Russian base but that doesn't count as a spillover in my opinion because the two nations involved in a war will have possible attacks over. You wouldn't say an Ukrainian invasion of Russia to be a spillover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9300:FC0:0:0:0:4B51 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please check news before posting

This news: A Russian tank from a military column was filmed crushing a civilian car in northern Kyiv, skidding across the road over it. The driver, an elderly man, survived and was helped out by locals.[238][239][240] is likely a fake news as Russian tanks are painted with a white letter (for example the "V"). If you see the video is likely the driver of an Ukranian armored vehicle that lost control. Please check news before posting and mind that in a war the first victim is the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.32.144 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this incident was covered in detail and proven to be, at the very least, not a Russian Strela-10

It's not 'fake news' - many Russian vehicles entering the war have no markings, confirmed by many sources. As long as RS's support the incident, so must we. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for map of airspace sanctions

Can someone make a map of countries that have blocked flights from Russian airlines? Similar to the Financial Times's map on [5] (direct image URL, doesn't require subscription). Scale can be kept to Europe (i.e. countries close to the vicinity of Russia and any common flight trajectories). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Split over into Russia?

A section of the location says there is spillover into Russia due to the Ukrainian missile attack on a Russian base but that doesn't count as a spillover in my opinion because the two nations involved in a war will have possible attacks over. You wouldn't say an Ukrainian invasion of Russia to be a spillover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9300:FC0:0:0:0:4B51 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Can this death of an Iraki kurdish citizen be included within the civilian casualties? https://www.rudaw.net/english/world/25022022 Wikiman92783 (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Done Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 10:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (5)

F aisal (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainians claim 16 Russian Aircrafts were shot down not 14

Hi. This needs a reliable source. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

I have been in constant contact with OSINT and i only want people to know confirmed and correct info i follow and regulary talk to reporters journalists and different telegram channels throught Ukraine i see that the information on here isn't always correct or updated so i would like to fix it 2600:1702:43E0:83E0:15B3:1CCD:5B58:7E47 (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Then you will need to have a Wikipedia account for 30 days and at least 500 edits. WWGB (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (3)

In protest section add:

South Korea. DT07 (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (6)

In the "NATO" subsection:

"Exacerbation" is meaningless without specifying what would be exacerbated.

Google results don't seem to turn up for "athmosphere" and "Michail Gorbatchev". I assume they're typos.

I think these should either be rephrased, or have templates added to them. Intralexical (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 16:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (2)

Put Germany in allies of Ukraine because they have supplied Ukraine with military gear.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/major-shift-germany-send-weapons-ukraine-83131834 Sussywussy (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Many countries have provided material assistance. Generally, allies are countries which are willing to engage militarily in the conflict, which is at this point, nobody. Melmann 07:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

2 Russian Helicopters Destroyed

2 Russian Helicopters were Destroyed in Ivankovsky 188.136.9.8 (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done please provide a reliable source when making an edit request. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Soviet 2S1 Goždzik Destroyed

A 2S1 Russian Tank got Destroyed 188.136.9.8 (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done please provide a reliable source when making an edit request. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Chechen Special Forces

Can we Please ad by Belligerents that Chechen Special Force Fight for Russia 188.136.9.8 (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP, no, as already discussed in a previous 'Chechnya' section, Chechnya is part of the federation of Russia, it is not a distinct group. And it is some tactics used by Russia as a fear factor, that has been debunked since hours. Maxorazon (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Casualties and Losses

Can we Please ad on The Russian Side The 706 Russian APCs 188.136.9.8 (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

invasion map update

suggesting an invasion map update any idea when it will be done? 84.22.60.254 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

See Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum's reply here. Benjamin112 ☎ 04:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (7)

Change “Russian air and missile strikes target military bases, airports, major cities across Ukraine, including the capital Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Odessa” to “ Russian air and missile strikes target military bases, airports, major cities across Ukraine, including the capital Kyiv, as well as Kharkiv and Odessa” Homiedawg011 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: thanks for the suggestion, I've reworded it largely along the lines of your suggestion. Jr8825 • Talk 13:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Request name change of article

Ever since Ukraine has been invaded, it only makes sense if the name is requested to be changed to Invasion of Ukraine. Williamwang363 (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Simply "Invasion of Ukraine" is too vague as the country has been invaded by several other nations before. lol1VNIO (Talk • Contrib) 17:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

RM to make the title more concise was rejected in Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_2#Requested_move_26_February_2022. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Separate human casualties from materiel losses?

Currently there are five show hide/boxes for materiel losses. I suggest to simply separate the two entirely, so that we list the human casualties first, and then have a single show/hide box for materiel losses. -- Phiarc (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Jr8825 • Talk 19:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (4)

Four Azerbaijani nationals were killed, and four others were injured in the war. Please add it to the infobox. Source: AzVision 89.219.167.151 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Denmark misspelled

In the belligerents section, under Ukrainian arms suppliers, Denmark is misspelled as, “Danmark.” I can’t edit so if someone else would fix this I’d appreciate it. Thanks 2601:248:C500:8B60:9C0A:9B53:FAC6:445D (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (5)

In think it should be added into the article (maybe in new section "Censorship"?):

On 24 February 2022, Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media ordered media, carrying out the activity to inform the events of Russian military campaign in Ukraine, to use only Russian official public sources.

On 26 February 2022, Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media ordered media to remove reports describing Moscow's attack on Ukraine as an "assault, invasion, or declaration of war" or face being blocked and fined. Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media accused a number of independent media outlets including television channel Dozhd and the country's top independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta of spreading "unreliable socially significant untrue information" about the shelling of Ukrainian cities by the Russian army and civilian deaths.

Novaya Gazeta reports that Russian authorities order to remove from newspaper's website the video message calling against the war of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K8M8S8 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Most of this was already covered on the page. I moved it to a more relevant subheading. This is subject to changes other editors see fit. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Chechnya

Chechnya is a part of Russia, why is it a part of the belligerents? If they have sent a force outside the Army, maybe the name of the group should be there? As it stands, it’s a bit confusing as to why it’s there but not Crimea, etcAngele201002 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure, I removed it because it is just silly to have it separate. If Chechnya was to be there, why don't we list all the federal subjects of Russia then? Mellk (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

BBC live update at 7:13 Chechen soldiers join Russian assault on Ukraine They act as if they are independent. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: Because other subjects do not have separate militia like the Kadyrovtsy. They act separatily, of course under Russia's controll, but not the Russian military. Also I mentioned with a tag that Chechnya is a subject of Russia. Beshogur (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Those units can be mentioned, but I don't think that justifies Chechnya as being separate in the belligerents part. They serve under Russia. Putin would have approved their deployment. Mellk (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mellk, Chechnya is just one of many republics within the Russian Federation just like Tartarstan, Buratya, and Dagestan, it's all Russia and falls under Russia. More than anything this seems like a PR stunt by Kadyrov, which isn't relevant for the belligerents section. The only real reason I would say it's notable at all is because Chechnya fought Russia twice for independence since the fall of the Soviet Union so there is a bit of sad irony in the fact that they're now helping Russia do the same to a foreign country. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

We discussed it yesterday. Kadyrov's troops de facto are subordinated to Kadyrov personally but formally they aren't separate militia (see subsection "Legalization" of the article Kadyrovtsy), they are National Guard Forces Command units lead by Zolotov. I really don't see any reason to designate Chechnya as separate side of conflict. K8M8S8 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not about Chechnya. If they deployed National Guard Forces or paramilitaries (such as Kadyrovites) that needs to be included, even to infobox, but I did not see much about their operations in Ukraine so far, so probably not yet. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Start Date wrong

The current information box has the starting date as February 24th 2022 but Russia declared the start of military operations on the 23rd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DB Explorer (talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's 24 February local time. Daydreamers (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

More clarifications on casualties

Are vehicles destroyed including military personnel?Are soldiers total amount killed? Does that mean russia has lost more vehicles than personnel? 180.241.155.56 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Referencing issues

There is one sentence under "Russian accusations" that isn't well supported. It says: Several international organizations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, and the Council of Europe, announced they were unable to find evidence supporting the Russian claims. However one ref is just to a list of reports [6] and none of them mention "genocide" except one Council of Europe report from 1 April 2014 [7] which mentions "genocide" once and that there are "no reports of limitations or perceived threats to the use of Russian language in Western parts of Ukraine". However this sentence in the article implies that all of these organizations actually investigated the claims of genocide and made an announcement addressing those claims specifically. Rather it seems like OR. Mellk (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

From my understanding, whoever wrote this meant that previous reports about the human rights situation in Ukraine show no genocide has taken place, therefore recent Russian claims are baseless, but this looks like OR. Mellk (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Archival period

This is a very active page, with many new sections each day. The time elapsed before archiving has bounced around between 6 hours and 3 days. Personally, I think 3 days is too long, as the page grows tremendously within that time, with 50 or more sections, making it difficult to track and read. Is there some kind of consensus on a reasonable time to archive? WWGB (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that 12-24 hours should be good, and editors can manually archive other completed discussions. 48 hours is definitely too long. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Another random change, now back to 12 hours. WWGB (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@WWGB: It's me. 24 hours is definitely stale, since the discussion after 24h would be very outdated to the current situation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why did you add the hidden message "there is consensus that 12 hours is the most appropriate" when no such consensus exists? WWGB (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to open an RfC on NATO as a support belligerent. How can I link to existing sections, not knowing, in the span of a few hours, if the section will be archived or not? Some already are. Maxorazon (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of people doing manual archiving. There are some discussions of outstanding issues that haven't received enough participation but are ongoing issues nevertheless. I think 12h is too soon and I suppose 3d may be too long. Maybe 1-1.5 days (+ manual archiving as needed)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

+1 for 1.5 days, the metric should be last date of comment in the section, and not total nb of sections IMO. Maxorazon (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

24 hours should be the bare minimum. While I generally support 3 days or so on other busy pages, that would be very impractical over here. This 11 hours old section already finds itself in the oldest quartile of this page. IMO, 1 to 1.5 days is the most reasonable option. + Manual archiving as and when necessary. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 14:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Pipeline and desire for nuclear arms missing

I notice the article, as the heading suggests, is missing a mention of the cancellation of the Nordstream 2 pipeline by Germany on the 22nd of February, and Zelenskyy making the declaration of his wish to import nuclear arms into the country. Is there a reason for this obvious omission? --Lammmywhammy (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• The cancellation is the first paragraph in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Economic sanctions. Do you have sources regarding the nuclear arms? BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That's even worse, because it is out of order. How would the suspension of the pipeline on the 22nd of February be the response to an invasion that took place two days later, on the 24th of February? Unacceptable for an uncyclopedia that prides itself on only pulling facts from reliable sources. What reliable source would make such a grave error? Lammmywhammy (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources have described Russian forces entering the Donbas as the beginning of the Invasion. However, if you believe there is a more appropriate section, then please mention it and we can discuss. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Political allegiance

I've noticed that the Leftist/Social Justice faction has sided with Ukraine, while the Alt-right has sided with Russia. I haven't prepared any RS, although an initial search seems to confirm this. I'd just like to submit this as a possible theme that could be developed in the article, maybe under Reactions. Just a thought! Xcalibur (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Trimming?

At this rate of expansion, the article can become very long. Perhaps we should remove some irrelevant details, such as "a boy get shot" or "a residential building collapsed"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is currently at 58 kB of readable prose size. The consensus is to take action at 85 to 100 kB, so we still have a bit longer to go. However, there's no harm in starting to re-factor text into summary style. Melmann 07:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Trimming?

At this rate of expansion, the article can become very long. Perhaps we should remove some irrelevant details, such as "a boy get shot" or "a residential building collapsed"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is currently at 58 kB of readable prose size. The consensus is to take action at 85 to 100 kB, so we still have a bit longer to go. However, there's no harm in starting to re-factor text into summary style. Melmann 07:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Romania is mentioned twice, in two different parts of the "Refugees" section. (I believe Poland was as well a short while ago, but appears to have been fixed.) Whomever is editing this section might want to address this. - wolf 06:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"casus belli" is misspelled "causus" too. i know it's edit locked, but i'm pretty sure this is a simple misspelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why displaying UK's numbers?

Why are we showing UK's casuality estimates just under the russian and ukrainian version? Who is UK to estimate? I'm not trying to be political but according to me the only data that is to be quoted should be of Russia , Ukraine and international bodies such as UN. That's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanraj13 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I was going to ask exactly this question. Why is 'According to the United Kingdom' included in the infobox? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I am unsure it needs to be there, but may have "others" and then have an aggregate of all third-party estimates.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"See also"s in the invasion section

Currently each day of the invasion subsections have the "See also" to related battles. Are they really necessary, since they're already in the body and campaignbox? They're also all basically the same - the Kyiv Offensive (2022) ones are in all of them. Juxlos (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Acts of Heroism

There are several acts of heroism that are notable and worthy of their own section. Editdone (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

13 guards killed by Russian Warship for defiantly telling them to “Go Fuck Yourselves” after being told to “Lay down your arms” Editdone (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That has its own article. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the same, but also added: It is too small a detail to bear repeating on the overview article which is rapidly becoming burdened (approaching 10,000 words which is the typical marker of an article that probably needs splitting) with the ongoing developments. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Snake Island update

It should probably be included that the Snake Island guards were only assumed to be dead due to radio silence, there was no verification, and that the next day the Russian Defense ministry released photos of Ukrainian border guards held prisoner, stating that among them are the 13 guards from Snake Island. User7355608 (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Millerovo air base attack

Where is Millerovo air base attack on the map? --Мечников (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

China's "neutrality"

The colour-coded map currently shows that China is neutral in this conflict. It may be too early to say for sure but this map will possibly need to be updated as events unfold. China's foreign ministry on 24/2 said Russia's presence in Ukraine is not an invasion, that the coordinated sanctions against Russia were "unilateral" and "illegal", and that the US were the "culprit" in the conflict, "heightening tensions, creating panic and even hyping up the possibility of warfare". https://www.ft.com/content/55d86391-2d05-4eb4-869c-83a7878b8942 To me, this doesn't sound like neutrality. 2001:8A0:5D19:2700:F5:1DDF:9E5A:9581 (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

China also said that it will try to promote peaceful negotiations in its own way. It seems that China hasn't officially take anyone's side yet, even though we know the two are allies. Of course though, we should pay attention to any developments. -- Sentimex (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why was Russian reservist number removed?

Right now it looks like Ukraine has an equal number of troops as Russia, which is not true because Russia has a huge number of reserves. The reserves used to be listed for both Russia and Ukraine, but now it shows only Ukraine's reserves. This seems like a misrepresentation of relative fighting strength. Kai robert (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume because it represents only the number fighting.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox map not displaying

Can someone who understands the technical side of images more than me take a look at the infobox map, as it doesn't seem to be displaying properly. Also has been raised on the Commons page[8] — Czello 11:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It was broken due to an edit war, repeatedly updating or reverting files in a short span of time will temporarily stop them from displaying, some users were attempting to fix it by reverting too I believe, the issue has been addressed and users notified. Viewsridge (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox map not displaying

Can someone who understands the technical side of images more than me take a look at the infobox map, as it doesn't seem to be displaying properly. Also has been raised on the Commons page[9] — Czello 11:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It was broken due to an edit war, repeatedly updating or reverting files in a short span of time will temporarily stop them from displaying, some users were attempting to fix it by reverting too I believe, the issue has been addressed and users notified. Viewsridge (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Independent/visual confirmed analysis of equipment losses

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1

Any chance we can include these numbers in the info box? Perathian (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding an edit notice?

There are a lot of proposals on talk that tend to come without sources. I'm thinking it may be worth adding a brief WP:Edit notice that suggests people to provide sources if making edit requests. Wanted to put the idea up for thoughts first though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Support it seems like half of the edit requests don't provide a source at all or provide an unreliable one, and an edit notice could help with that. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Support And maybe also "please stop asking for every casualty to be listed, they will be without you asking". Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Done a quick short one, hopefully the shorter it is the more people will read it, so IMO we should keep it 1-2 sentences max. Can see at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Feedback appreciated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct typo

Correct typo "materiel" with material Adino1234567 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done "materiel" is not a typo, it is a separate word meaning "military materials and equipment". >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (2)

Change the color code in

{{legend|#FF6347|Countries that have blamed the invasion on NATO provocation}}

to #ff6600, which is the actual color used in the map file. Currently the color used is more redish than in the actual map files. SixTwoEight (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 22:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (5)

Why is Slovakia excluded from the list of countries where refugees are fleeing to? 185.152.113.242 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've added a couple sentences on the Slovakian response to the refugees section. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Add Poland as Arms suppliers

Hi

Poland is supporting Ukraine but it is not mentioned as Arms Supplier. Please correct it and add Poland 2A02:A314:8547:5100:3965:930A:7C31:FC55 (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2022 (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. Benjamin112 ☎ 23:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Turkey as belligerent?

They are planning to block the straits from Russian warships passing through - a military engagement, yes? (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-02-26/card/uDQCa9dMZsNGZLQsfWYg)

Minor second point: Turkish drones are being used, so they should be in arms suppliers at the very least no? (https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/russia-ukraine-war-turkey-drone-strike-kherson-first-ever)Angele201002 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Per the agreement Article 19, which covers times of war where Turkey isn't belligerent, says Vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers shall not, however, pass through the Straits. Turkey is relying on that Article. So Turkey's involvement is on the basis of it being non-belligerent. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the clarification Angele201002 (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents

It could be necessary to include in "Belligerents" the prorussian regions of Transnistria and Chechenia. --Nilprat (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done we've had discussions on this topic before. Transnistria is an unrecognized state and there was no consensus to add it, and Chechnya is part of Russia and shouldn't be added as a separate belligerent. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

EU as a whole is going to send weapons and ammunition to Ukraine

Ursula von der Leyen has just told that the EU as a whole, for the first time in her history, is now going to send weapons and ammunition to a country that is under attack (i.e. Ukraine). (major Dutch media). The infobox should be updated. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

1) for major announcements, let's wait for a few WP:HQRS to repeat the same info, because I've seen several times where one source has clearly misread a statement and turned it into something it wasn't (not saying that's the case here, but as a general rule, we need to be careful not to peddle errors, esp given the visibility of this article). 2) discussion on infobox above, there's a dispute as to whether arms supplies should go into the infobox or should be contextualised in the body, and I think we can wait a few days than be going back-and-forth per breaking news stories. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please contribute to the on-going RfC additionally/instead! Maxorazon (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Show countries supporting Ukraine with arms

We should add NATO countries that have sent arms to Ukraine under Belligerent section, similar to how Belarus is shown. 213.166.56.99 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about that on this talk page. Link here. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 16:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a different discussion. It is without debate that the NATO as a whole is not providing arms. Yet it is also without debate that a lot of individual NATO countries have been and are sending weapons to Ukraine. These countries should be listed individually under a "Arms support" section in the infobox IMO. The infobox currently does not match the overwhelming number of WP:RS. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian reserves

Who took down the russian reserves? They should be added back into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.137.1 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add sources, volunteers are not systematically supposed to do the search for you. Maxorazon (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

add countries giving arms support to ukraine in the infobox

i don't know who keeps removing it, but there is a difference between adding *NATO* in the infobox as a arms supplier and adding *INDIVIDUAL countries* in the infobox as arms suppliers. EpicWikiLad (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really actually. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm Maxorazon (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sweden is belligerent

Sweden should be listed as an arms-supplier to Ukraine in the belligerent section of the article. Source is here and here.

Strange-attractor (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done there isn't a consensus to list the arms suppliers in the infobox of the article. Sweden is already included in the foreign military support section. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Spelling error / Typo An-255 → An-225

The airplane destroyed was a An-225 not An-255 (which never existed). Please correct. Erik del Toro Streb (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done on 08:12 UTC. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 09:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Small protest against Russia's invasion in Brazil

I noticed Brazil was not included in the list of countries where there were protests. There was a small protest against Russia's invasion of Ukraine in front of Russian Consulate in São Paulo. You can check the official source of G1 News in Portuguese: https://g1.globo.com/sp/sao-paulo/noticia/2022/02/26/grupo-protesta-contra-invasao-da-ucrania-em-frente-a-embaixada-da-russia-em-sao-paulo.ghtml Gusbemacbe (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Would it make the list of arms suppliers shorter if the European countries were folded into NATO or European Union? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't Poland be listed as arms supplier in the infobox?

There's plenty sources about it. For. ex https://www.rp.pl/biznes/art35754421-polska-bron-dla-ukrainy-pierwsze-transporty-dotarly-kolejne-w-drodze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trybald (talk • contribs) 22:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not think any weapons suppliers (such as Turkey, Poland or whoever supplied weapons to Russia) should be included in the infobox. In the body of the page or summary - yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (7)

In the head/intro of the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, change

The invasion received widespread international condemnation, including new sanctions imposed on Russia.

to

The invasion received widespread international condemnation, including new sanctions imposed on Russia, triggering the 2022 Russian financial crisis.

Thank you. S 0524 (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 14:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Foreign Students issue with leaving

Where would this go in the article? https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/watch-pushed-shoved-and-shot-at-south-africans-fleeing-ukraine-claim-poor-treatment-at-border-20220227 https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/indians-students-fleeing-ukraine-brutally-beaten-by-forces-at-borders-563156.html8.48.249.239 (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@8.48.249.239 I have raised the same question, but I don't think any extended user will try to add this is information on this page, currently, I think Wikipedia is also being a place of propaganda-like stuff, surely if everything settles down. I will retry to add this information to this page. Thecybergulf (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It is hard for a limited number of extended users to execute all requests. Especially if they are not in the form "please add 'this' as per this reliable source link". Becoming an extended user yourself on the other hand is very easy. Maxorazon (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The source mentions only "several students" alleging. This seems a weak claim considering the scale of people trying to leave the country. A stronger and more certain source and some indication of the scale alleged would be necessary IMO to justify inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done reports of Nigerians experiencing the same, and prompted a diplomatic response from Nigeria. So duly added. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Background section needs to be expanded

The generous interpretation of this section would be WP:OR, which is a non-starter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The background section is in need of expansion to provide the broader context necessary to understand the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. In its current state, the background section provides a very narrow view of the events that led to the escalation of conflict and relies almost exclusively on Western sources which have consistently shown to be unreliable and pursuing a malignant agenda. Secondly, the role of the US in overthrowing the legally elected President of Ukraine Viktor Yanykovicz must be examined, as well as State Department's and CIA's links with extremist elements in Ukraine, including both political parties and militant groups. Thirdly, Ukraine's constant violations of human rights of Russian speakers in the country, the persecution of political opinions on the grounds of it being perceived as 'pro-Russian', and ultimately neutral reporting of the conflict in Donbas, Ukraine's unwillingness to abide by the Minsk Treaty it signed and the constant shelling of civilian infrastructure in Donetsk and Lugansk. As it is now, the article goes to great lengths to place all the blame for the situation in Ukraine squarely on Russia while ignoring the involvement of Western powers, as well as consistent transgressions of Ukrainian authorities in Donbas and their repression of opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reollun (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC) References

RfC - Should NATO be displayed in the infobox as a support belligerent providing indirect military aid?

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

Withdrawn by poster ("Closing RfC to leave place for the new one..."). Consensus is clear oppose. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 09:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Should NATO be displayed in the infobox as a support belligerent providing indirect military aid? Maxorazon (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Update 22:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC) After 12 hours, in retrospect, I don't think that I did a good job at all summarizing the stakes for this RfC. I mostly enriched my view while doing it. Feel free to close it - it received tremendous opposition. And reopen and new one under a new light. Best and peaceful regards, Maxime. Maxorazon (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Update: Closing RfC to leave place for the new one, godspeed! "Rien n'est jamais acquis, à l'Homme, ni sa force, ni sa faiblesse, ni son coeur, et quand il croit ouvrir ses bras, son ombre est celle d'une croix." Maxorazon (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Overview

There has been edit warring from my side and others's, most notably My very best wishes. There is clearly a divergence of opinions. Among the different WP:RCD venues available, I chose the present Request for Comments modality. I am looking for the emergence of a consensus on this question.

There have been multiple talk sections and users, here, approaching the subject already. I will try to gather most prior views, intellectually neighboring sections, and list them below.

One root cause of the antagonism is that there is no clear WP rule defining, precisely, which parties should be mentioned as belligerents in an armed conflict. This has raised multiple questions already on the inclusion, or the degree of involvement of Belarus, People's Republics in eastern Ukraine, Chechnya.

About NATO specifically, the relevant talk sections are: NATO as belligerent, Belligerent, and NATO support.

Previous contributions

The richest contributions to the discussion are, as far as I know:

Belligerent

ProcrastinatingReader: "Although, reading the Template:Infobox military conflict guidance, it seems a lot of flexibility is left to local editors (however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) ... may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding ... Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. -- providing military equipment (etc) may well be sufficient to list them as 'combatants' in that sense. I think it's subjective whether it improves reader understanding, but I also see unrelated reasons for why it would be a good idea to include them all, so (on rethinking) I think I might lean towards supporting inclusion at this time."

RaiderAspect "Oppose listing parties that are not participating in combat operations. The trend towards listing entities that are indirectly involved in military conflicts is understandable, but it leads to a mess of OR, UNDUE, and sometimes outright misleading information being included. Diplomatic and material support can be discussed in the article text."

Rogue_states_as_official_belligerents?

BlackholeWA: "Now that NATO is added under support with an explanation directly in brackets about military aid (as opposed to a tooltip), I will say that I am actually not opposed to this - although I imagine other Wikipedians will probably have stronger policy thoughts on the matter."

NATO as belligerent

Des Vallee: "Indeed I am aware, however yes vocal support and action is support, and NATO has made it clear they support Ukraine. Stating otherwise and going against what was announced via NATO is Original Research. While can be argued that the support is inefficient, to classify as support. Such nearly all reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine. If we establish a consensus that reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine, and NATO themselves state so stating otherwise is just OR, not only OR but it sets an dangerous precedent of ignoring citations when felt so.

I do however understand the argument that military source is not currently being provided, however we don't classify military support as being the only thing to add to infoboxes. As an example the War in Iraq (2013–2017), another example being the Russo-Ukrainian War shows many countries that supported the campaign but did not aid militarily. If we define that aid support is important then that classifies as support."

Further discussion

Clarifying my position (OP)

I advocate for NATO to be displayed as support belligerent in the infobox as it was before last revert.

There are two main links that I would like to reference: one directly from NATO head, and one from reuters.

Ukraine has been backed, somewhat informally in the past, by NATO member states delivering weapons, NATO itself has opened the lengthy process of adhesion to Ukraine. Within the last couple of days, a shift has started to appear, the Europeans have increasingly made it clear that they were indirectly supporting Ukraine (regime, military), culminating with the previously linked official statement from NATO head on Feb 25th: "We will continue to provide political and practical support to Ukraine".

The support from NATO is now clearer, it is dishonest to the reader in my opinion to still present Ukraine as a sole belligerent on its side, all the more when Russia has such a number of allied belligerents displayed. The latest reverts on the topic have been quite sheer contradiction in the WP dispute scale.

Please add any talk section, about this invasion article, that I would have omitted! You are welcome to add relevant links to prior WP art and jurisprudence, as I am not a veteran wikipedian. Maxorazon (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I am a French taken in sandwich, openly, somewhat engaged, pro-Ukrainian, friend of the Russian people, anti-Putin, friend of the American people. I am against the entry of Ukraine in NATO. I am advocating for EU and Europe to correctly stand its ground between the USA and Russia. I strive for objectivity. Maxorazon (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Addressing the elephant in the room: risks of nuclear holocaust

This cannot stay out of the debate here eternally. I think that it is not acceptable to self-censure in front of the Russian aggressor, Putin having made almost explicit threats of such nuclear strikes. Maxorazon (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Risk is extremely minimal - this is just sabre-rattling. The Strategic Rocket Forces/Command in Russia is very professional and the marshals know what such a use of nuclear weapons would mean - Putin would be 'removed' in some fashion if he's deemed insane.50.111.36.47 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Right to adversarial arguments

A little part of the intellectual equipment from the pro-Russian position is to be found for example with professor John Mearsheimer's talk, criticizing the current crisis as having been fomented by the US and the West, Russia being in its own right.

Survey

Oppose based on lack of credible sources. Per WP:NOR we're not interpreting or reading into the sources, we're aggregating what reliable sources actually report. Popoki35 (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Support original research is in my view standing your ground after having read the last official NATO declarations. Maxorazon (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. Is the official website of NATO not a reliable source for the position of NATO? Maxorazon (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Its tough, but we could have a support section, then I would change to Support, as they are not directly involved in the conflict, in any way.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Support does not mean "support" in the literal sense of "supporting" - else the Central African Republic and half a dozen other largely irrelevant states will need to go on the other side. It means the provision of some kind of relevant military assistance which, as far as I am aware, has not been done officially by NATO itself as an organisation (though some states have obviously done so with its blessing). Ultimately there is a common-sense issue to consider - will putting it in the infobox help the reader and represent the importance of the contribution accurately? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The kind of phrasing "Support does not mean 'support' in the literal sense of 'supporting'" is a little clumsy, with regards to the WP general guideline of staying away from interpretations, don't you think?

I agree that common-sense should be addressed. Which is not the case currently in my opinion. Ukraine's resistance without the US Javelins, military training, and extensive intel during the build-up, could have been much different. And there are several billion dollars coming in support from US and Europe.

A recurring argument, from the Oppose side, is in NATO not being significantly active as an organization. I'd like to point once again that with the article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, if Russia was to attack any NATO member state as retaliation for its country-scale weapon shipments, a collective war declaration would be called upon. This is on top of the last declarations from Jens Stoltenberg, explicitly engaging the organization - not to send troops to Ukraine directly, but explicitly to support the country politically and materially.

I am for what it's worth currently DDOS-ing russian websites from France, and consider myself a belligerent to some extent: etymologically I am waging war, in cyberspace, in some sense. Belligerence is completely subject to interpretations, and currently the views expressed here come a lot from the adversary position. Maxorazon (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. I stopped DDOS-ing, having reached a more balanced view on the topic. Maxorazon (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Not all NATO members have begun to provide or agreed to provide arms in the future. Countries which are, or will provide weapons should be added with the clarification made on their level of support, such as Arms Supplies: instead of Supported by:. Which should include Germany, France and others. Viewsridge (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose "Supported by" usually implies direct support of an explicitly military nature such as arms, advisors on the ground or access (to bases or to overfly). Apart from the direct belligerents, in this conflict there are perhaps three levels of support from the rest of the world to either side. Belarus appears to be directly supporting the Russians. Other countries are providing various supplies to the Ukraine. Most of the world is supporting Ukraine politically. Some are supporting Russia. A few are sitting on the fence. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not an extensive list of "who's who in the zoo". That doesn't help anybody and we don't write the article in the infobox. I'm not saying that Belarus should be in the infobox but this appears to be the consensus. Does NATO (HQ - as that very specific entity) reach the same threshold? If the premise of the RfC is that it does, the case is unclear - it is WP:TLDNR (but I did and I'm not seeing it). I could be convinced but I am not convinced. Unsigned: 12:07, 27 February 2022‎ Cinderella157 talk contribs)

First signing your vote would be great , second if the infobox is not a "who's who in the zoo", then why are there lilliputian rogue states such as Luhansk, and no mention of a force covering hundreds of millions of human beings? Maxorazon (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest procedural close This isn't listed as an RfC (per WP:RFC) and I would suggest not doing so because a) the above is not exactly a non-neutral summary (not due to lack of trying though, can see that the proposer tried to summarise the debate to date) -- editors should be able to make their own points; b) the situation is highly dynamic and RfCs, being a lengthy 30-day process, aren't really appropriate at this time compared to normal forms of WP:Dispute resolution because it is very likely the entire context backshadowing this RfC will change by the time the RfC period is up, hence making the RfC result invalid (by no longer being relevant). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I edited the RfC content to make it more compliant to the RfC requirements - any wikipedian is welcome to do so. I vocally express my disagreement here again: the current situation is not acceptable in my opinion. It is the choice of the Wikimedia foundation to cover hot topics, it it on the former and the wikipedian's responsibility to make timely resolutions on such editing conflicts. Maxorazon (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. I am open to another mode of conflict resolution, provided there is one. Maxorazon (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue is the dynamic is changing. Before some NATO countries clearly said they would provide arms supplies I might've opposed anyone else in that part of the table. I'm reconsidering the issue more and more. I suspect if we wait a few days to a week the issue will be more clear, so I would propose we consider WP:NODEADLINE on this issue, personally, as it is not critical and we discuss the issue in the lead and body. The main consideration with the infobox is whether information provided is properly contextualised, and that's what makes me hesitant about this change, lest it be potentially misleading and there not be enough space to explain it properly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, no deadline, this does not need urgent resolution - yet this is all very misleading to the reader in the current state, hiding NATO under the carpet is ignorant and dishonest at best. Maxorazon (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support procedural close per WP:RFCST, there should be a brief and neutral statement. Also, I agree with ProcrastinatingReader that an RfC is too slow a process given the speed at which events are changing. I suggest proceeding with a normal talk page discussion. Jr8825 • Talk 13:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

There have been at least 3 direct talk sections, and other indirect ones. I vote for ProcrastinatingReader's WP:NODEADLINE. Maxorazon (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe PR is citing NODEADLINE to say that an RfC on such a rapidly changing event is a unnecessary and possibly impractical. Regardless, I would oppose including NATO as a belligerent because of the risk that readers could interpret it as direct military involvement, per Pincrete's argument below. Jr8825 • Talk 18:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Only entities participating in combat operations should be included as belligerents. I understand the desire to include ever more information in the infobox, but it is one area where we should be ruthlessly prioritising. Too many conflict infoboxs end up overburdened with minor details, and it simply distracts from the essence of the situation. Ukrainian is at war. NATO is not. --RaiderAspect (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

NATO is one of the main protagonists in this invasion. Ultra-minor facts, such as the displayed allies of Russia, or the names of the commanders of the forces, or even ultra-detailed casualty numbers, are taking orders of magnitude more screen space in the infobox. Maxorazon (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Too many conflict infoboxs end up overburdened with minor details, and it simply distracts from the essence of the situation. agree very strongly here ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as per Belligerent...Ukraine stands alone fighting Russia, NATO has 'no plans' to deploy there.Moxy- 15:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose This is more of a one on one conflict over land. Belarus shouldn't even be listed as support in my opinion.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Only entities participating in combat operations should be included as belligerents. Support in the form of spplying weaponry, aid, political support etc should be covered in the text. Doing anything else is opening the door on a mass of WP:OR. I concur that at this stage Belarus probably should not be included given its present level of direct involvement. Pincrete (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Because NATO is a pact of 30 different sovereign states—each with a different sovereign power (except for UK and Canada), thus each with its own foreign policy. The secretary general of NATO doesn’t decide for sovereign states, because sovereign states recognize no superior. The bottom fact is that soldiers don’t fight for NATO, nor have they any allegiance to it, which in my case can only go to the Republic alone. Only sovereign states can ultimately mantain control of armies, and in fact only sovereign states can legitimately declare war on other sovereign states without breaking the law, being them bound by no law but their own. --Foghe (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose to including NATO as an organization. However, Belarus is an actual belligerent. Providing your territory to attack another country, including rocket attacks is an act of war. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless boots (or missiles/planes/whatever) are coming out of an entity (while still flying the flag of that entity) into Ukraine, they aren't a belligerent. There are no "NATO forces" or larger NATO mission to Ukraine, therefore they aren't a belligerent. BSMRD (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Sources do not say that NATO, as an organization, is supporting Ukraine. We should list the countries that are supporting Ukraine, not go making our own generalizations. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There are times multi-national organizations get involved in conflicts directly under their own banner. NATO did this in the Kosovo War, the UN did this in the Congo Crisis. That is different than those states happening to be a large part of the organizations deciding to send bilateral aid, which appears to be the case atm. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed edit request on 27 February 2022

Update infobox to include statistics mentioned in this analysis based on open source visual evidence. Perathian (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There's no indication that this is a reliable, published source. Jr8825 • Talk 18:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Map

I am concerned about the map. It shows a bunch of red arrows for Russian attacks, but nothing for Ukrainian resistance. Furthermore, Describing Kyiv as "contested" makes sense in a way, but sources say the city is under Ukrainian control. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: The contested icon also shows cities under the threat of capture, Kiev is still seriously threatened sadly.

I can add the Ukrainian counter-attacks in yellow arrows however I'm not sure where they are taking place due to the lack of references on the matter. If you provide me with some info on that I can add it to the map. Viewsridge (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

According to numerous sources, there was an assault on Kyiv the night of Friday-Saturday, but it was repulsed. That could be a start. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainians are intentionally minimizing the amount of publication of their troop movements, so it might be really hard to tell. The Russians probably are too, but since they're on the attack it kind of becomes less easy to hide. Juxlos (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Now also a Ukraine victory in Kharkiv, with a mop-up operation underway as of https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/02/27/ukraine-Ukraine-Russia-invasion-Kharkiv-Kyiv/5961645968790/. I am further concerned that a map with a bunch of red arrows moving into a yellow background is not a WP:NPOV depiction of a situation in which Ukraine is holding in many areas and starting to win in some, such as the above source, and also Kyiv https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-defenders-hold-kyiv-battle-for-kharkiv-after-night-of-russian-attacks-11645957216. For this reason, I will remove the current map. I believe there should be a map with this article, but per the above concerns, the current one does not stand up to scrutiny. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Map shouldn't have been removed. Whether the map should be removed should not be based on your personal concerns, but should be based on the opinions of editors through a support/oppose vote. Matthewberns (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: the map should be kept. You should raise your specific concerns either here or, preferably, over at the Commons talk page. Jr8825 • Talk 17:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

February 27 Map Needs More Updates

Melitopol fell to Russian forces and currently, the map shows it under Ukrainian forces (Battle of Melitopol) & there needs to be an airstrike marker put in Russia for the Millerovo air base attack which was confirmed to have at least destroyed one plane (more not verified yet, but one was). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe Russian control of Melitopol has been independently confirmed yet. Jr8825 • Talk 03:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Marca Elijahandskip (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally I would call for restraint and stop trying to account for all troop movements at this point, it is unclear (imo) what the exact troop movements are and who controls what (especially at this point of the invasion). In a few days it will be perfectly possible to make detailed maps (about the 27th), but for now I think restraint is in order, especially when it comes to these maps. I will give you 2 reasons for this: 1. All content on Wiki should be based on facts and not estimates or rumours (sometimes even misinformation) 2. Wrong info could have consequences in real life, maybe people will think some areas are safe when they are not, and so on. Kind regards.Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A Spanish sport newspaper for the latest updates in Ukraine – really? Jr8825 • Talk 17:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The GIF Map

... needs citation, as well as timestamps on the individual frames. The frames needs to be properly aligned with one another, so they don't jump around, and slowed down for better viewing.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (4)

Please update the infobox, Ukraine said a Russian platoon surrendered. https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-ambassador-says-russian-platoon-201138508.html BlackShadowG (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Until mentioned in a more definite way (currently the claim is solely attributed to the ukrainian ambassador), and covered in a variety of reliable sources I wouldn't say it's met the threshold for verifiability. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

.@Pabsoluterince: This infomation has been confirmed by the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine: «Російські окупанти, наткнувшись на тотальний спротив українських захисників, здаються в полон», – Валерій Залужний, I think it's reliable enough. BlackShadowG (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done -- Both of the sources named here are dated 24 Feb and refer to surrender of the 74th Motorized Rifle Brigade only. This information is already included and referenced in the article under the subheading "24 February". Additionally the infobox contains a Ukrainian claim of "200 captured" with a citation dated two days later than these sources. In light of these observations I'm marking this request as already complete. Thank you for the request. Please clarify your concern with more details if you need to re-open. --N8 19:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Casus belli

@Laurel Lodged: I restored because it seems you mistook what I wrote in my edit summary as an actual quote by Putin. Anyway, I think the casus belli is not so clear cut and needs to be discussed first. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think "to provide a casus belli" is OR. Mellk (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I took your feedback on board and amended the statement accordingly. Thank you @Mellk:. The opening paragraphs need context - the "why" of the war. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced these edits are an improvement. As far as I can see none of the sources talk about a casus belli, so I think this is still WP:OR. — Czello 10:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We can pipelink it to "ostensible reason" if you're uncomfortable with Latin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Czello, I also don't buy that the cause of war is Putin believing that he's doing a denazification of Ukraine, that's one of his stated reasons but to be fair the Germans listed the Gleiwitz incident as their causus belli for the invasion of Poland though no one takes that seriously. It's to keep Ukraine out of the EU's and NATO's orbits and to try and to reassert Moscow's authority over former Soviet lands. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't buy it either. It's not supposed to be the truth. It's no more than the fig leaf, the pretext for the war. We all know the real reason. Nevertheless, we absolutely need to provide a context, a "why" in the opening paragraphs. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Eventually, we will have enough material to write about the equivalent incident in Mityakinskaya. Not today. Nevertheless, that should not prevent us from calling out a pretext as a pretext. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "casus belli" should be used here either as it looks like OR. I think we can briefly mention the accusations like "aggression" of Ukrainian armed forces but there was a lot of bullshit that was coming out, we don't need to mention them all or say more than a few words. Troop build up, denies plans of invasion, criticizes NATO, and then such accusations are made. Those accusations should come after, not first. Mellk (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: I think that we are in agreement as to the substance and the need to provide context. Can we agree on the label / pipelinking ?

I am completely fine with such casus belli mention, provided proper sourcing. Maxorazon (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I am content with how the current paragraph is at the moment, with maybe a sentence added somewhere in the middle about the baseless claims of genocide, or towards the end the mention of the "appeal" by separatists for military assistance. Mellk (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Impeachment of President Putin

Russian web magazine "The Village" reports that Russian citizens signs the petition demanding impeachment of President Putin on his decision to invade Ukraine. At the moment, more than 130,000 people have signed this petition. Shall we add it to the article? K8M8S8 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Would prefer more RS coverage. Petitions can easily be botted, so would like to ensure this is actually a legitimate petition gaining traction. Also seems like the petition is on Change.org and literally even I'm able to sign it (and I'm not in Russia), so if it's just 100,000 people in the West who have signed it then it's definitely not worth including. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Help needed

At Russo-Ukrainian War, which is receiving far less editorial attention than this page. Jr8825 • Talk 13:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and there again hiding NATO's influence, not displaying it in belligerents is dishonest. Maxorazon (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not what 'belligerent' means Maxo.50.111.36.47 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it the same ? if so, merge the articles... --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The invasion of Ukraine this week, which is present article, is the result of a crisis/war started several years ago, covered in the Russo-Ukrainian War article. Maxorazon (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ok, but made me lazy when so much text and made me skip. like more tables and short explanations, thanks. --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Page size

Now grown to 335,369 bytes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We have had several discussions on this topic already. The byte size does not really matter, it's the prose size which determines if the article should be split. Right now it's at around 64k bytes -- articles don't usually need to be split until they are close to 100k. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Third time you've posted this. Third time I'll say that you're referring to raw size, not prose size, and there are no restrictions on raw size except that which causes technical issues. The prose size is well within guidelines at WP:SIZERULE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added the section size tracker to the top of the page to help keep track of things. I think it does help to show that the sections on 24 February and protests outside Russia are likely to be too detailed. However, I agree that large-scale cutting isn't currently required. Jr8825 • Talk 17:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And once again I will respond to you by pointing out that WP:LENGTH (of which SIZERULE is but a part) lists three criteria for determining whether a page is too long; while one is indeed "Readable prose size", "Wiki markup size" is another. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What issues exist with articles that aren't long in readable prose but are long in wiki markup size? I can think only of page load time, potentially, but 335k bytes is literally 0.3MB, so it's very hard to say there's a practical issue here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Help Needed : Where says Russia Started the Nuclear Weapons On ?

Please, with a so long text could not found this theme. Regards. --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP, see the bottom of  27th feb. Maxorazon (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah thanks, found all text too confusing, even this table Per Ukraine, Per Russia, Per UK ( what the hell has UK with war to do ?! ) per etc... anyway, check always with Aviation Security Site, what was gone, let's see if the An225 of Antonov is safe... dreamed that, because of crash, they were doing with rest the fuselage a second memorial airplane in china, above a barge or something... Regards. --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Alleged American involvement

I think this well covered allegation+rejection should be covered at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military support to Ukraine. Thoughts? Srijanx22 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsure it is well covered (it's one source) and even if it was what do we say "The USA denied a claim by the Russians the US might be doing something"? Seems to me to be so widely speculative its not worth adding. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Meanwhile there is no support to simply mention NATO as a supportive belligerent on the above RfC ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (disclaimer I made it) Maxorazon (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I changed my view a bit, I think it is important to balance the article with some views from Russia. Maxorazon (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict

@Da Vinci Nanjing: Because of an edit conflict, a lot of additions were undone for... the sake of one sentence? Mellk (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Casualties

1 Algerian citizen died today in Kharkiv 105.99.14.177 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done please provide a reliable source. Jr8825 • Talk 18:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added it in, but the only source that I can find is the one below. https://news-tunisia.tunisienumerique.com/ukraine-death-of-an-algerian-student-by-a-missile-attack/amp/ Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 23:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian economic crash

Hello everyone, there are many reports in the press about Russian ATMs being out of cash, long lines at banks, interest rates going up and so forth. I wonder if we need a new article called '2022 Russian economic crash' or 'crisis' or something like it? Victor Grigas (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 : Suggestion: Peace talks section

In the last 24 hours there have been developments regarding peace talks, from the Russian suggestion in Belarus (which was initially refused) to the acceptance of the peace talk proposal later in the day in the Belarusian border. News I read regarding this (in no particular order). I think this deserves its own section.
- https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/02/27/7326404/ (google translate)
- https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-rejects-russian-offer-talks-belarus-2022-02-27/
- https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ukraines-leader-country-ready-peace-talks-russia-belarus-83139629
- https://www.eunews24.com/world/ukraine-president-welcomes-peace-talks-proposals-in-video-message/
- https://www.ynetnews.com/article/h13f1xtxc (not sure whether this source is reliable)
- https://www.axios.com/ukraine-russian-invasion-talks-bedd8c3a-efc7-4549-92fe-b360e0655b5d.html
- https://nypost.com/2022/02/27/ukraine-and-russia-to-meet-for-peace-talks-without-preconditions-zelensky-says/
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/russian-banks-excluded-from-swift-what-we-know-so-far (Mentions peace talk only one paragraph)
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-zelenskyy-russia-crisis-putin-peace-talks-b2024252.html
- https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-27/ukraine-claims-control-of-kharkiv-and-confirms-talks-with-russia-will-go-ahead

Cheers-- FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2022 (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. Jr8825 • Talk 19:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

can someone please replace "talks" (in 27th february section) with Negotiations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (2022) - thanks ! Pierro78 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested changes: Adding a "Peace Talks" section, I have linked many sources regarding the matter. Are they considered not reliable? --FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If someone could add a Negotiations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (2022) that would be great also ;) - Pierro78 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding new data related to India and Indian and African students in Ukraine.

As per the latest news, there are more than 16,000 Indian people who are stuck in Ukraine are majorly students. And an evacuation of Indians has been started under operation Ganga. And Several Indian students fleeing Ukraine have alleged that they were harassed, beaten by the Ukrainian guards at the Poland border, and were not allowed to cross over and many Africans have been also stopped to cross the border. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/stopped-assaulted-at-ukraine-border-say-some-indian-students-2793334 Thecybergulf (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The source mentions only "several students" alleging. This seems a weak claim considering the scale of people trying to leave the country. A stronger and more certain source and some indication of the scale alleged would be necessary IMO to justify inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reaction of Latin American countries

I think there should be a section under "Reactions" for the responses from Latin American countries up to this point. I believe this is relevant and of general interest. The region may be perceived as somewhat removed from the conflict but in my opinion should not be omitted completely. A sentence or two dedicated to known responses per country would likely suffice at this moment (I would do this myself but do not qualify).

As a brief overview, many countries have so far condemned the attack, others have refrained from direct condemnation while calling for diplomacy, while Cuba and Venezuela have blamed NATO and seem to align with Russia to an extent. Brazil has shown signs of internal conflict, with the Vice President condemning the attack then later being scolded for speaking out of turn by president Jair Bolsonaro.

Here is an article that can be used as a source which lists some countries & their responses in a similar way to what I think would be appropriate on this page - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latin-american-countries-call-russian-withdrawal-ukraine-rcna17685 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CulturaVore (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

At least in Chile was in the news that the OEA (Organized Estates of America) make a declaration condemning the invasion but was not signed by Argentina and Brazil (even in the map those countries are marked blue) Argentina has interest on sputnik laboratories an vaccines and I dont know about brazil.. Its always interesting see the latin american context when the influences USA/Russia always has been in encounter.

Proposal Add Arrested Russian Protestors to Casualty Section

I propose adding the Anti-War protestors in Russia who have been arrested to the casualty section. I realize that on the face of it this may seem kind of a strange request but I would point two factors, A: a large number of Russians have been arrested in Russia in protests spanning the country, OVD-info estimates 5,000 over the past four days alone. B: As for arrest being a "casualty" I would point out that we do consider prisoners to be casualties and they are currently listed. They are prisoners of war, however there are reports in the CNN and other sources of riot police savaging protestors and inflicting corporal punishment before they are arrested and become prisoners. I think that this would furthermore highlight that this conflict isn't so black and white as to be Russia vs. Ukraine but a more multi-faceted situation. Anyhow I wanted to see what other editors think, and if this could be something that you all think could improve the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

They are not casualties.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine's South: Serious Deficiency in Wiki Coverage

The Russian invasion has thus far made the most progress in taking over the southern part of Ukraine (on and near the Black Sea coast), while Russian forces are typically facing much heavier and more effective Ukrainian resistance in the rest of the Ukraine. Ukraine's economy, which relies heavily on access to the Black Sea, would be crippled indefinitely if Russia takes over Ukraine's entire Black Sea coastline before any potential ceasefire goes into effect. There's plenty of news coverage on the rapidly developing situation in Mariupol, Melitopol, Berdiansk, Kherson, and Mykolaiv, and Russia is currently increasing its focus on taking over Odessa to try to complete it's choke-hold on Ukraine's south. There's sufficient news coverage of the unfolding events in the south as well as their larger implications, but this wiki is still woefully limited in covering that aspect of the invasion. Unfortunately, I don't have time to update the article myself, but thoughts on this are welcome. HKT^Talk 18:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with you, I'd also add beyond that coverage about the situation in Donbas where there is also alot of heavy fighting, I think the issue however is that the vast majority of reporters are in Kyiv and after Kyiv in Kharkiv and there are few if any in places like Melitopol, Mariupol, and Kherson so we're just not getting the same RS coverage there that we are in the north. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The article surely can be improved, with details on the respective strategies and their evolution. It is not evident to follow suit, since the tactics often change, and WP:HQRS are not legion yet. I have read this article from the institute for the study of war. Maxorazon (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Taiwanese Semiconductor Production

Does Taiwan really produce 92% of the global supply as stated under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Other_countries_and_international_organisations? That seems a bit much. 2A00:FB8:6593:A400:F84A:107E:9E93:95EE (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The claim in that wiki is overly broad. The cited Reuters article says Taiwan produces 92% of the most advanced semiconductor chips. However, Taiwan's total share of semiconductor production/revenue is more in the 50%-60% range. [10] HKT^Talk 19:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed the figure for now. Jr8825 • Talk 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Map differences

Hi, it seems that the map on this page is different from the maps on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_Russo-Ukrainian_crisis and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.225.28.195 (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

the losses of Russian manpower

here is a site with up-to-date information about the losses of Russian manpower: https://200rf.com/
Translate info:
At the moment, 4312 people have been killed. Of these, 1169 people cannot be identified. In captivity 768 people. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear this is a reliable source. Jr8825 • Talk 20:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (4)

The reference after Portugal in the 'Foreign military support to Ukraine' section is inconsistent and should be moved to after the comma. EloquentMosquito (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Popoki35 (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Spain sends shipment of defense military equipment to Ukraine

Source: https://elpais.com/espana/2022-02-27/espana-envia-20-toneladas-de-equipos-militares-de-proteccion-a-ucrania.html

I added the reference in this page P1221 (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (5)

On February 28th South Korea announced it will participate in the SWIFT ban againt Russia, as well as announcing an export ban on stragetic materials covered by the "Big 4" treaties to which Korea belongs— the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Australia Group, and the Missile Technology Control Regime. In addition, 57 non-strategic materials including semiconductors, IT equipment, sensors, lasers, maritime equipment, aerospace equipment are planned to be included in the export ban "soon" ("조속히 확정할 예정"). 222.99.95.163 (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 DoneP1221 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (3)

Please remove the statement at the beginning: "It is the largest conventional warfare operation in Europe since World War II.[37]" This is obviously false seeing as this conflict is at this stage nowhere near the scale of the War in Yugoslavia. 41.17.205.65 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We have a source saying it is, do you have a source denying it?. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is a poor statement from abcnews. It might dwell with frailty on some sort of metrics, such as kilometer.tank, or an integral of border kilometers crossed by enemy forces, but this is clumsy at best, an offense at worst, notably regarding victim numbers. Maxorazon (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure the Wars in Yugoslavia would be considered "conventional warfare", nor would I call them an "operation", same with things like The Troubles in Ireland. Whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine is conventional warfare and is a [targeted] operation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Warm can not be compared with green, and red can not be compared with dry. We can compare only things under the same category. Yugoslav Wars can be compared with ethnic conflicts in post-Soviet area. Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) can be compared with German invasion of Poland (1939). K8M8S8 (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In the lead especially we might argue this leans toward an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that deserves a higher level of scrutiny. The two sources currently cited don't specifically attribute this claim or provide an analytical basis. It's treated more like WP:Common knowledge or a claim the authors themselves make without further context (reference WP:RSCONTEXT). In contrast, CNN writers of this article attribute a very similar statement to an apparently unnamed "senior US defense official" made while "outlining US observations". Those writers also note how the official elaborated: "We haven't seen a conventional move like this, nation-state to nation-state, since World War II, certainly nothing on this size and scope and scale". Given the dates of publication, it seems at least plausible that our two current references drew from the same event where this official spoke. It might be appropriate to contextualize that claim further, if not in changes to the prose, at least by updating the references to include one quoting a probable primary source. --N8 23:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither source used actually makes the claim - one says "the biggest assault on a European state since World War Two" the other says "amounts to the largest ground war in Europe since World War II". Neither of these descriptions matches "largest conventional warfare operation". One source is describing an assault from outside a state, one refers to a ground war, our text says "conventional warfare operation", which would be a poor description of an attempt to attack and occupy cities, hindered in part by civilian militias. I agree with N8, this seems like an EXCEPTIONAL claim and fairly meaningless unless it is given more specific context. This reads more like a dramatic headline than actual useful imformation. Apart from the various Yugoslav wars, which would have been much bigger in terms of casualties - if not armoury - what troop and ordnance numbers were involved in the crushing of Hungary in '56 and Czechoslovakia in '67? Pincrete (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I expect this may change but for now I've added context to reflect that this claim was made generally and in early reports.
Might be best to leave this section closed, and continue discussion at the earlier talk section where this was originally raised. (Generally if a talk section already exists: use it. Though in this case, it's understandable that a requested edit would auto-generate a new section.) --N8 01:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Near Duplicate: See Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Largest European ground war since WWII?
Just noticing this and cross-linking for interested parties. --N8 00:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Chechnya and President Kadyrow is Belligerents too since invasion ! (with 10.000 units ...)

No one should forget who was involved. Sanctions might be appropriate...

Chechnya and President Kadyrow is Belligerents too since invasion ! (with 10.000 units under Chechnya and Russia flag ...)

PLEASE ADD (I do not have the right to edit the articel)

I added it in the german articles... https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russischer_%C3%9Cberfall_auf_die_Ukraine_2022 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krieg_in_der_Ukraine_seit_2014 --TwentyEighteen (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

But Chechnya is part of Russia, so already included? Dajasj (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the account request to adding Chechnya? 10th? 20th? We discussed it many times, even on current talk page. Chechnya is a part of Russia, and Kadyrov's troops are National Guard of Russia units. K8M8S8 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok but it is an atonomous republik of russia. But one thing is sure: Kadyrow is a leader and commander of a part of the invaders ! So he needs to be added imo! .--TwentyEighteen (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted Ramzan Kadyrov as a "Russian Commander" in the belligerents section. I'm not seeing any reliable sources that refer to him as such. As far as I can tell he is just the leader of a Republic within the Russian Federation but there are 22 of these so it doesn't make sense listing all their leaders in the Belligerents section. As a side note I really don't understand why there's such a desire to add Chechen stuff to the belligerents section. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason is he is seen more as a warlord than just a regional leader, a state within a state, a dictatorship within a dictatorship. His force the "Kadyrovtsy" is seen more as his personal militia than part of the Russian government. Think of Azov's relationship with the Ukrainian military except much larger and even more brutal.--Garmin21 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

More grammar and spelling issues

Under section "Media depictions" and subsection "Censorship and propaganda", two errors need attention.

"Many Chinese users of the social-media platform Weibo pushed pro-Russian sentiments and statements with a translation of Putins 24 February speech going viral and the connected hastag receiving 1.1 billion views in 24-hours. Other users have pointed the conflicts blame at the United States, comments that were echoed by the state broadcaster China Central Television."

An apostrophe is needed in "Putins", and "hastag" should be "hashtag".

Thank you!

--Blank2nowhere (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Apostrophe added and typo corrected. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Largest European ground war since WWII?

This article's second sentence says the invasion "is the largest conventional military attack on European soil since World War II" and properly cites a reliable source (ABC News). But is that correct? Roughly 180,000 Russian troops have been mustered at the Ukrainian border, not all of whom have yet entered the country. Compare this to the roughly 500,000 Warsaw Pact troops that invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968. I suggest we find a more definitive exploration of this alleged fact before we give it such prominence. PRRfan (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Was that a war proper though? Considering the cited casualties is just 12 military dead from the USSR, which is what the Russians probably suffered between your message and mine. Juxlos (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Per Reuters: "the biggest assault on a European state since World War Two" [11]. Reuters tends to be the gold-standard for factual reporting. Jr8825 • Talk 06:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems, a bit sensational though especially when it is in the lead para and the invasion is ongoing. We should move it down from the lead para at least (even though such analysis are better served sometime after the fact I can see its relevance). Gotitbro (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"the biggest assault on a European state since World War Two" is not the same as "the largest conventional military attack on European soil since WWII". What does a conventional attack mean anyway? Presumably not the Yugoslav Wars, which were long, nasty and murderous and involved many people, but were not "conventional" nor "assaults on a European state" (ie from an external power). I certainly agree that the claim lacks context and probably doesn't deserve this level of prominence. Pincrete (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Near Duplicate: See Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (3)
Just noticing this and cross-linking for interested parties. --N8 00:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Since this has been called into question in two talk sections, I contextualized the claim in the lead. Some of the comments I read here get into specific semantic differences between sources and I don't think I'm qualified to sort through those. In the short term, the updated phrasing reads "Early reports declared...." Hopefully this suffices until more detailed claims are available and elaborated. It will be interesting to see what reliable sources can quantify with respect to this topic and previous historic actions across Europe. --N8 01:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

UPS and FEDEx will no longer work in Russia

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ups-fedex-halting-shipments-russia-ukraine-2022-02-27/ Victor Grigas (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering the nature and scope of those business concerns, adding that information sounds like a good idea.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 03:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Ukrinform RS?

Ukrinform is state media of the Ukrainian government. I don't see it on WP:RSPS as either reliable or not. Is there any consensus on it? Personally think it's quite important to be sure as there are articles by them being used as sources in war articles. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• How is media from either side of this war a reliable source - other than what Ukraine claims, etc. Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That's my intended point. If we can't use RT how can we use the state media of any side of this conflict? 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukrinform is reliable for statements as long as they are clearly attributed to Ukrainian authorities, for example about control of specific places. The BBC is using it in this way. (Unlike Russian state-controlled media, which is mostly pumping out propaganda.) TASS, as a news wire, is somewhat reasonable for statements attributed to Russian authorities, but should be used cautiously. Jr8825 • Talk 04:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Desinformation regarding Kazakhstan's reaction

The following information:

Following its intervention in protests against the government earlier in 2022, Moscow requested that Kazakhstan send troops to assist in the offensive, but Kazakhstan refused, reiterating that it does not recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk separatists.

Is false. Please remove this completely. Ministry of Defence of Kazakhstan commented to Stopfake.kz, among other things:

'The request to send Kazakh military personnel to Ukraine or any other country has not been received and is therefore not being considered'

Credibility note: Stopfake.kz is a counter disinformation agency backed by the Ministry of Information and Social Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It is used mainly to combat the spread of fakes, such as the one written in this article and published on NBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no official denial published on anything but fact-checkers? Surely this would have been sent to press agencies if it was an official statement? 18:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: You want us to take the word of "Stopfake.kz", a source that appears to be written in Kazakh so few if any En Wiki editors can understand it, over the word of NBC News, a perennially reliable source, without anything else to corroborate your position? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You will have to translate. It is written in Russian which can be easily translated to English on deepl or google. Wikipedia does not prohibit referencing links written in other languages. The source article in NBC does not have ANY references at all. What kind of reliable source is that? See official comment https://t.me/modgovkz/2938 --Fl7wless (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not how sourcing works. NBC News is a reliable source and we will run with their coverage until/unless they correct it. We will not be using Google Translate on whatever potentially unreliable Russian language sourcing is presented. Do not change this to "unanswered" again, it's been answered by me and your previous attempt to add this which has been archived. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You have an official statement from the Kazakh Ministry of Defence directly contradicting what NBC says and you're saying it is unreliable only because it is written in Russian language. Your actions spread disinformation among wikipedia users reading this article. I have no other comments--Fl7wless (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: No; there is no prohibition whatsoever on "Russian language sourcing", nor on sourcing in any other language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, did I say there was? No, I said using Google Translate to translate foreign language text is not how to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The Kazakh Ministry of Defence have an English-language press center here: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/mod/press?lang=en but so far they do not seem to have published a translation of the statement they issued on Telegram (nor have they published it there in Russian or Kazakh judging by the dates). -Paul1337 (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

NPOV issue: background should cover natural gas disputes

The background mostly covers political issues, totally dismissing economic/resource disputes such as the major Ukrainian War#Russia–Ukraine gas disputes, Russia–Ukraine gas disputes. This conflicts with WP:NPOV.CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that this article should not aim to cover the entire elements of the conflict, there is the Russo-Ukrainian War article for that as you mentioned , and sub articles like a possible encompassing Elements of dispute for the Russian-Ukrainian war, or Russia–Ukraine_relations, Russia–Ukraine gas disputes could be factorized better between the invasion and the war ones. I agree that there is overlap, inequality of attention and many Russo-Ukrainian articles. Maxorazon (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Maxorazon:Covering the major dispute on natural gas is covering a fundamental element of the conflict, it is not a minor detail that you can leave for the other articles (currently that section is an obvious violation of NPOV by not covering it). It needs to be on this article because most people are accessing this one. At least add one paragraph on the dispute. I can't because of the current restrictions on this article.--CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Support - there is clearly not enough context about petroleum in the article - it is only mentioned in the context of ramifications/sanctions. Clearly it is an important factor and there at least needs to be a brief summary of it and links to other articles which can provide deeper context. 李艾连 (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Car crushed by "tank"

Neither a tank nor it was Russian, likely Ukranian 9k35 Strela-10 with inexperienced driver that lost control on road curve, probably due to low tractioin of steel tracks on asphalt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A highly speculative, and deeply misleading statement in a locked article should be removed from this page at once: "A Russian tank from a military column was filmed crushing a civilian car in northern Kyiv, veering across the road to crush it." where "veering across the road to crush it" implies deliberate intent not supported by the facts stated below. The tank was out of control.

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDgEJ6mcI6Q Makes absolutely no sense for Russia to spearhead with a close air defence vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Assuming it was a spearhead unit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if it was Russian, that video clearly looks like an accident and not like a deliberate war crime to me.

Maybe it does, to me that looks like wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, especially after it backed up off the car and began firing at civilian vehicles in the street! I think the driver had a 'happy accident' - however, what I think, or you think, is OR and not allowed in the article, but only how the RS's relate the incident. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Are there sources confirming that that tank was not Russian and that that was an accident?P1221 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Are there sources confirming that that tank was not Ukranian and that that was a deliberate war crime?

Either base on real evidence or not publish it at all, at least wether is was Ukranian/Russian and keep the war crime allegation out of it, unless proven.

The sources linked in the article tell the tank is Russian. If you can provide a source saying that the tank was Ukrainian,we can revise the article as you are asking to do. (and please, sign your comments adding four tildes at the end!!!) P1221 (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources also say it's a tank, when it's clearly not, but a mobile air defense system. Also no painted "Z" of the Russian invasion force.

So some claims, copied by a couple of newspapers is more evidence than a video where you can see, what likely really happened???2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as per WP:RS, newspaper are considered more reliable than Youtube comments. I can agree only on the fact that the tank is in fact a Strela-10 P1221 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Verfiability, Not Truth - and many Russian vehicles in this invasion have been confirmed to be unmarked. You'll need a Reliable Source backing your view.50.111.36.47 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you that the vehicle in question isn't a tank; I don't see any turret and what you've identified it as seems correct. Unfortunately, our own analyses of the videos isn't worth that much and we can't cite that in the article, as what matters is what reliable sources say. You'll likely need to provide better sources that accurately identify what the vehicle is for this information to be included. Consider directly emailing the news sources in question about their misidentification and ask them to print a correction, because this isn't something we can go out and fix on our own. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

More weird Strela stuff going on here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_WM7G_8BMA

Seems more like guy on joyride/rampage than actual war to me....2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Firefight preceding the car accident: https://vidmax.com/video/211138-wild-video-shows-russian-soldiers-get-ambushed-in-a-parking-lot-in-kyiv-all-3-killed 2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There should be an acts of heroism section where this is placed. Editdone (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We can confirm that this is an Unmarked Strela-10 Armored Vehicle, but multiple sources conflict the vehicle’s nationality. Regarding the 2 videos we have here:

- https://vidmax.com/video/211138-wild-video-shows-russian-soldiers-get-ambushed-in-a-parking-lot-in-kyiv-all-3-killed - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDgEJ6mcI6Q

I believe we should consider this as disputed until we receive confirmation from either party. MateoFrayo (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsure why this shouldn't unequivocally be listed as an "armored vehicle" - that's what some of the articles are calling it and there's no denying that's what it is. 李艾连 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

Can you add the territorial changes to the infobox? Russia has controlled several towns besides portions of Donetsk/Luhansk and Crimea. 184.146.39.97 (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2022 (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.―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 03:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Russia does not "control" anything; if you're referring to the Russian Army having captured several towns in Ukraine, a/p belligerence in WP no changes are usually made until either party relinquishes losses. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Spanish aid

It is being reported that Spain is sending tons of supplies to the Ukraine. I'm not entirely sure where this might go in the article, but it may be worth noting. Source here. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 21:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Most possibly it could go under "reactions", as that's the most suitable subtitle so far. However I would propose a small change that could make the dissemination of information easier. -- DefoNotMe (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this could fit under "reactions", I'll add it in on your behalf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefoNotMe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of AfD: Spillover of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

I have nominated Spillover of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spillover of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Maxorazon (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Units, involved in war, in infobox

How's about to display the structure of troops, involved in the war, in infobox? For example:

Ukraine

• Armed Forces of Ukraine
  • Ukrainian Ground Forces
  • Ukrainian Navy
  • Ukrainian Air Force
  • Ukrainian Air Assault Forces
  • Ukrainian Special Operations Forces
  • Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces
  • Ukrainian Militia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• State Border Guard Service of Ukraine
  • Ukrainian Sea Guard
• National Guard of Ukraine
• Security Service of Ukraine

Russia

• Russian Armed Forces
  • Russian Ground Forces
  • Russian Aerospace Forces
  • Russian Navy
  • Russian Airborne Forces
    • Russian Air Force
  • Russian Special Operations Forces
• National Guard of Russia
• Federal Security Service

Belarus

• State Border Committee of the Republic of Belarus

In the future, we can specify a troops composition and strength. K8M8S8 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this as I think it's extraneous information that will make the infobox overly long and harder to edit, without contributing much helpful information for the reader. I think I recall a similar discussion, but about adding more specific military units, and it was pointed out that there's a high risk of WP:OR in determining which forces are involved while events are still taking place. Jr8825 • Talk 17:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I oppose too, I personally do not want the infobox of this article to get as crowded as the one of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Maxorazon (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion could be to create a collapsible template under the Russo-Ukrainian war one? Maxorazon (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• • The point of an infobox is to summarize an article. Infoboxes in recent years have become bloated with attempts to basically include all of the "who" and "what" of the situation without the how. Russia is invading its land neighbour Ukraine; of course just about every official armed organization you could think of would be involved, directly or tangentially. How is this of great benefit to the reader to list this all in the infobox, aside from trivia? Just wait, at some moment footage will be linked online showing officers from random municipal divisions of the National Police of Ukraine firing their weapons on Russians, or a security guard from a government building helping to construct a barricade, and the list will continue to get bloated to the point of confusion. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Denazification refers to Ru§ophobia

Please see talk page guidance at WP:NOTFORUM. Jr8825 • Talk 10:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey! I cannot edit this myself, as I'm not an extended rights user. Someone should add this for the sake of objectivity and bilateral understanding of the arguments and allegations. Denazification isn't only a matter of anti-Semitism. In Ukraine in WW2 there were in fact Ukrainians aligning with Germans to oppose Russians, whom (in addition to Jews) the Germans wanted to genocide. Putin's claim of “denazification” doesn't have much support. However, I believe the aforementioned is what he meant and that's how it should be understood. It's a stretch, sure. But still. A lot of readers don't realize that Nazism included persecution towards more than Jewish people. Namely towards e.g. Russians. To converse, understand all sides first. Peace. ToniTurunen (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC) You are probably right, as he is not crazy yet, and I find your point refreshing. The Wikipedia rules however - unfortunately maybe at times, this is another topic :< - clearly state the requirement for reliable sources WP:RS - I'd be happy to add such explanation if you find such sources. Peace. Maxorazon (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC) I find this discussion unacceptable. It does not quote any souces. 'This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.' Mr President Zelensky has Jewish roots. Xx236 (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC) References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (2)

Casualties As Reported By Ukraine* Russia /Pro Russian Forces: ~ 5300 As Of 2/28/2022 Ukraine: ~ 500 As Of 2/28/2022

https://u24.ua/ IndulgeIn (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2022 (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. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 09:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add French foreign legion volunteers

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A31D:A145:B000:4C8A:CD93:82BF:78A1 (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) 

Source? Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Racism faced by Non-Ukrainians from the Ukrainian Military

Add another section in 'Ramifications' or create another point altogether discussing 'Racism faced by Non-Ukrainians from the Ukrainian Military'.

EDIT: Non-Ukrainian students trying to escape war-hit Ukraine have alleged that there is racial discrimination among evacuees trying to leave the country via neighboring countries. Journalist Stephanie Hegarty of BBC published a series of tweets explaining the ordeal of the students. She said that a Nigerian medical student told her that while she was waiting to cross the border, the Ukrainian soldiers did not allow black people to cross and sent them back. She said, “They have to let ‘Ukrainians’ through first”. MindOfOm (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Students from other countries would not be affected by a Russian takeover - they would be 'neutral foreign nationals' with immunity and processed back to their homes - the authorities giving preference to Ukraine refugees is hardly racism - it's protecting those that might be severely punished/killed. I would softpedal this as it's inflammatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

You are absolutely right, however Non-Ukrainians are reporting instances of severe beating and humiliation from Ukrainian Forces and are being told things like "Play game with us if you win you can go or else we will torture you" Is it not racism? Or is it normal? I have listed several sources of these instances I humbly ask you to thoroughly go through it to get detail ordeal and decide for yourself whether its racism or not. You can change the text slightly to your acceptance and add it to the page I have no issues but I think this aspect of the war must be on the page.

PS. You can give preference to Ukrainians leaving without asking Non-Ukrainians to "go back", also you said its not racism as the authorities are merely "Giving preference to Ukrainians" I would like to see proper sources of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MindOfOm (talk • contribs) 10:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail is the only good piece of RS on there IMO. Will read and add text accordingly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (3)

Hundreds of volunteers from the Romanian Siret customs made a support corridor for refugees from Ukraine, including food and drink. Romanian officials have also set up dozens of refugee tents.

Alexmmmm (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 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. Melmann 11:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2022

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

The result of the move request was: SNOW close; clear consensus against move. (non-admin closure). BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC) BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine – clear Primary topic. Jishiboka1 (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose What if in the future Russia invade Ukraine again? Will the article be renamed back? K8M8S8 (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Disambiguation is unnecessary with the proposed title currently redirecting here; if there is another war, we can move the article then, as we are proposing to do at Kiev Offensive. BilledMammal (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not the only Russian invasion of the Ukraine in the last 10 years. It is clearly the most recent topic (WP:RECENTISM). Let's just sit this one out for now and let some of the dust settle. It doesn't affect searching from the WP search bar. It doesn't affect a Google search. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:RECENTISM. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Ambiguous, there are 1918, 1919, 1939, 1941 and 2014, invasions of Ukraine. Viewsridge (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • You have a point about the 2014 War in Donbas that I will have to consider, but the rest are not ambiguous; 1918 and 1919 are consistently described as Soviet, not Russian, 1939 was Hungarian, and 1941 was German. BilledMammal (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    There could also be confusion with the Crimean annexation, which was a Russian invasion of Ukraine, albeit only part of Ukraine rather than the complete invasion we see here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Dropping "2022" would be ambiguous. Boud (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Yes, it's the primary topic, so what? The main goal here is clarity; there isn't a contest to come up with the shortest possible unambiguous title. The current title is already very concise. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The clarity of the name is "2022" - event considered by the time in history. Thingofme (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thingofme, Deeday-UK WP:RECENTISM HurricaneEdgar 10:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 2022 is a nice-looking number Maxorazon (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Although this is the only full-scale invasion launched by modern day russia, the name “russian invasion of ukraine” could still apply to the 2014 annexation of crimea Wikiman92783 (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spain sends ships to the Black Sea and offers fighters to NATO

Source: https://www.infolibre.es/politica/espana-envia-buques-mar-negro-ofrece-cazas-otan-plena-escalada-tension-ucrania_1_1217469.html

I added the reference in this page P1221 (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Add this Wikisource page

This Wikisource page should be added to the page, either in External Links or in the part about Putin's announcement on the "special military operation".

97.107.179.62 (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --N8 00:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (8)

At the bottom of the overview, under "Casualties and losses", on civilian causalties it says "Per UN: 406+ civilians killed[29]". This is incorrect according to the cited source. The cited source says 406+ civilian causalties, meaning injuries + deaths, of which 102 are deaths. This is clearly stated in the cited article: "There have been at least 406 civilian casualties in Ukraine since Thursday, according to the U.N.’s Human Rights Office....Michelle Bachelet, U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights, said the U.N. had recorded 102 civilian deaths..." 178.255.168.175 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Jr8825 • Talk 23:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (7)

In foreign military support, where it is talked about supplying aircraft to Ukraine, Bulgaria is supposed to have Su-25s not Slovakia KeplerBruv (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Quoting the cited source directly: "Slovakia also has Su-25 supply planes". If you're aware of a different WP:RS that claims Bulgaria also has Su-25 to supply feel free to provide the reference. --N8 00:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Misspelling

Section 7.1 header "Censorship and propeganda" should be changed to "Censorship and propaganda". Propaganda is misspelled. 128.239.237.162 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Propepeganda Maj Swag (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

NATO and EU participating

Since the EU and NATO are officially sending weapons to Ukraine, shouldn't they be listed as supporting Ukraine?-Karma1998 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

We were discussing this issue above, the conversation was recently closed as no consensus. I have to now agree they should be added. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

March 1st Russian Tank Column

There should be a correction to where it reads "A 60-km-long convoy of Russian tanks was reported to be heading down on Kyiv."

The source states that the road they are on is 60km long, not that the column itself is that long.

Additionally the source says that it is an armored column, an armored column doesn't necessarily mean just tanks it can also include APCs and other mechanized armored units. 184.155.9.83 (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

✅ Maxorazon (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Change "Prime Minister Johnson" to "UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson" and include internal link to Wikipedia article on Boris Johnson

The first sentence in the second paragraph under Sanctions under Ramifications refers to a 'Prime Minister Johnson'; Can we change this to 'UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson' like when referring to 'US President Joe Biden' in the previous paragraph and provide an internal link to the Wikipedia article for Prime Minister Boris Johnson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanos100 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done although in the future please use the Extended-confirmed-protected edit request to ask for page changes. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 02:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

Add Australia to list of arms suppliers for Ukraine in infobox https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-01/scott-morrison-russia-ukraine-war-weapons-lethal-aid/100871304 MrAustin390 (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now we're not adding arms suppliers to the infobox until the RfC on this page is completed. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022 (3)

Change the See also link under the section "Foreign military support to Ukraine" from "List of foreign aid during the Russo-Ukrainian War" to "List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War". This would avoid a redirect. Curiocity1 (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is Belarus situated?

Belarus is neither 'outside Russia' nor 'in Russia'.Xx236 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

what do you mean? By a geographical point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by P1221 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I also can't seem to understand the question being asked, or how it relates to the content in the article. Belarus is an independent country, separate from Russia, bordering both it (to the west) and Ukraine (to the north). At present, it is a Russian ally, but not "in Russia". Goodposts (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Belarus is a part of the Union State. Russia attacks Ukraine form Belarus, a specific form of 'indepedence'. Belarus is economically, politically and militarly controlled by Russia. so listing it among 'outside Russia' misinforms. I have introduced 'In Belarus' section, now removed. I still believe it to be the best solution. Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hundreds-of-belarusians-protest-russian-attack-on-ukraine/ Xx236 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The 'Union State' isn't really a state. It's an international union that isn't really doing all that much for the time being. Furthermore, although Russia has heavy influence in Belarus, it is neither economically, nor militarily 'controlled' by Russia. This is exemplified through Russo-Belarussian conflicts such as the Milk War. Lukashenko also had several dozen Russian military contractors arrested a couple of years back, and accused Russia of trying to undermine him in order to secure a more favorable result in the 2020 election. A 'politically, economically and militarily controlled state' could not have done any of this. With that said, ever since the huge scandals around that election, and subsequent Western sanctions against Belarus, it is nevertheless true that Russian influence over Belarus has increased, and Belarus is growing more dependent on Russian markets in order to avoid an economic crisis. It is likely this factor that contributed to Belarus allowing Russia to use its territory for an invasion, despite previously positioning itself as the "middle ground" between Ukraine and Russia - something which will only increase Russia's influence. Belarus' international situation is very complicated at this moment, and certainly can't be boiled down to "Belarus is Russia". Goodposts (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Belarus reports

It's now Tuesday so predicting what will happen on Monday is unnecessary. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While there are intelligence sources in the West stating they've picked up intel about Belarus possibly entering the fray by Monday, I suggest we wait on reporting this. Wiki's not a newspaper, and while I suspect this will happen, restraint before adding these reports to the article would be prudent.50.111.36.47 (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Some wikis may be newspapers, but that's not our problem. Here we're on Wikipedia, not Wiki. Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! There are other wikis out there – Wikipedia is just one of them. Boud (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC) You do understand editors refer to Wikipedia as "Wiki," I hope? Your comment had nothing to do with the point I was making. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Editors say "the wiki" (lower case, with "the") when it is obvious from the context which wiki is being discussed, but not "Wiki". Writing "Wiki" instead of "Wikipedia" is a distraction. Ambiguity is generally discouraged in Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC) This is both untrue and irrelevant. There are instances of 'wiki' (without the definite article) elsewhere on this very page. To address the substance of your comment IP, it's already been added. Current events articles tend to rush to include. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Protests in Mexico

I wanted to add Mexico to the list of countries where pro-Ukraine protests have occurred (with this citation https://politica.expansion.mx/mexico/2022/02/26/fuera-putin-de-ucrania-piden-ucranianos-en-la-embajada-de-rusia-en-la-cdmx). But I am not able to edit the page. I do have more than 500 edits and have been an editor for a very long time, so I expected I should be able to edit. Does someone know why this is? Thank you very much.--Homo logos (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Homo logos: It looks like you have way more than 500 edits on both Spanish and Lojban wikipedias but fall a little short on English. You probably have the necessary group rights on those wikis but not (yet) on en.wikipedia.org. Since this article is getting quite long and already has a maintenance tag to that effect I recommend you contribute this source at the "Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article which has a lower level of protection. I think the protest section here might eventually get trimmed to a higher level summary in the long run anyway. Alternatively, you can use an edit request including the verbatim text changes you recommend and another editor may be able to assist with making changes here. --N8 19:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian plans according to RIA

https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC) 'There will be no Ukraine as anti-Russia.'Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Turns out currently that there will maybe be no Putin as anti-Ukraine instead. Please refrain from such basic antagonizing statements, let's strive for a clear and wise view of the picture. Maxorazon (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

RIA informs about Russian politics. The text has been probably erroneusly published and removed. 'antagonising'? Is there anything more antagonizing than inviding a nation? Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have been stupid, my bad. I will look into it. Maxorazon (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thinking ahead: Live sources and referencing

For compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability we should probably try to reduce our reliance on live sources and fix refs that no longer support text because the items on the live feed have changed. Easier after the events cool down, yes, but interest in the article will diminish too and with 580 refs (and counting), the effort would be too great for a few people to handle. It would also be nice if we could replace many disparate refs with a single ref that discusses multiple things, to generally get our # of refs lower. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed: isn't there special wikimedia/wikipedia tooling for this? Maxorazon (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately none that I'm aware of; it requires hard thankless labour from volunteer editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Why not just mark as unfit and let the source fall back to the archive? Archive.org automatically archives all external links added to Wikipedia within 24 hours. Melmann 15:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Maxorazon: this tool can quickly show some duplicates but as ProcrastinatingReader indicates, there's still some manual work involved in finding where and fixing. A quick look at source shows https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60517447 is cited with maybe half a dozen different titles or more. Thanks for mentioning and yes - thankfully Archive.org is helping mitigate as well. --N8 15:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Turns out BBC has a pinning ID you can use to link directly to the specific live update. See this edit for example. You can grab that identifier - or the link to the specific update - by clicking on the "Share" button under the post when you find it. Remember to remove any other tracking parts of the URL as recommended in Template:Citation#URL --N8 16:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Destruction of Antonov An-225 Mriya

Go to Talk:Antonov An-225 Mriya or Talk:Battle of Antonov Airport. Closing to declutter talk. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Congratulations! Please add a page about the Ukrainian Dream to this article.--Максим Огородник (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC) I suggest to ask that question in that article's discussion page. This discussion page shall be used for changes asked for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article only. P1221 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Future of "invasion" section

As the conflict continues, it is obviously unsustainable to have sections for each day of the conflict. I was thinking that it could be condensed into months, but at what point should this occur? Alextheconservative (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably at the point when things start dying down to like only 1 or 2 things per day probably. Seems like the sections for each day so far have been getting shorter and shorter. Maybe even have a separate article for each month if need be. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Depends on if it goes on for months. We lack the WP:CRYSTALBALL to know. I'd say if it goes on for longer than a week, and the pattern of each day getting shorter and shorter continues, we start condensing by week and so-on. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Foreign citizens killed

The Greeks who killed were not foreign citizens, they were Ukrainian citizens belonging to the Greek minority.Gre regiment (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian financial crisis

Someone started 2022 Russian financial crisis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

flag icons in info box

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is clear. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it necessary to repeat the same flag icon over and over in the info box? Seems a bit of an eyesore. Govvy (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC) MOS:FLAG and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG say that flags are added where person or military unit discussed represents a country, and avoidance of flags in infoboxes is exempted in military conflict infoboxes, so I suppose they should stay. You can hide flags on your own side if you find them an eyesore, by adding .flagicon {display:none;} CSS rule to your user-specific stylesheet. Melmann 15:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC) @Melmann: They generally don't bother me, but I don't know why, maybe my colour-blindness, they tend to make my eyes funny just looking at them. Govvy (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Sections collapsible?

Off-topic

 – Questions about how to use Wikipedia are welcome at the Wikipedia:Help desk.

Is it difficult to make sections collapsible? I would love to not need to scroll through the background section every time I refresh the page to see the updated daily summaries. 64.85.244.29 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Mobile site has a feature for collapsible sections. On some screen sizes it's collapsed by default. On some it's not. You can switch to mobile site by clicking "mobile view" at the very bottom of any page. And return to "desktop view" from the same place. In desktop view, currently it's not possible to collapse section for logged out users. However, logged in users can use one of the many scripts developed by other editors to collapse it. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 16:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

customization available at WP:Skin AFAIK. Maxorazon (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Show links to Kherson, Kyiv Offensive etc wiki pages at the top please!

Having seen the excellent coverage here, and separately - by chance - the Kherson offensive Wikipedia page, which actually seems to cover the whole South Eastern region: Maybe you already have such specific invasion links buried someplace on the page, but surely they should be clearer, near the top. For example, where you now have old historic links, which while of interest are surely of less immediate relevance. So the sub- invasion page links could surely go above them, or the historic ones could be shifted to a less prominent location. Also worth remembering the different Wikipedia phone and desktop views, in this and other respects. Thank you again for the good coverage, especially as I assume it's mostly by volunteers without pay. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Added - About links to Kherson Offensive etc

I am unable to edit previous suggestion: There is a Related Articles section at the bottom here but it does not list the Kherson Offensive (and maybe others, perhaps Kharkiv if not listed...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kherson_offensive Also as said would be better if those links were near the top someplace. Many using phones possibly do not see them, (as I didn't before). Well done again in this page effort. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on Kherson offensive. Although the layout might not be ideal for all readers, it's guided by Wikipedia's Manual of Style so we try to follow that whenever possible. Notice however that the Kherson offensive is already linked much earlier in the article text under all five of the subheadings for each day of the invasion (i.e. "24 February", "25 February", etc.). You can also find it linked in the "Russo-Ukrainian War" information box right near the top after expanding that box by clicking "show". Hopefully that makes it accessible to most readers. Generally, the section "See also" is used for items that have not already been linked from within the article text. That's probably why the link isn't replicated there. Thanks again for checking on it. --N8 17:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

video: Russian shelling of Kharkiv on 28 February

This video is very shocking, should it be edited, can it be on this page, should it be on this page, what does everyone think, what are the wiki policies.. Kind regardsDubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum: The relevant policy is WP:NOTCENSORED, so even if it is very shocking, it should be kept if it adds value to the page. NonsensicalSystem^(error?)_(.log) 18:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Added Also link to Battle of Kharkiv 2022 wikipedia page

About showing Kherson Offensive link upfront (at top) as mentioned, also the Kharkiv battle.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kharkiv_(2022), along with more clearly showing the already listed ones in Related Articles at the bottom... 188.65.190.67 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think my previous response in your earlier post for Kherson also applies here. If I've misunderstood, please clarify with additional details. --N8 17:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Map Updates?

We have a link to the battle at Zaporizhzhia, reports of encirclement at Mariupol, Sumy and Kherson. I believe the Southern front of the map needs to be updated to reflect that current movements of the Russian military to reflect the reports that we have on the pages concerning them and in the Timeline section and perhaps in the Eastern Ukrainian front. NativePride73 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

More protests

Russia's embassies in Bogota, Santiago and Buenos Aires have also seen protests and manifestations, hence a request of their addition to the list of protests under reactions.

Sources (in Spanish)

[CO] [AR/CL] Maj Swag (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

'verbatim text': "...Argentina, ... Chile, Colombia, ..." with the aforementioned references in the reference box (more like book)

 Note: This request is missing verbatim text that you would like to have added to the article. Leaving this request open for now.

@Maj Swag: The article "Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" is only semi-protected (lower level of protection) and as an autoconfirmed user I think you should be able to add this information there without requesting a proxy edit. Thanks for posting this update and links. I'll watch for english language sources and any updates to this edit request you add later. --N8 18:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson: The page is actually protected, not semi, so no, I cannot. Maj Swag (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Maj Swag: Oops! I don't know why you can't edit that page but the page permissions and yours definitely still look like you should be fine. Not sure what I'm missing but my apologies for suggesting you edit something you can't!

Thanks for the 'verbatim' even though it's just a list. I didn't realize that's what you were asking until taking a closer look at the current text.

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Even though it's short, give me some time on this one. Want to see about English sources if available as they're preferred if possible. (And I imagine it's getting English coverage too.) --N8 19:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson: Here are some sources, with the most obvious being YouTube videos and the text (news) sources only glancing over the protests without really elaborating

CL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVrqaURFzfg&ab_channel=AFPNewsAgency

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/protests-in-mexico-chile-against-russian-invasion-articleshow.html

AR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rdq9CXDlnQ&ab_channel=GlobalDailyMirror

https://mb.com.ph/2022/02/27/russia-out-worldwide-protests-in-solidarity-with-ukraine/

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/russia-out-worldwide-protests-in-solidarity-with-ukraine-101645925924326.html'

Colombia somehow got picked up by a Spanish (Spain) news agency but not an English-speaking one, so that's all for now. Also take your time, this isn't anything important.

 Done Thanks @Maj Swag! I was just updating this as complete (got an edit conflict) as you posted these. I found Reuters reported on a couple locations so I cited them where possible and currently, there's an Op-Ed by the New York Post cited for Columbia. As you mentioned - odd this hasn't been published widely in other English sources yet. It's not the best English reference but might be ok here as the only portion used is a captioned photo of protestors.

If you're active on es.wikipedia.org be sure to post those original refs there too. ...and again - thanks! --N8 22:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson: I see you can speak Spanish (es-3) so I'm even more confused as to how you still managed to misspell Colombia lmao, but in any case, no, I'm not as active there since my Spanish is not great (anymore), and thanks for the quick response time!

Twitter post by a journalist being used to press the entire stance of "Europe"

• 28 Februari 2022 17:54, user Black Future added a Twitter post by a journalist (Lazar Berman) from the Times of Israel which is supposedly meant to represent the entire stance of "Europe" (whatever that might mean).[12]
• 28 Februari 2022 20:13, I removed this edit as I believe its a violation of WP:RS to use such a low quality source in such a high-profile article. Strong claims require strong sources, and a random Twitter post by a journalist certainly shouldn't receive a free pass.
• 28 February 2022 20:16 user Alcaios reverted me and simply reinstated said Twitter post (edit summary: "per sources")[13]

I cba arguing over this as I got more pressing things to do IRL, but I'm just wondering; how can a Twitter post by a journalist (in this case, from the Times of Israel) possibly be used as WP:RS to confirm the entire stance of "Europe"? IMHO, such a claim requires much stronger sources (also per WP:NOTNEWS). - LouisAragon (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, said Twitter post has now been swapped by user Alcaios with an actual Times of Israel post written by the same journalist (Lazar Berman) who owns aforementioned Twitter page.[14] Said journalist in turn references "a European diplomatic source".[15]- LouisAragon (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: I didn't revert your edit intentionally; there are a lot of concomitant updates to this article at the moment. The Twitter link has indeed been replaced with the Times of Israel's article. Alcaios (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Post-Soviet context and Orange Revolution

Proposal to add the rest of the paragraph under: Russia was one of the signatories of the Charter for European Security, which "reaffirmed the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve".

Each State also has the right to neutrality. Each participating State will respect the rights of all others in these regards. They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence. . --Murkunas (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Also proposal to add this excerpt from the FOUNDING ACT ON MUTUAL RELATIONS, COOPERATION AND SECURITY BETWEEN NATO AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION I. Principles Consistent with the OSCE's work on a Common and Comprehensive Security Model for Europe for the Twenty-First Century, and taking into account the decisions of the Lisbon Summit concerning a Charter on European security, NATO and Russia will seek the widest possible cooperation among participating States of the OSCE with the aim of creating in Europe a common space of security and stability, without dividing lines or spheres of influence limiting the sovereignty of any state. Murkunas (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Russia bans flights that originate or terminate on EU territories on 28 February 2022 (8)

Russia in response to the EU airspace ban, have banned any flights which originate or terminate in EU territories. https://twitter.com/LatestAnonPress/status/1498019541065953281?s=20&t=TC2rr2wIXskr_ITbDGUiBw https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-28/russia-bans-all-of-eu-from-its-airspace-in-response-to-sanctions IFlyPlanes (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2022 (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. 晚安 (トークページ) 08:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracy on Economic impact section

"The Russian stock market crashed, falling 39%, as measured by the RTS Index, on the first day of the invasion, with similar falls in the following days."

The last part of this sentence does not appear substantiated - Feb 24 indeed had about a 39% drop from 1226 to 746, but Feb 25 had the index rebound back to 936. (I could not find any data for the 28th.) --2600:1700:4579:B80:B494:BE18:560A:94C7 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Strength of Ukrainian forces

Is there any good estimates on the size of the Ukrainian volunteer force? Feel like it should be added to the infobox. Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 21:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be too hard to guess, being that the numbers are changing every minute, you'd have to imagine. Maybe a source might have an estimate, maybe you try to extrapolate a number from the current units plus a rough guess of males between 18 and 60, since that's confirmed, but it does seem a little unlikely to confirm. TheCorriynial (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested template change

I would change the wording of the template at the top of page, where it states "This current military offensive documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this current military offensive may not reflect the most current information. (February 2022)" and possibly replace it with a {{current}} template, as this isn't nessearily a "issue" (atleast an issue that can be fixed). —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 22:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Talk: page is the correct place to suggest that the two issues/concerns be displayed independently but in this case we should establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template to directly request the change. The {{current}} template is actually what's included in the page right now. It's just wrapped with a {{multiple issues}} template which presents it as one of the "issues". If I recall correctly, it was previously displayed as separate. Since it has been changed once, it would be good to invite discussion before changing it back. --N8 23:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for correcting me about using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. However, would you think it be unecassary to undo the change? —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 23:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@I'ma editor2022: I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking in that last comment however, it looks like BilledMammal handled this change already in this edit. Raising this concern on Talk: was the right place to mention it. Thanks! --N8 23:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It's ok, but thank you for notifying me!—Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 00:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

COVID in the invasion

Thie article COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine has not been updated in months, and I think it is likely important that we establish what is going on with COVID during this invasion. Has it been made worse by it? this article seems to think so https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-covid-polio-mounting-health-threats-rcna17780 MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You may want to add that information in the COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine, as that relates more with the pandemic in the Ukraine, not with the Russian invasion . Remember, you can always be bold and update the article yourself (you can always add another section!), just make sure you add more than just one source. If you need some help with it, you can ask other users at the Help Desk, the Teahouse, the article's talk page, or you can ask me! —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 23:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Two typos under section "Foreign military support to Ukraine"

Hey y'all, make sure to spell-check your edits. I found two typos in this section, and its likely that there are plenty more in the rest of the article.

"On the evening of 28 February, the government of Norway decided to donate up to 2,000 M72 LAW anti-tank weapons to Ukraine in adittion to previous announced helmets and other protective gear."

"This assisted the Ukrainian military to improve its quality, with the Ukrainian army achieving noticeable succusses against Russian proxy forces in Donbas."

Can't edit this page, so I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could correct this. Appreciate y'all!

--Blank2nowhere (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Done the two you've noted. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Snake Island"

The article consistently refers to "Snake Island". But the name of the island is Зміїний (Zmiinyi in the Latin alphabet). I expect Wikipedia has a policy on translation of names. To me, it seems respectful to use native names as much as possible.

Nevertheless, I recognize that in the interest of communication to English-speaking readers, some concessions are necessary and appropriate. Notably the common name of the country is used in the article's title. Its capital, well-known as Kiev, is spelled more accurately as Kyiv. These make sense because few readers of English Wikipedia will have any experience with the Cyrillic alphabet.

This is just a comment for now. However, if Russia decides to annex "Snake Island" under a different name, it might become more important. It is also possible that Ukraine might rename it, say, Thirteen Heroes Island. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME the current name seems to be Snake Island. Regardless, this edit seems more like an opinion, and not to the right page. If you believe that the common name is no longer Snake Island but Zmiinyi Island in English reliable sources, I suggest starting a move request on the Snake Island page. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 02:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here to help with article as I can - Qs for you:

Incredible to see what you all have put together in past few days. Happy to join team. Can't catch up right now with all the previous posts, just wanted to pop a couple Qs in here to everyone:

1) is anyone here skilled at recrafting Lead sections? Readability according to Hemingwayapp.com is Post-graduate level for first 3 paragraphs and we have a Lot of kids trying to understand this too. I'd be happy to help with whomever is focused on updates to the Lead.

2) re: collaborations with coverage of same topics in other languages, how are the people working on source material coordinating between the many many language sources?

2) re: Related wikipedia articles - When I googled "Ukraine war" I got tie ins to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War ? instead of this article. With so much happening at once - which older-article pageviews are most lighting up, and who here is working on updating those too?

3) what help from others around the world is needed most to get and keep this article as high quality as possible? Who should I coordinate with here when I can bring more volunteers to help?

4) Is there a Telegram channel, discord or other chat platform where active editors are discussing things in live chat?

I'm sure many answers are written above and I will dig in to the mass up there soon - thanks for quick Q&A here. Grateful for all you do! DrMel (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how that app works, but I'd think the current lead is comprehendible at high school level, if not sooner. simplewiki may be more suited for more other approaches, though that's not to say the sentence structure of the lead can't be improved. Generally I think 'better' (think FA-class) English Wikipedia articles tend to be less comprehensible for kids.

Regarding live chat, a WP:DISCORD and WP:IRC exist, though I don't know if improvements to this article are being discussed there, and generally if a dispute arose then discussion would have to take place on the talk page here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

1) Some topics are best left to adults. In any case there's the Simple English wikipedia

2)Norm is to add a hatnote at the beggining of the article, like Coronavirus the public tends to shift towards more specific vocabulary on their own as they learn the nuances.

3)Good sources, and good summaries from those sources. Try not to get your information from the internet itself, if you have offline sources of information, you can add them to Wikipedia.

4) Communication often happens in Wikipedia edit summaries, talk pages and user talk pages. Off site communication is allowed, but not looked upon favourably.

--TZubiri (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here to help with article as I can - Qs for you:

Incredible to see what you all have put together in past few days. Happy to join team. Can't catch up right now with all the previous posts, just wanted to pop a couple Qs in here to everyone:

1) is anyone here skilled at recrafting Lead sections? Readability according to Hemingwayapp.com is Post-graduate level for first 3 paragraphs and we have a Lot of kids trying to understand this too. I'd be happy to help with whomever is focused on updates to the Lead.

2) re: collaborations with coverage of same topics in other languages, how are the people working on source material coordinating between the many many language sources?

2) re: Related wikipedia articles - When I googled "Ukraine war" I got tie ins to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War ? instead of this article. With so much happening at once - which older-article pageviews are most lighting up, and who here is working on updating those too?

3) what help from others around the world is needed most to get and keep this article as high quality as possible? Who should I coordinate with here when I can bring more volunteers to help?

4) Is there a Telegram channel, discord or other chat platform where active editors are discussing things in live chat?

I'm sure many answers are written above and I will dig in to the mass up there soon - thanks for quick Q&A here. Grateful for all you do! DrMel (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how that app works, but I'd think the current lead is comprehendible at high school level, if not sooner. simplewiki may be more suited for more other approaches, though that's not to say the sentence structure of the lead can't be improved. Generally I think 'better' (think FA-class) English Wikipedia articles tend to be less comprehensible for kids.

Regarding live chat, a WP:DISCORD and WP:IRC exist, though I don't know if improvements to this article are being discussed there, and generally if a dispute arose then discussion would have to take place on the talk page here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

1) Some topics are best left to adults. In any case there's the Simple English wikipedia

2)Norm is to add a hatnote at the beggining of the article, like Coronavirus the public tends to shift towards more specific vocabulary on their own as they learn the nuances.

3)Good sources, and good summaries from those sources. Try not to get your information from the internet itself, if you have offline sources of information, you can add them to Wikipedia.

4) Communication often happens in Wikipedia edit summaries, talk pages and user talk pages. Off site communication is allowed, but not looked upon favourably.

--TZubiri (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Economic Impact (Feb 28/2022)

Can we add a description about both Shell and Norway's Equinor announcing on Feb 28, 2022, that both of them are exiting their respective Russia operations due to the Ukraine Invasion Phileo (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022 (2)

WP:NOTAFORUM

It's not invasion. It's military operations in order to save Russian people in Ukraine from Neo-Nazzis from Ukraine, USA, EU and UK. 31.223.132.51 (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Invasion "an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.", it says nothing about why. Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Is there really even a need to engage with such comments? Can we just remove this entirely? -- Sentimex (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC) As not everyone speaks English as a native, yes, as they may genuinely not be aware of what the word means. What we may need is a FAQ at the top of this page giving a few basic facts like this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2022 (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. BSMRD (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022 (4)

Add in the 1 March section "Belarussian forces were reported by Ukrainian authorities as having entered the Chernihiv Oblast in order to aid the Russian invasion, though this was denied by President Lukashenko." Guyfromearth2 (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Already done K8M8S8 (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Added about: Casualties and Losses Section

As I cannot edit/reply in the above talk section. To clarify about the columns should be clearer "according to" or "for": The top FLAGS should have such clarifying text with them (It's not about identifying the flags as being Russian or Ukranian!) In addition, making it worse, the "per" is also unclear about meaning "according to" or "for".

So the division should be

 FOR Russia + Flag / FOR Ukraine + Flag

Then, below "according to" would be better than "per"

Alternatively, According to Russia + Flag / According to Ukraine + Flag ..and below "for" would be better than "per"...

As before, thanks for the great voluntary effort behind the page, not least the map updates and the day-by-day invasion progress editing. 188.65.190.66 (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Walk out on Sergei Lavrov speech to the United Nations Human Rights Council

Not sure where the best place for this is (maybe in the reactions section here), but it seems like it's probably worth a mention:

• Nebehay, Stephanie (1 March 2022). "Western envoys, allies walk out on Lavrov speech to UN rights forum". Reuters. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2022. More than 100 diplomats from some 40 Western countries and allies including Japan walked out of a speech by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the top U.N. human rights forum on Tuesday in protest over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Aluxosm (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are some more sources:

• Cumming-Bruce, Nick (1 March 2022). "Diplomats walk out of Lavrov's speech at the U.N. in Geneva". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2022. Ukraine's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva led the walkout, which left a largely empty conference hall to hear the remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov at a conference on disarmament.

• Shah, Furvah (1 March 2022). "UN diplomats walk out on Russian minister's speech in protest at Ukraine invasion". The Independent. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2022. Dozens of officials, including those from Britain, the US and the European Union, left the UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, Switzerland on Tuesday as a video message from Vladimir Putin's ally played.

Aluxosm (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Here's the diff. Aluxosm (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian reliable sources

I draw attention to following situation. Some news appear in Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian media but Wikipedians don't use these sources; then Western media reprint these news and Wikipedians include it into the text of the article with references to Western media and without references to media published these news for first time (for example, the news about control of the cities and towns, about Ukrainian casualties, about Ukrainian refugees is regularly publishing by UNIAN and Ukrinform; news about Russian war censorship and anti-war protests in Russia appeared in Novaya Gazeta, The Moscow Times, Dozhd; the news about Belarusian paratroopers preparing to invade Ukraine were published by Belsat TV). This situation is unfair to Eastern-slavic journalists.

I suggest to consider the following media as reliable sources:

• UNIAN, Ukrinform - in matters related to actions of Ukrainian government and armed forces, humanitarian situation in Ukraine, and other events within Ukraine
• Belsat TV, Tut.by and other media persecuted by Lukashenko's regime - in matters related to events within Belarus
• Novaya Gazeta, Dozhd, Echo of Moscow, The Moscow Times, Meduza and other media designated as "foreign agent" by Putin's regime (it's quality mark in Russia) - in matters related to events within Russia

If Western media reprints news of aforementioned media, we should use references to both sources - Western and original, as a sign to respect to journalists working in difficult and dangerous conditions, often under threat of death or imprisonment. K8M8S8 (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Excellent point! Western mainstream media (WP:RS) goes through known, empirical statistical filters; other media very likely goes through statistical filters too. Dmitry Muratov of Novaya Gazeta was co-winner of the 2021 Nobel peace prize, which is a strong hint of reliability. The reliability of individual sources should be debated where necessary, but the above news sources mostly look reasonable to me (some are more familiar to me than others). Boud (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this is mostly sound, but my main issue with Russian government statements is that they've been peddling disinformation and intentionally creating confusion for weeks. I feel like we shouldn't state anything only said by the Russian government unless it's independently confirmed by RS (or it's a rebuttal or something like that), or are generic things like attributed casualty data. While this may create a disparity with our treatment of Ukrainian government statements, theirs hasn't been intentionally spreading disinformation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not speaking about pro-Kremlin media, I'm speaking about respected media such as Novaya Gazeta. And I limit the range of matters in which these media will be considered as reliable sources. K8M8S8 (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The media listed by K8M8S8 from Russia and Belarus are news sources that are quite anti-government; only Ukrinform appears to be a government source. The Kyiv Independent is a Ukrainian news source with a reputation for editorial independence (see the article). Boud (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

They are considered as anti-government by local authorities because they don't want to be a part of pro-government propaganda. Russian and Belarusian authorities believe that editorial freedom amounts to working for a foreign intelligence services (it's not true of course). Unfortunately, Russian and Belarusian media have to work in this circumstances, making the choice - to be propagandist or to be "foreign agent". K8M8S8 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Completely agreed, unfortunately for me and I guess a lot of anglophones the Cyrillic alphabet is quite a barrier. Maxorazon (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Most of the above have English-language services written in latin characters; Kyiv Independent appears to be only in English. Boud (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Moscow Times is fully English-speaking magazine. Meduza, Belsat TV have Russian and English version. K8M8S8 (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that using good quality Western sources would be much easier. For example, Novaya Gazeta would qualify, but definitely not the Echo of Moscow. Venediktov is working pretty much under the guidance of Kremlin administration, just as many other presumably independent journalists and analysts in Russia. Dozd' is also not an RS per se, everything depends on who is talking. For example, Belkovskiy would not be an RS by any stretch of imagination. Same with Latynina. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Belkovskiy and Latynina are columnists, and their opinions are not opinions of editorial staff. Aforementioned media are not just a set of columnists. For example, Dozhd have good reporters and photo and video journalists, and this media publish unique content. There are many good investigative journalists in independent Russian media, and thanks to them we know many secrets of powers that be. So, let's not this make about just expression a personal opinions of some persons - journalism is a a much broader concept. K8M8S8 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus portal

Proposal to add a link to the Belarus portal at the bottom of the article, given that Belarusian territory is being used to launch missiles into Ukraine, along with the now official participation of the Belarusian Armed Forces. TorreAzzurro (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocking Wikipedia in Russia

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.

---

Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media threats to block Wikipedia due to the article «Вторжение России в Украину 2022» in Russian Wiki. K8M8S8 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not imagine seeing such amount of repression and censorship in such short amount of time. Mellk (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This is just the beginning, I can feel it. K8M8S8 (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the extreme amount of absurd thoughtcrime they've been pumping out, and how autocratic they have become, if they didn't want to block it, we are doing something wrong. :) Nfitz (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Congrats, guys. You did it!167.244.212.100 (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Let Russia do it. Nothing will stop the truth being spoken, and Wikipedians and the website itself should not be bullied by such single-minded fools in the Kremlin. They are not the boss of tech companies who stand for truth, and if those companies face such action, they should systematically threaten to shut down access to their services to Russian government officials. 5.64.106.84 (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, this may have a chilling effect on other users. I don't speak Russian, but looking at a Google-translated version of this article talk page on the Russian Wikipedia shows that there is already talk about "changing the name to the official name adopted in the Russian Federation" to comply with the aforementioned government agency. It doesn't look like it's likely to pass, though. —AFreshStart (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The relevant 'see also' section is Censorship of Wikipedia#Russia. Boud (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Survey: Current consensus

Having been involved in this talk page for 4 days now, I see lots of repetitive requests being made despite consensus having been established to the contrary earlier. Maybe we should create a /Current consensus subpage & transclude it here, as a quick reference for editors & visitors, like the one being transcluded at Talk:Donald Trump § Current consensus. This way editors will know what is current consensus without having to sift through archives and help improve the article. Please share your opinion & suggestions. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 17:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This is why (above) I suggested a FAQ, much like we have Talk:George Floyd, and for the same reasons, a flood of the same questions over and over again. But yes we should have a current consensus page, if people think that will work. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm usually against current consensus pages (as-implemented), and I'm not sure it's appropriate here. There are a lot of preliminary consensuses on this article, based on how we decided to deal with a given issue through editing (which I think is the most collaborative type of dispute resolution and consensus building). We went back and forth on issues, discussed some but not others, but either way reached a state that was acceptable to most. Then someone might've figured out a better structure so it went out the window since folks agreed the new structure was better. I'm kinda opposed to calling much of this 'consensus' per se, at least in the sense of putting it up in a sticky banner at the top and pretending it's involatile, and thus also discouraging people from making further improvements to it. There are very few things we could put in such a banner anyway, even if it were a good idea, but my biggest concern is it may deter further article improvement. An FAQ is something else entirely and that could be appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

that may be a good idea; however it should be consensus, not turn in to status quo as this article is fluid and should remain flexible. answers to common questions and the consensus but it should be regularly updated as new info is uncovered and brought in as well as new questions answered. that said I don't know what the examples look like because as i said else where on this talk page I'm a lazy american.Bruvlad (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The recently added FAQ banner seems appropriate. I suggest we may close this discussion now.n---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 05:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The map

I am concerned about the map. Is it updated correctly? What I have read are the cities of Mariopol, Chernihiv and Sumy encircled. I also find it hard to belive that the big yellow territory north of Konotop is in full Ukrainian hands? Maybe a new color showing "contested territory" is a good idea? 217.209.60.112 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe the map has its own talk page. It probably is best to ask there again https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg WoodyCabin (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Casualties and Losses Section = ?According to? ?For?

There are flags and lots of "per" --

The Flags should have text titles with them.

Do they mean ACCORDING TO Russia/Ukraine or FOR Russia/Ukraine...and the "per" also has the double meaning ACCORDING TO or FOR... 188.65.190.67 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

They mean 'according to' in the present context. The flags are identified immediately above in the 'strength' section, I don't know if it's typical to note their identity in each subsequent section and will leave that up to others to address. I've formatted your comment slightly just to avoid the unintended quote box. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The general structure is for[according_to]. So "per" means "according to". I find it pretty understandable. Maxorazon (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I've personally noticed that "per" is used a lot by Wikipedians but not as much outside Wikipedia. Just FWIW. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, strict definitions don't really apply to how we use it on Wikipedia. I guess Merriam Webster's third definition is the sense in which we use it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

"The US and others accused Russia of planing to invasion, but Russian officials repeatedly denied this". Please correct this someone.-103.53.232.62 (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You do need to say what you want it to say, backed by RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "Ukraine agreed to abandon its nuclear arsenal" oversimplifies and misrepresents what really happened

There's a lot of discussion around what Budapest really means. Here is the expert consensus, as I understand it:

- While physically there were nukes in Ukraine, they were controlled by the Soviets. It was more akin to U.S. weapons stationed in European countries

- Ukraine tried to convince the nuclear operators to defect and did some saber rattling around taking the nukes

- If they had taken the nukes, they would have had no way to use them or maintain them and the fissile material would have expired

- In return for not turning it into a bid deal/inconvenience, they got some concessions in Budapest

- Ukraine never had a clear path to becoming nuclear armed, nor did they ever really start on that path

- This false narrative around Ukraine having once been a nuclear state is being used by Putin to, in part, justify the invasion - he's pointing to the threat of a nuclear Ukraine

Here are a couple blog posts by reputable though opinionated arms control experts. They point to underlying scholarly sources which I don't have access to but you could take a look to confirm what they're saying if you have access to those journals: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/207316/ukraine-and-the-1994-budapest-memorandum/ https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-in-ukraine/

I would suggest changing this to say simply that "After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine and Russia maintained close ties. In 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on the condition that Russia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) would provide assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. Five years later, Russia was one of the signatories of the Charter for European Security, which "reaffirmed the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve".

The article on Budapest provides adequate context for the memorandum and properly explains this issue.

李艾连 (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about Ukraine or the Ukrainian SSR? If the former, then it retained the formal rights to do whatever it wanted with the nuclear arsenal provided after USSR dissolution (since Russia nullified its debts). If the latter, then indeed it had no control over the said arsenal, but neither did Russia prior to 1992 because none formally existed. Putin said nothing about this arsenal in his address, he referred to the current weapons that Ukraine had been stocking up since 2021. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

李艾连, the summary is extremely simplified, but absolutely accurate, while your account has some inaccuracies. Ukraine had declared itself a non-nuclear state in its 1990 declaration of sovereignty. There were no Soviets after Christmas 1991. Fifteen new states legally owned all assets on their own territory according to the principle of uti possidetis juris, and some of them negotiated a consensus that the Commonwealth of Independent States would control their use. Experts speculate that Ukraine, which had built the rockets and guidance systems, may possibly have been able to gain control over the launch with enough money and time, or may have been able to dismantle the warheads to use or sell the material. I haven't ever heard anything about nuclear material expiring, Ukraine subverting operators, or rattling sabres: it merely negotiated security guarantees. The Budapest Memorandum was a not a ratified treaty, but it was a reaffirmation of binding obligations in the UN Charter, and agreements in the Helsinki Final Act. Good on you for mentioning the OSCE Charter, and I believe the Paris document is also important and relevant (or is that the same one?). —Michael Z. 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

：：Thanks for the responses - I'm certainly far from an expert, just glad this is being considered by people who deeply know the history (as it seems you do). 李艾连 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think one could probably write hundreds of words on counterfactual scenarios, but there's arguments on both sides on whether or not Ukraine would've eventually gained control over their nuclear weapons or the legal issues involved. That being said, perhaps a better intro would be along the lines of: "After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine was left with physical control over 1/3 of the USSR's nuclear arsenal, although Russia inherited the nuclear codes necessary to operate the weapons. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give their nuclear weapons to Russia by signing the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances..." so on and so forth. I think the context that Ukraine didn't have the ability to immediately use the weapons is important and this would summarize that without going into the thorny legal issues. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Unacceptable state of Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

The quality of the historic and geopolitical perspective given to the reader on the current event is that of a British tabloid, a reddit thread, a twitter post: unacceptable for a worldwide encyclopedia. See also #NPOV issue: background should cover natural gas disputes and #Right_to_adversarial_arguments.

This Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War Wikilink is in fact a redirect to Historical_background_of_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine, which is far as general as the previous claim, and is in quite a poor state. I am dedicating time today to improving the subject, help welcome. Maxorazon (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

En:wiki is not a worlwide encyclopedia. It is a english language encyclopedia, striving what every good encyclopedia tries to do in its own language. Or, en:wiki is not the united nations of the Wikipedia's. --Robertiki (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct... I have made progress in understanding, but this is a complex, multi-scale, multi-faceted, multilateral conflict in which I know nothing about. Ideally someone tri-lingual EN/UK/RU would achieve the synthesis! I can't read Cyrillic and am not native in English... I can give some sort of a crucible, a wiki portal, for others to iterate upon, synthesizing the various aspects that I found to this conflict.

My report after trying to map the galaxy of articles and dive into the history is that: there is no such article as Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War today. It is split across a dozen articles. The synthesis history background of the war is hard to write. I propose with the above to create a Portal for the aspects of the conflict in the Russo-Ukrainian war, which would point to geopolitics, economics, such pending historic background... along with maintaining all the templates including the latter. What do you think? I will give it another day. Maxorazon (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. One main pain-point that I keep stumbling upon is that this conflict is a civil war too. There is extremely little mention of it around the corpus as far as I saw. Maxorazon (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually not so much... Maxorazon (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The article reads like Western propaganda. It exclusively relies on reports from Western media, which have uncritically reported the fake news spread by Ukrainian propaganda and have rarely, if ever, reported that the initial news were exposed as fakes. Western propaganda has spun the narrative to justify the existence of Neo-Nazism in Ukraine - a well-documented phenomenon. It is rather ludicrous to claim that just because Putin is himself using the Neo-Nazism in Ukraine to forward his interests, the threat of Neo-Nazism itself is wildly exaggerated or doesn't exist. Neo-Nazi groups and other extreme right-wing nationalist groups are integrated into the Ukrainian military-security apparatus and exert a significant influence on Ukrainian politics and society. Their claims that they are fighting for 'white Europe' and 'European civilization' against 'Asiatic Russia' is a classic Nazi trope.

For some reason, the article goes to great length to completely whitewash the Ukrainian side and NATO from all responsibility fro the conflict in Ukraine since 2014 and lay the blame on it solely on Russia. Reollun (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yugoslav Wars

• Early reports declared it the largest conventional warfare operation in Europe since World War II.
• Yugoslav Wars--Мечников (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic conflicts are not conventional warfare. Yugoslav Wars are not an attack by one sovereign state on another sovereign state. K8M8S8 (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, ethnic conflicts are conventional warfare. What do you call Russians and Ukrainians fighting if not ethnic conflict? Two ethnicities are fighting. Secondly, Yugoslav wars were not only civil wars and they involved recognised sovereign nation states fighting, see for example Battle of Vukovar (Republic of Croatia vs Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). Melmann 11:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

the Ukrainian forces have a lot of russian etnicity persons. It's more hard problem--Мечников (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

About half Ukrainians are Russian-speaking. And they are fighting against Russian troops for Ukrainian independence. Many Russian citizens support Ukraine in this conflict. It's not ethnic conflict at all. I believe that Russo-Ukrainian war is the war between two concepts of statehood: Putin's concept of dictatorship controlling kleptocratic elite and disempowered population through exploitation imperialist ressentiment, on the one side, and the concept of democratic regime where population have possibility to influence on policy, on the other side. It doesn't mean there are no kleptocrats and oligarchs in Ukraine; the concept of statehood is just marking a vector of development. Putin's vector of development leads to medieval state with nobles and serfs, modern Ukrainian vector leads to state where citizens have rights and their opinion has matter. These two concepts of statehood can not coexist peacefully, these concepts are existential enemies. That is the real reason of Russo-Ukrainian war, this isn't about nationality. K8M8S8 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The breakup of Yugoslavia was became in early 1990s. So Yugoslav Wars in 1990s was a war between sovereign states already. It's non-obvious phrase to put it mildly. It's need to write it more understandable --Мечников (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Breakup of Yugoslavia put the matter of borders of new countries. Yugoslav Wars were wars due to the border disputes. Russian-Ukrainian border was not disputed (see Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty), and the main objective of Russo-Ukrainian war in general and 2022 invasion particulary is de facto liquidation of Ukrainian statehood. That is why I really don't want to compare Yugoslav Wars and Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russian invasion can be compared with German invasion of Poland in 1939 or any other war of conquest aimed to total control over victim of aggression. K8M8S8 (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. But the text in the introduction of the article should be as clear as possible. They should not be ambiguous. What is the "largest conventional warfare operation"? The largest in terms of human losses or territory? This needs to be more specific, more understandable text. --Мечников (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Yugoslav Wars", as in more than one. This is one war. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven - Could you please stop interjecting with ill-informed comments all over this page. Two of the Yugoslav wars involved tens of thousands of deaths each, and one of those - Bosnian War - involved the worst loss of life on European soil since the Second World War. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is nowhere near this scale at this time. It may, sadly, become comparable if this continues for months or years. But please, if you don't know what you're talking about: don't comment. Aside, this has also been discussed in two separate sections and it has been pointed out that neither of the cited sources support the statement as is in article. I was under the impression that it was changed to conform with the sources, but apparently this hasn't happened. Pinging Pincrete who noted this issue originally. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm seeing now that a third source has been added that says 'largest conventional military attack'. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That source is actually a US defence dept spokesperson, … so not a wholly neutral source. Bosnian War deaths were finally settled at around the 110,000 mark, so by that criteria, Bosnia was much bigger (and longer) than anything which has happened yet in Ukraine. Though then, numbers of conventional heavy armoury was probably less and troop figures may have been lower. My biggest concern is not so much whether our piece of 'headline-ese' is true or not so much as what does it actually mean? An inter-state war is not the same thing as an attack and is not the same as a ground war (which is what the other sources refer to) and how conventional is Ukraine - civilian militias in urban areas? The issue has already been raised twice in other sections above. There are all sorts of criteria by which Ukraine may be the biggest incident since WWII as far as W Europe is concerned, since unlike 'suppressive' incidents like Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the 50's and 60's, this is not re-establishing a Warsaw pact authority, and is potentially very destabilising, since this affects all of the EU and NATO directly, but at present our text is just fairly meaningless IMO. Pincrete (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Mostly agree here. The "largest" claim - in any form I've seen cited reliably so far - is non-specific, subject to a wide array of misinterpretation, and possibly - though not certainly - represents a non-neutral interpretation of events (WP:NPOV). It's headline-y in the lead (see WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:PUFFERY) and should probably be moved to a less prominent position and contextualized based on source material. Though I think most of us know this already, it bears remembering that what we should not do is edit/replace it with a similar claim that constitutes any degree of WP:ORIGINAL research.

@Mr rnddude: I went and dug up that third source you mentioned because it showed that one of the earliest mentions was by a "senior [US] defense official." As Pincrete rightly noted above, this isn't a completely neutral source. When I included it, I only changed the article text to reflect that the statement was an early report (rather than verified fact) but made no further edits. That might be why you didn't initially notice a big change.

As written currently, one other concern is that the statement in question kind of sandwiches some bits about the Crimea annexation and seizure of Donbas. It's easy to misread the last sentence as a characterization of one of those events rather than the 2022 movements. IMO it's another reason to move this bit somewhere else entirely. --N8 18:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bosnian war involved 400,000 combatants (being generous), the Russian invasion of Ukraine involves over 1,000,000. I would argue that makes it bigger.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There are many criteria by which Ukraine might be seen as more impactful/dangerous/bigger than anything else since WWII, (more troops/armaments/more deadly arsenal?), but if we don't understand this claim, isn't it bit pointless? More heat than light? Pincrete (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

One of two near duplicates discussions: See Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 4#Largest European ground war since WWII?Pincrete (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

An-225 loss in infobox should be removed

The An-225 was not operated by the Ukrainian military, (rather by a civilian airline) so it should not be recorded as a equipment loss in the infobox Chokoladesu (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Source for it not being party to the conflict? Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/antonov-an-225-largest-plane-destroyed-ukraine-scli-intl/index.html Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Good enough, it's not a military casualty, maybe put it under civilian as it seems to be noteworthy. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done removed from infobox. I didn't add it to the civilian section, although if others think it's important they can do so. Jr8825 • Talk 07:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

uhh... anyone? Chokoladesu (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• I also think it should be removed. It's owned by a civilian corporation. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

WELL ABOUT AN225, First it was not totally destroyed, it is damaged by explosion inside Hanger, this also partially damaged also. The Aircraft seems still standing, according satellite pictures. SO IT IS NOT LOST --90.186.219.179 (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A note on recentism

Just a note on WP:RECENTISM: as a current and ongoing event, there is a lot of recentism in this article. I'll quote from the page itself:

Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. This can result in, among others:

• Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens.
• The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.

There is fertile ground for editors to try to improve the article in this respect. Especially in the invasion section, all through the article editors are inserting content for individual incidents without an overarching historical narrative structure. This is causing the article to miss some key ideas, such as the stall of the Russian army, its failure to meet its strategic goals, etc. If we can start to get on top of this now, it will require less work to shape the article in future.Mozzie (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, recentism is not always bad, unless it falls into WP:TRIVIA/WP:UNDUE. When the dust settles, we can always summarize/split the article. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

failure to meet its strategic goals - and what are these goals? I see none in the article. Are there any RS about these goals? I say the strate goal is to revive the New Novorossiya ("New New Russia") project, see Novorossiya#Impact in modern times. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that WP:TRIVIA is about not creating lists of trivia in articles (this was common a long time ago) and is not about isolated trivia in general. It's a common misconception. In any case I'm more talking about having a well structured article over a large scale, and not individual bits of information.Mozzie (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. Still, WP:UNDUE holds. In any case, The article is not so bad so far. Isolated facts go into daily sections. I am pretty sure we have detailed sub-articles for various wars. The first thing comes to my mind for comparison is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave the impression of disagreeing. Undue is absolutely very important, and the two really go hand in hand. But a lot of undue stuff is small jobs, as opposed to the really big job of shaping the article correctly, and that's what I'm trying to seek some consensus on here, because otherwise it will probably be reverted.Mozzie (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree strongly, and I would add it as one of the issues in the 'looking ahead' thing I tried to get at in another section. One important thing on these articles is that constant trimming of RECENTISM is done (i.e. go through with a WP:10YT outlook and remove any trivia, outdated details, or news-y things). A lot of people tend to add content but less remove stuff that should go. I think if we can get a hold of that, it's easier to reorganise the information and reorient it in terms of the bigger picture. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Great feedback. I very much agree re lots of people adding content and few trimming it. Thanks Some good pages that are about ten years old are Russo-Georgian War and War_in_Donbas and 2003_invasion_of_Iraq. I guess at least in the invasion section, We can make sections on initial attacks as that is the worst for now: the main battles: Kyiv, Kharkiv and any others? Maybe the battle for air supremacy...Mozzie (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Fake news

Surely we dont need to list numerous fake news generated by propaganda from both sides, but definitely something must be written about this, because this war is notable for its information warfare.

• BBC: Ukraine invasion: Misleading claims continue to go viral. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to say that misinformation on social media has been off the charts for this conflict, there must be some mention of this in the article, backed up by RSes.171.49.209.33 (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There are also separate articles for Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and Russian–Ukrainian information war which are proposed to be merged. The only current links to these appear to be from the "see also" text immediately under section headings at § Russian accusations and demands and § Media depictions. There are more textual references to mis/disinformation in the article however and it's possible several of these could be phrased to reference one of those other articles. --N8 13:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

could put it in the casualty stats as well, as almost everybody, even wiki, have biases. we try here but as for say fox news or cnn may not try so hard, and the kyiv independent and Russia today are actively fabricating or spinning things. so I think it should be placed anywhere logical; however ,yes I'm countering my own argument, there are rules against over linking even internally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruvlad (talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please consider adding a cultural sanctions section

There is rightly a lot of coverage of economic sanctions but zero mention of cultural sanctions, which arguably are not much less impactful, especially in the context of "sport washing".

I can start the ball rolling with these two:

- On the 28th Feburary 2022 Fifa and Uefa suspended all Russian football clubs and national teams from its tournaments and competitions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/60560567 - The FIA cancelled the 2022 Russian Grand Prix https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60523049

Oiona (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Oiona. You might also consider adding this information at Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis § Civil society which does not currently have edit restrictions. --N8 13:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please consider adding a cultural sanctions section

There is rightly a lot of coverage of economic sanctions but zero mention of cultural sanctions, which arguably are not much less impactful, especially in the context of "sport washing".

I can start the ball rolling with these two:

- On the 28th Feburary 2022 Fifa and Uefa suspended all Russian football clubs and national teams from its tournaments and competitions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/60560567 - The FIA cancelled the 2022 Russian Grand Prix https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60523049

Oiona (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Oiona. You might also consider adding this information at Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis § Civil society which does not currently have edit restrictions. --N8 13:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Isn't it time to add EU as a Belligerent on the Ukrainian side in the infobox since many countries are sending weapons (with EU support)? --Semsûrî (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that's considered an act of war. It could be put down as support if there's consensus for including supporting actors. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I do find it strange this article doesn't have a "supported by" section in the infobox while Russo-Ukrainian War does. Perhaps it's just because it'd largely be a duplication? Then again, that assumes that the list of countries which showed support before the invasion is the same as after. — Czello 10:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Its not though, as we have now a huge list of traditionally neutral countries that are sending aid (Finland for god's sake). It would almost be easier to have a list of countries not sending aid. But that (ironically) is an argument against adding them, the list would be huge, and might clutter up the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That's true, and we already have #Foreign_military_support_to_Ukraine and #Ramifications to cover this. — Czello 11:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because the EU is an intergovernmental organization that works on "foreign" policy only with the unanimous concordance of all 27 countries, which lacks. Bulgaria, Ireland, and Hungary have all denied supplies to the individuals in power in Kyiv. Saying "the EU" is a simplification of a complex reality which must not lead us to forget who is legitimately in charge of armies and military policies, namely only sovereign states. --Foghe (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The EU says that it is providing arms to Ukraine "For the first time ever, the European Union will finance the purchase and delivery of weapons and other equipment to a country that is under attack.". This is reported by many many sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. etc.). Do you have a source that actually disputes this? 217.28.13.237 (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus

Belarus going to invade ukraine, and cutting of poland 217.171.226.115 (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

source? Maxorazon (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are 2 totally conflicting articles from today.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belarus-leader-says-minsk-wont-join-russian-operation-ukraine-belta-reports-2022-03-01

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/belarus-troops-ukraine-join-russia-invasion-president-lukashenko-army-1491050 ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

With both only being claims but one side or the other. When third party RS say "Belarus has invaded Ukraine" we can add this, otherwise it is just speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-belarus-invades-ukraine-second-26348732

https://www.politico.eu/article/belarus-russia-war-ukraine/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belarus-ukraine-russia-war-putin-b2025596.html

The same. Ukraine claims, Belarus denies. But we can reflect these claims and denials in the article. K8M8S8 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done that. Seems like the usual confusion tactic Russia has also been deploying; staunchly denying something before doing it hours later (though will wait for an RS to say that before saying it in exactly those words). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

FAQ

In order to allow us to remove comments asking very basic questions, I think a FAQ may be in order. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I started a basic FAQ based on the two most frequent things I've seen on talk so far. Feel free to add more, but IMO we should prioritise issues that keep coming up (ie, more than once or twice with obvious results), lest the FAQ become too long and nobody reads it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Online and Cyber Warfare

Thinking of adding a section titled Online and Cyber Warfare for the nonlethal tactics being used by either side - Ukraine's IT Army, Anonymous, Russian's attacks, misinformation wars, etc. Anyone feel this would work? Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 13:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me if the information can be properly synthesised and verified, though I'm fairly inexperienced so I don't think my vote should count for much. -- Sentimex (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

EU fighter jets donation

Slovakia and Bulgaria are rejecting that the countries will provide fighter planes to Ukraine. Poland refused to confirm or deny.--Znuddel (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it did fall apart. All Ukraine needs is about a half dozen A10 Warthogs to turn that 40 mile long convoy in to the highway of death and end the war. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

They would face massive Russian anti-aircraft measures. But that's neither here nor there - this is not the place to discuss such things. WP:FORUM. Also, looks like it is proceeding: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-fighter-jets-ukraine-russia-invasion-b2025470.html

Depends whether or not the rocket fuel has already been pawned for vodka, anyhow yes WP:NOTAFORUM I'll stop. That aside I don't think it is going to happen. The twitter is from Paul Mcleary who is a defense reporter for Politico. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Update Bio of Animated Map

The note below the animated map depicting the Invasion of Ukraine states:

"Animated map of the 2022 Russian invation [invasion] of Ukraine over time. Currently goes to February 28th. Should be updated every day as events unfold" -MaitreyaVaruna

However, the animated video goes to March 1st; it states "1 MARCH (UTC+2)." If possible, could we update the summary below the video? --MateoFrayo (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The animated map needs some work. Right now it just plays through every version of the map, leading to Russian lines expanding and contracting and repositioning erratically. IMO it should likely be taken out until we can establish a clearer timeline of events. BSMRD (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@BSMRD: @MateoFrayo: do you know the people involved with creating the main map? They are probably the best sources to know which version is best for which day in the timeline MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Maersk suspend shipments to Russia

Addition to economic ramifications.

"The shipping company, Maersk, has suspended all shipments to Russia, excluding foodstuffs, and medical and humanitarian supplies."Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/maersk-suspends-all-container-shipping-to-russia FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Laurel Lodged. Two other places this edit might also be appropriate are International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § Non-governmental organizations, non-political groups and individuals or Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis § Civil society. There may be others as well. --N8 23:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

"... even though NATO's ballistic missile defence is not directed against Russia..."

In the lead, this seems to rely exclusively on a page from the NATO website. I don't really see any mention about this in Der Spiegel ref. Can a better source be found for this? I am sure there would be something else other than NATO website. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As Mandy Rice-Davies said, "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?". Delete it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Article about refugees?

Hello, on German Wikipedia we are working on an article about refugees from Ukraine. Are there plans for such an article in English? I would like to help translating sections. Ziko (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ziko: I just created this draft: Draft:2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis. Feel free to translate what you have to there. I'll add additional material. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Banning independent Russian media

Prosecutor-General of Russia demands to ban Echo of Moscow and Dozhd. Sites are already blocked by Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media. K8M8S8 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

The slab of land south of Volnovakha-Polohny is in Russian hands

Russia controls everything there and around it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk) 10:54, March 1, 2022 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

206.174.216.170 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC) This https://imgur.com/rQ0FHiS ?

A diagram is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing Russian Air Force

Useful source? "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add Ford withdrawal

Source: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2022/03/01/ford-suspends-joint-venture-operation-russia/6982264001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAPwiki (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Russians taking Kherson

Multiple though unconfirmed reports have come out that Russian forces seem to have entered and taken Kherson

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-forces-have-entered-kherson-says-ukrainian-official-2022-03-01/ https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-03-01/russian-forces-have-entered-kherson-says-ukrainian-official https://twitter.com/Caucasuswar/status/1498789059124158467?s=20&t=SuxwZwWHIXAsilpVDzihbw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Infob0x

Should Lukashenko be added to the commanders section of the infobox? Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Are there any Belarus troops? If no the just the same we may add USA to combatants, because LOTS of materiel and instructors. Witout this Ukraine would not have any force to stand. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Airspace ban map

The map associated with said likely needs an update. The USA is the next nation to do so. Source.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 01:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone got it. Thanks!--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"New" news is old news.

In the article, it is said, "On 2 March, guerilla hackers in Ukraine pledged to fight Russia through cyber-attacks." This is old news. The media covered this and annoucements were made on the 25th. Yet, it is in the article as happening now. Even in the citation, it is treated as not-so-recent. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Civilian casualties "Per Russia" missing

I realize this number may be 0 or minimal, but their denial should be documented, no? 216.193.170.144 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to add figures that countries are reporting, they should be realistic and the countries should be trying to track them. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We can't add it without a source. Do you have a source that states what Russia thinks civilian casualties are?JMM12345 (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

Russia state media prematurely declared victory, hailed 'new world' in now-deleted report

I think this 2022, March 1st article from Fox News (which is also verifiable on the Wayback link in the article) is an interesting insight into Putin's objectives/motivations. The article is Ukraine War: Russia state media prematurely declared victory, hailed 'new world' in now-deleted report. Worth adding? 78.18.240.139 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It's worth adding but use this source, Fox News is not a reliable source https://mil.in.ua/en/news/brave-new-world-of-putin-an-article-by-the-propaganda-publication-ria-novosti-which-was-to-be-published-after-the-occupation-of-ukraine/ MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That is useful, and note that outside of politics, Fox News is considered an WP:RSP (ie good source). 78.18.240.139 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It also should be noted that even on politics, there is no consensus that Fox is unreliable.JMM12345 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

Use of Voice of America

While I don't necessarily view the content of the videos posted here as suspect, I don't think Voice of America as a source should be used here. Would Russia Today also be used in the same way? Voice of America is a state propaganda agency.Rando-user-here (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

VOA content alongside content from the State Emergency Service of Ukraine should be removed. This is solely due to the fact that the media is watermarked. I have not encountered any other major conflict that relies on media that is watermarked so heavily. I am under the impression that such content is frowned upon, in line with WP:WATERMARK. ElderZamzam (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would not compare VOA to RT, since the latter has a history of consistently publishing outright disinformation and fabrications and whose editor-in-chief supports and is backed by the Kremlin in every possible way. VOA is perhaps not the best source to use though. Mellk (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rando-user-here I see no difference between RT and all western-driven media.

Offensive Splitting Discussion in Progress

I am notifying editors that there is a split proposal occurring for the Kherson offensive. Feel free to participate in the discussion on the talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis

The article for the 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis was recently created. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (6)

Hello! Would the information below be relevant to Section 6.2 Economic Impact?

South Korea's SWIFT ban against Russia is expected to immediately impact roughly 8 trillion won (approx. $6.64 billion USD) worth of shipbuilding contracts Korea already has with Russia along with Korea's car exports. South Korea accounts for roughly 40.6% of all automobile and automobile-related parts imported by Russia and maintains a vehicle factory in St. Petersburg. There are also South Korean home appliance, parts, and plastics factories located in Russia which are directly affected by the ban and expected to report losses. South Korea's national carrier Korean Air is considering cancelling direct flights between Incheon and Moscow, possibly as early as March 3rd.

On February 28th South Korea announced it will release some of its strategic petroleum reserves in an attempt to stabilize global oil prices as well as considering the option to re-sell LNG to Europe as part of "international efforts to support Ukraine" ("우크라이나를 지원하기 위한... 국제사회와의 공조"). South Korea is estimated to hold the world's 4th largest strategic petroleum reserve

222.99.95.163 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

It would take me a while to implement this correctly without some level of proficiency in Korean. But I noticed the Korean Wikipedia article on this topic is much less developed than the English one - and also doesn't appear to be edit protected as far as I can tell. If you (222.99.95.163) happen to know Korean, please consider contributing directly there also. --N8 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done: likely too much detail for this article. International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War might be a better home. Jr8825 • Talk 07:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Bulgaria is not sending arms to Ukraine, said PM Kiril Petkov. There are sources of his statement. Nix3214 (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

According to Reuters, they are sending both humanitarian and military aid.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 04:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The source says that Bulgaria will send military aid... P1221 (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)