Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Roskomnadzor "orders" Wikipedia to censor itself

This should be added to the censorship section, I don't have the privilege (yet): https://www.reuters.com/technology/russia-threatens-fine-wikipedia-if-it-doesnt-delete-false-information-2022-04-05/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Børnyard (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this not already being discussed above? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Please rember to sign your comments with 4 tildes. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 00:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Like people who don't know to sign know what a tilde is. EEng 19:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

In case you don't know what a tilde is, they are these ~~ — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 20:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

1. Under the section 6.4 Other Legal Proceedings, add France, Norway and Ukraine to the countries which have opened domestic investigations of alleged Russian war crimes. Source for France: https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/2022/03/16/france-opens-war-crime-investigation-into-death-of-fox-news-cameraman/ Source for Norway (in Norwegian): https://www.politiforum.no/krigen-i-ukraina-kripos-kristin-kvigne/kripos-bidrar-med-etterforskning-av-krigsforbrytelser-i-ukraina/224244 Source for Ukraine: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220323-ukraine-prosecutor-probes-war-crimes-in-fog-of-war

2. I previously suggested, and now do it again, to instead of "the Baltic states" write the countries, i.e. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The editor replied "Adding all the Baltic states to the list was adding too many". I find that an absurd argument. Three more countries are now added, and the list should include all countries, instead of unofficial geopolitical terms to group some of them together.

/2022-04-01 31.209.52.211 (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I have changed "Baltic States" to Lithuania and Estonia, since only these two were referred to in the cited sources. I have also edited to "countries including". An exhaustive list would fall to WP:NOTEVERYTHING here and is best covered more comprehensively at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine‎. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

On official denials we seem to be leaving out a piece of the story

CURRENT VERSION: The United States and others accused Russia of planning to attack or invade Ukraine, which Russian officials repeatedly denied as late as 23 February 2022.[48] Sorry I don't have RS at the tip of my fingers, but it seems like this sentence does not do full justice to the recent post facto denials by a Russian spokesperson that Russia invaded Ukraine. Long after 2/23/22 and in fact long after 2/24/22. Maybe that is not notable in the view of some folks but it seems to warrant consideration. Thank you. Wikidgood (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The article has two preface sections which cover the lead up to the declaration of the invasion and the invasion itself. Putin's preference was to call it a "special military operation" which is documented with citations in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is there any action required here? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox error on refugee dates

Sorry, for some reason that I don't understand, I can't find the article infobox to edit it. There is an error in the "4.1 million+ refugees and 6.5 million internally displaced persons" line towards the bottom, under "Acc. to the UN (21 March)" , actually only the displaced persons figure is from 21 March - the 4.1 million+ refugees is actually 2nd April, and because the source is a daily updated UNHCR figure, the link will always be up to date, even when our text isn't. Since I don't believe the displaced figure has gone up significantly, it might be better to list all UNHCR figures as 'current date'. Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

How many actual deaths are there in Ukrainian soldiers?

I have to know how many died because I don’t see the information updated on how many are actually dead by Ukraine or the United States. 2600:1700:4750:25F0:5C25:4DE:D2DB:CDB9 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Well as there is no way of knowing we can't tell you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Last update by Ukraine was March 12th (1,300 dead) and US March 9th (2,000-4,000 dead). When a new update is provided we will added. But for now, they have been quiet in this regard. EkoGraf (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That (however) is only claimed dead, not actaul dead. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup, so it should be taken as a bare confirmed minimum at best. EkoGraf (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

In the background part, may we please state the specific objectives of Russia/Putin in numbered bullet points?

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72072/what-exactly-are-the-stated-objectives-of-the-2022-russian-invasion-of-ukraine

In the post, the sources include

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67885 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60785754 https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/20/politics/russia-ukraine-negotiations-us-nato/index.html

Thewriter006 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of the other sections, like the Prelude, do already state some of the more prominent general objectives (or demands) in context. Alternatively, this could probably go into the "file for later" folder, especially given the fog of war and other factors that contribute to the article's near-constant state of flux. Some of the comments in that Stack Exchange thread also raise relevant concerns on why it might be difficult to explicitly state the specific objectives, including this one: Do you mean the declared objectives (what Russia said) or the likely objectives (that is what they really want to achieve) or the current objectives (adjusted with the account for the developing military and political situations)?. And just for good measure, per the exact wording of the request, a numbered list might imply some order of priority/importance for which it would be hard to establish consensus, so maybe an unordered list, if any, will do. Benjamin112 ☎ 06:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe but let's bear in mind that the nature of the demands both explicit and implicit has been changing. For instance, when Putin claimed that there was a need to prevent "genocide" that seems to imply a demand of "no genocide" against ethnic Russians, which is IMO such an increase from "stop persecuting Donbass/ethnic Russians". Ideally then any such statement of objectives would include the date the assertion was made, which will be readily available iff WP:RS is being complied with. Another consideration would be to qualify any such stated objective, eg., prevention of alleged genocide risk. Well this is one prickly porcupine of a bear, to mix metaphors...Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Wikidgood (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• To summarise the comments. We are already capturing the main points and the subject is also a moving feast. We might revisit things further down the track. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is outdated at "Strength"

• I can remember hearing and reading on the news that Russia also got something like 20'000 additional soldiers from Syria to join the war.
• And Armenia has sent some number of their Su-30 fighters (along with pilots) to join the war on Russias side.
• And something in the range of 2000 soldiers have been sent from the russian occupation forces in northern Georgia. Recently something like 300 of them were reported to have deserted. This shouldn't really count separately from the russian military, but since the infobox already lists the other puppet states separately, why not this one too?

GMRE (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, IMHO we should only be reporting the initial strengths and noting that in the infobox. Firstly, both sides have incurred losses but there is no way to accurately estimate these. We know that both sides have received volunteers but we certainly cannot be certain that such reports are complete. We also know that Russia is presently relieving some of its forces with fresh troops that may not add to the number of troops on the ground (peak strength) but would certainly add to the total committed. We do not know with certainty the full extent that Russia has reinforced its initial force (besides a couple of reports such as the Wagner Group) but it would be naïve to assume this is the full extent of their reinforcements. A simple number reported in an infobox cannot capture such nuance. Adding piecemeal updates implies to our readers we know with some confidence the current strengths with confidence when in fact we really have no idea. This stuff is best left to prose and probably the best place for this is the Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Linking to Russian emigration following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine

Can someone please add a link on this page?

Here is a way:

…A second refugee crisis created by the invasion and by the Russian government's crackdown has been the flight of more than 200,000 Russian political refugees, the largest….

This sentence is in the “refugees” section.

2600:1012:B02A:FDC:41B:2ED9:ECD6:B7F9 (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any sources describe it as a "second refugee crisis". I support adding mention of the emigration article somewhere, but I just wouldn't do it that way. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Well that sentence is in the article already, I just added the link. I think “emigres” is better than “refugees”, agree. I can’t edit this s***, I am but a lowly IP. 2600:1012:B02A:FDC:41B:2ED9:ECD6:B7F9 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Map update comment

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

---

The map infobox hasn't been updated for a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twa0726 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 April 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.

4.2M to 4.3M

The article 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis changed 4.2M to 4.3M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:186:4500:83A0:506D:E47C:AEBE:E996 (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done in the lead and the infobox. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 12:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, since the .1 is only 2% of the total, we should just say "at least 4M" and stop fussing with it until it gets to, say, 4.5M. EEng 14:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Map Image Bug

There seems to be a bug with the images using the map when someone updated the image with a blank one of different dimensions. The way that it can be fixed is just to submit an edit of any kind of change on the pages that are affected. I've managed to fix as much as I can but there are some pages that I don't have access to edit on, so I'm letting everyone know, in order for this to be fixed as soon as possible. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we be hyperlinking presidential offices?

There's been some back and forth over whether the offices of President of Russia and President of Ukraine should be hyperlinked in the lead. In my opinion, these hyperlinks are unnecessary because they're not critical to understanding the article and it goes against MOS:SEAOFBLUE because they're too close to the Putin and Zelenskyy hyperlinks. It's simpler to just call Putin the "Russian president" on first reference and Zelenskyy the "Ukranian president" on first reference. Bluerules (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it's a bit excessive. I don't see these links being necessary for understanding -- not everything that can be linked should be. — Czello 21:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Also agree, as it just confuses the reader and draws attention from the actual text — or genuinely helpful links _{that secretly leaves people going through rabbit holes for hours😈} — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 22:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It confuses the reader? How exactly? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

When I stated "it confuses the reader", I meant the execessive linking may just inundate the reader and thus the reader just may choose to ignore all hyperlinked words, defeating the purpose (which is that the linked article will "... help readers understand the article more fully" — see MOS:LINKEXAMPLES) — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 02:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"A bit excessive"? Really? I could point to 16 links that I find excessive. Why these offices I particular? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If you say there are other excessive links, the solution clearly isn't to have more than we need. — Czello 22:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged — exactly. The whole point of hyperlinking is that the reader will either preview it or click on it so that they can better understand the article more extensively. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 02:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

In the interests of allowing the reader to better understand the article more extensively, wikilinks to relevant terms are useful. For example the President of Russia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Not really, when we have a whole bunch of extremely distracting blue links around it, which decreases the likeliness of anybody clicking on them. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Putin is president of many things in Russia: Judo Association, Bareback Riding Club etc. But it's as President of Russia that we are primarily interested in him I this article. It's notable and relevant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be evident to readers that Putin is Russia's head of state without hyperlinking it. He would not be relevant to the article if he was only the president of an athletic club. He should be identified as the Russian president, but that doesn't need to be hyperlinked to identify him as such. I'm sure there are other hyperlinks that could be removed, but these stand out to me because they're right next to other hyperlinks and the wording can be trimmed. Bluerules (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be evident to readers that Russia is a large country in Asia that doesn't need to be hyperlinked to identify it as such. Yet it is hyperlinked. It should be evident to readers that Putin is Putin and so doesn't need to be hyperlinked to identify him as such. Yet he is hyperlinked. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be evident to readers that Russia is a large country in Asia ... - It shouldn't be as Russia (west of the Urals) is in Europe, it's capital city, Moscow, is in Europe, and the overwhelming majority of Russians live in Europe and are European. Perhaps that link is necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia and Putin are central components of this article. It's understandable why readers would want to know more about them. The generic office of the Russian president is not. It's not important what the Russian president is, it's important who the Russian president is. Bluerules (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The links to "president" were right next to the names of the two incumbents which were also linked. The primary interest will be about the two men and that link. If further information about the office is desired, it can be followed from the incumbent's page. Not everything that can be linked should be linked. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes - the primary interest will be about the two men. But not because they are good at basket weaving or bare-back horse riding. No. They are only of interest because of the high office of state that they hold. One hyperlink to each office is relevant, notable and not excessive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We are patently referring to the two men as the presidents (ie the leaders) of their two countries. However, if for some obscure reason a reader perceived that they were the heads of their two countries basket weaving bare-back riding guilds the links to the individuals would quickly dispel this. The link to the office is substantially less relevant than the link to the man and, in a see of blue, it is excessive. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Colleagues, what all of the above amounts to is a difference of opinion on style. There is no policy dispute. There is no SeaofBlue as the two links are comma separated. What we have here is just a case of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Using commas does not avoid SEAOFBLUE - the page itself says even if two connected geographic units are comma separated, the larger unit should not be hyperlinked. "I just don't like it" is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and there have been several reasons given for why we oppose hyperlinking the presidential offices. We have a consensus against these hyperlinks and we follow the consensus. Bluerules (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. And also, @Laurel Lodged: please remember that having shortcuts to parts of articles/essays/pages does not mean that it's a community guidline/policy, or vetted through the community — see WP:CONLEVEL. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 20:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We do not have a consensus, we have a difference of opinion. The seaofblue argument might carry more weight if it was not in an article that has Pacific sized links. One more scarcely matters. It contains useful information in an unobtrusive way. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus when a general agreement is reached. That is a policy. The general agreement is these offices should not be hyperlinked. It doesn't matter how many hyperlinks are already in the article, putting them too close to each other creates SEAOFBLUE. If we have too many hyperlinks, the solution is to remove the ones that aren't necessary, not add more.

The hyperlinks for the presidential offices are obtrusive because they're too close to the Putin and Zelenskyy hyperlinks and make the wording more awkward. I do not see how this information is useful because as I mentioned above, the offices aren't critical to understanding the article. Who holds these offices (Putin and Zelenskyy) is the important information. Bluerules (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

What about [this] as a creative compromise? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

My main focus is on the lead, not the body, but I disagree with that edit because it creates a piping issue. Readers are going to assume that hyperlink leads to Putin's article, not the President of Russia article. And we shouldn't be replacing Putin hyperlinks with President of Russia hyperlinks because the former is more important to the article. Bluerules (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Putin echoing antisemitic conspiracy theory"

What? I am very confused by the Times article and the Guardian article cited in particular. The Guardian article is talking about the antisemitic cabal conspiracy, which seems quite nonsequitur? I can understand there is a problem in Russia, but I'm not sure this is relevant? Not defending Putin, but there might be another reason that Russia uses the memories of WW2 than antisemitic tropes when making war propaganda? Namely the fact that Slavs were the #2 or #3 target of ethnic violence and persecution by the Nazis (Jewish people being the #1 victim of violence)?

I'm not opposed to these articles being cited in themselves, but is there a more nuanced position that can be included than simply saying "Russia is the real Nazi"? 24.44.73.34 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

There might well be, but if RS make a claim we can say so. But we do not say they are the real Nazi's what we do is report what RS has said about the claims (And directly link this to the invasion). Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Admittedly a hyperbolic statement to say that this article calls Russia the real nazis, so I apologise. But I had said that because to say Putin is "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany." seems far fetched to me. I think it would be justifiable to say if Putin were dismissing or even denying the suffering of Jewish people in WW2 but to my knowledge he didn't do that so it's very out of place to me. There are definitely groups, including in Russia that do that but from what I know no mainstream politician says that. The Guardian article makes a strong assertion but doesn't really elaborate on how Putin is doing that.

That said, I know it's WP:RS so I am not calling for its removal but I'm hoping there can be an alternate perspective from another RS to be more balanced. Part of WP:NPOV is: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". I am not aware of other articles analyzing this aspect of Putin's rhetoric during the invasion but (see my next response below for citations) there has been alot of nuance on this issue in the past, as its a very complex topic. So it would be consistent with Wikipedia policy to have all that's available and relevant from RS.

@Mzajac Fair point about Russian propaganda, but it doesn't really explain how Putin is an antisemite, it just says he is. I think that is a problem. It implies that because Putin is anti-Zelensky that Putin has a problem with all Jewish people, this seems quite disingenious to me. Of course if Putin had said that or anything resembling it you would see no objection from me with regards to it being included in this article - however not even The Guardian article says Putin outright said such things, it's just extrapolating that because he is a Christian nationalist therefore he is complicit in propagating an antisemitic conspiracy. However, a few examples from the past would show that there is a more nuanced reality than that, see:. Of course there is also this on the contrary:. So it's a mixed bag, I think that any article talking about this subject should reflect that. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s not a non-sequitur, but maybe can be clarified. It is all part of the fallacious, indiscriminate, and even contradictory way Russian propaganda uses the memory of WWII, accusations of “fascism,” and conspiracy theory in its propaganda. Part of it is an extension of official Soviet antisemitism. There’s more in Putinism. —Michael Z. 18:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, could you clarify which part of "Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism, invoking the history of collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine during World War II, and echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany" is nonsequitur? Do you have any suggestions to improve it? I spent a long time rejigging this sentence so that it's coherent and reflects the sources. I'm keen to hear others' feedback/thoughts, as I personally think the sentence now does a very good job of accurately & succinctly summarising the sources cited. I appreciate it's a complex sentence, but it's hard to expand on as there are space constraints and I think the preceding sections on Putin's portrayal of Ukraine as a threat to Russia provide the necessary context. I'm also mindful that further fleshing this sentence out could result in too much emphasis on antisemitism, leading to undue weight issues. Regarding the Guardian article, the author is Jason Stanley, a well-known academic who specialises in fascism. Jr8825 • Talk 20:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

How about simply removing the word "antisemitic" from the sentence? That would weaken the implication that Putin himself is an antisemite, while retaining most of the relevant information. Or do the sources clearly try to imply that Putin is an antisemite? (I haven't read them.) Ornilnas (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ornilnas: the language of the sources is clear that antisemitism is linked:

• "By claiming that the aim of the invasion is to “denazify” Ukraine, Putin appeals to the myths of contemporary eastern European antisemitism" [1]
• "The Putin regime has once again consciously sought to instrumentalize Russian and Ukrainian antisemitism for its own purposes" [2]

The flipside is that while there's an antisemitic tone aimed for Russian consumption (i.e. Ukraine is a threat to Russia as it's a Nazi regime that wants to genocide Russians; Zelenskyy, its Jewish president, and other global Jews seek to mask Ukraine's Nazism – and historic Nazism, e.g. the Holocaust – by presenting themselves as the only victims, at the expense of Slavs), there's also an attempt to utilise/leverage accusations Ukraine in order to prove its Nazi nature [3]. It's a case of Russia accusing others of what Russia itself is doing (similar to the accusations of indiscriminate fire on civilians). Jr8825 • Talk 10:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The sources do indeed seem to imply that Putin is playing on domestic antisemitism, although they're a little unclear on the specifics (so much so that they left me a little confused). To me, it looks a little opinionated; perhaps some qualifier, such as "has been described as", could be used? Ornilnas (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Mobilizing antisemitism in politics and war is antisemitic. Putin’s abusive and insincere accusations of Nazism and genocide are an offence to the memory of Holocaust victims, Holocaust distortion, and arguably antisemitic. Putin’s favourite and oft-praised “historian,” Russian fascist philosopher Ivan Ilyin, was antisemitic. I don’t think there’s any need to censor quotations from RS’s about Putin’s antisemitism because we can’t find a direct quotation of him saying “I hate Jews.” More: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. —Michael Z. 21:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jr8825, I meant this part in particular "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany". I hope my previous responses help to show my position adequately - the problem to me of course is that it makes strong assertions but does so more by extrapolation than solid fact. So I say it's nonsequitur because it makes a strong statement but with little direct backing in fact. Obviously this is a complex problem in Russia, especially due to the history of the country. There's definitely a problem but (see above sources in previous response) there is alot of layers to it. So I think this problem could easily be solved by also including an alternate perspective on the topic from another RS. As I said earlier, not sure if there's been more WP:RS analyses on this rhetoric of his during the invasion, but I think that it should be included if and when it is found. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with IP Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven, User:Mzajac, User:Jr8825, Do you have any additional comments? If not, I will have to consider this a consensus. Thank you! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For what? Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For removing the sentence "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany" Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. The sentence is well sourced and should stay. I'm open to suggestions for improvement. Jr8825 • Talk 17:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Jr8825. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn’t that be Stalinist propaganda with nazis running the country and should we include the azov battalion as a combatant Persesus (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Am I right about that? Persesus (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Azov Battalion is a part of the Ukrainian National Guard. They are not listed because it’s redundant. You can find them on the page about the order of battle, though. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

They are also mentioned in the section of this article being discussed. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I also found the sentence "echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany", fairly extraordinary and puzzling on first reading. The sentence is meant to be registering what he said on the eve of the invasion, not itemising all of Putin's or Putinism's faults. Also Soviet deaths in "The Great Patriotic War" (ie WWII) numbered somewhere between 20-27 million - so - if 'body count' is the main measure of who was the real-est, (if not the "truest") victim, USSR is light years ahead of anyone else. That isn't a 'conspiracy theory', it's historical fact. There are many complicating factors of course - some of the Soviet victims were Jewish, disproportionately large numbers were Ukrainian or other non-Russians, and the Soviet Union was extremely careless and wasteful in the use of its own manpower, but still, human death during WWII in the USSR was enormous and the war fought on both sides with indescribable brutality. People in Eastern Europe tend to remember that and are often grieved that the rest of the world generally doesn't.

Now, having read the Jason Stanley source, which says: "The dominant version of antisemitism alive in parts of eastern Europe today is that Jews employ the Holocaust to seize the victimhood narrative from the “real” victims of the Nazis, who are Russian Christians (or other non-Jewish eastern Europeans). The claim makes a little more sense, but it isn't a sense that our text conveys very well. The preamble speaking of "seizing the victimhood narrative" and the use of quotes on "true" victims conveys the supposed 'fakeness' that takes the claims into conspiracy theory territory. The second source, Snyder adds to this interpretation slightly: Putin is"appealing to a certain tradition in antisemitism, which tries to flip around who are the victims and who are the perpetrator But Snyder continues "as I say, I think his main purpose here is just to pervert these terms and to confuse us … “He’s not really referring to any true history. He’s just taking advantage of the fact that there are strong emotions around these concepts.”

I think therefore that I have 3 concerns. Firstly that out text isn't a very complete or comprehensible account of the two sources used. Secondly the sources are as much - or even more - about this strain of Orthodox Christian Nationalism or Putinism as they are about the pre-invasion speech. Thirdly I question Jason Stanley and Snyder's authority to speak in Wiki-Voice. Stanley is mainly a philosopher, Snyder is certainly an expert on modern Russia, but even he is saying that Putin's language is mainly designed to confuse rather than stating antisemitism as the main factor. So IMO even if this claim were made clearer, it should be attributed, there simply isn't agreement that Putin's speech contained any anti-semetism AFAIK, even if Putinism or Russian Orthodox nationalism generally does.

A plausible alternative explanation which I have read from several authorities recently as to the root of Putin's "denazification" claim is that in Eastern Europe, and Russia particularly, the Nazis are despised because of what they did to USSR, rather than for what they did to groups such as the Jews. We in the West automatically respond "how can the Ukrainians be Nazis, their President is a Jew? Such a thought would barely occur to a Russian, especially a Nationalist one according to this viewpoint. There, Nazis are people who wished to destroy Russia, not people who tried to eliminate Jews. Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Has there or is there going to be an outcome from this discussion? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157 Not likely any time soon unfortunately. I can understand though, a recent and ongoing war is a very contentious issue but it'll take awhile for calm discussion from everyone. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately very snowed under IRL at the moment, so haven't been able to give a full response to Pincrete's points above. From glancing at your points, Pincrete I agree the wording can appear rather confusing. I'm glad you felt it made a bit more sense after reading the two sources, but your concern about whether it does a good enough job of accurately conveying their nuances remain. I do think the current sentence does a decent job of reflecting the sources' general sense, particularly given the tiny amount of space that's used to do this within a complex sentence (which also serves to ensure undue weight isn't given to this relatively specific issue). To address your concerns the wording needs to be made clearer and sources' points more clear – a longer exposition (probably a sentence of its own) is probably required, which would allow for attribution and greater qualification. I think your point about the contextual appropriateness is insightful. Right now this text is under the prelude section in "Russian accusations and demands", and while it does thematically link in, you're right to point out that the paragraph which contains it has an unclear scope and appears to be focused on a specific speech (the product of having many hands crafting the same small section of text). I'm wondering if a better location for the antisemitism point might be in the background section under "Euromaidan, Revolution of Dignity, and the War in Donbas", where there's also a discussion of Russian nationalism – the problem is that it's already a particularly long section (the longest in the article according to the section sizes box at the top of this talk page), and the antisemitism relates closely to Putin's rhetoric (which isn't currently discussed in the background section, so would require an expansion/rewrite). I can see two main options: move the point to the background section (the most difficult option, I think, but it might connect related ideas more neatly together), or rewrite the start of the current paragraph so its focus is more clearly on Putin's rhetoric over a longer period in the run-up to the invasion, combined with a possible rewrite to make the point about antisemitism more clear. I'd be glad to hear any suggestions you have either way, or other alternatives. Jr8825 • Talk 00:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Very well put thank you Pincrete. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Remove foreign volunteers from Ukrainian strength in infobox

The infobox presently states: Strength estimates are as of the start of the invasion. The only estimates for strength we have with any confidence is the stating position. There have been losses to both sides, the Russians have also received reinforcements and are presently relieving their forces. We can have no confidence that various subsequent reports are comprehensive and lead to accurate estimate of the present position. The Ukrainian foreign volunteers have been subsequent to the start of the invasion and should be remove from the infobox since they don't represent part of the starting strength. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Overall a very good article, but it really needs to be broken into more sub-articles

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

---

It's just too big. Thoughts?

Chesapeake77 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

See "Bulking down" section above. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:23, 9 April 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.

Belligerents

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.

---

Shouldn't the US, UK, Sweden and other NATO members who aided Ukraine with Military equipment also be showcased? Xtreme o7 (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No, because that doesn't make them belligerent. Belligerents would have direct involvement in the war. — Czello 12:06, 8 April 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.

About linking Russia, Ukraine, and invasion

I have added the links, as well as the invisible messages, to include links to Russia, Ukraine, and invasion. I do not understand what is so difficult with letting these encyclopedically relevant words to stay linked. As the opening lede sentence was reworded, I decided to move the "Invasion" link to the second paragraph, where "the invasion" is first mentioned. There are no WP:SEAOFBLUE violations now. Per MOS:OL countries should generally not be linked, but because the gist of the entire article is about these two nations, I'm glad people accepted the note, as it would be completely baffling to remove them. As for linking invasion, I still strongly stand by linking it, again with the same logic as the previous links: the word is by far the most relevant word of the entire article, and not linking it is an enormous encyclopedic fail in my eyes, as we disregard providing readers with relevant content. It doesn't matter if some deny the military operation as being an invasion, as it is internationally regarded as being one. Is there ANY other article in all of Wikipedia where "invasion" is more worthy of being linked than here? Wretchskull (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't link those words. The whole point of linking words is for people to "[establish] relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully" (WP:UL) Most links just compete for the viewers attention.

• "Per MOS:OL countries should generally not be linked, but because the gist of the entire article is about these two nations..." The entire article is about those countries...
• "As with invasion... [it's] providing readers with relevant content'' No, it's not, a 2015 study found that most links aren't even clicked on, and if they do, it's very rarely. It's not about a word's "worthiness" of being linked, it's if they're going to help the reader understsnd the article.

— I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 03:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@I'ma editor2022: I still stand by what I commented.

• "The entire article is about those countries..." - Indeed, they are obviously relevant and therefore should be linked.
• "a 2015 study..." No. I've already read the study, and it is about ALL links, and NOT about every scenario; and, as you stated, most links are not clicked, but with very good exceptions. It would be dumb to link general words in an unrelated article, as they are borderline disruptive to the reader and people rarely click them. But if it's relevant, it would be foolish not to. In fact, the pageviews of invasion skyrocketed when I added the link (and yes, I made sure these weren't the views corresponding with the late-February view-boom following the invasion), though it was continuously removed due to (at least what I perceive) lack of understanding about linking. Wretchskull (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• "In fact, the pageviews of invasion skyrocketed when I added the link" Actually, it did not. I looked at your editing activity on this page (with this tool), and if there was any correspondence with the page viewership of the page Invasion (seen here), and there was almost none. Since 24th of February, page viewerships of the page Invasion has gone down and only went up on the 26th, right after you apparently add those links (but that difference was only around ~300 views and quickly went back down). Even when you added the links back, the page views stayed around the same, so I'm not sure what you mean "skyroocketed". Also, it may be helpful to (preferably permalink) link the data and source used?
• The 2015 study was about all links, but also mentioned specifically about links on Wikipedia on page 1 of the PDF. And, as I believe is stated from the study, links upon links and links only distracts the readers attention, so the reader rarely clicks on those. The article has A LOT of links, which I believe no more links should be added as it is VERY distracting for literally anyone reading it.
• "Per MOS:OL, countries should GENERALLY not be linked, but because they are the focal point of the article, they should be." Please read the section you linked to. The guidline you linked to states "What generally should not be linked...[are] names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar." Reaaders will obviously be familiar with those countries, so i don't understand why you think they should be linked to when the guidline you stated says otherwise. Explain? — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 19:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  There's unfortunately nothing fruitful in this conversation as it seems like a back and forth argument. I'll try to wrap this up and clear my point of view. I'm honestly not sure about exact figures when I added the link, and I could very well be mistaken. Regardless, even if no one clicks the links, many (I see myself and others around me using Wikipedia doing so) still hover their mouse over them and get explanations of the subject from the target article's lede more often than clicking them. I know this is just anecdotal, but it is logical considering that the opening sentences give a good idea of what the linked thing is. As for countries, again, read the guideline: that generic words, like countries, should GENERALLY not be linked. There is a reason why it doesn't say that they should "never" be linked. "Generally" by its very definition permits leniency, and this article is an excellent example of why the three words should be linked; they're RELEVANT, and I highly doubt they disrupt reading. The article is entirely about Russia, Ukraine and an invasion, so of course they should be linked, as they are the focal point of the article. It's the same reason we always link the artists of a song or composition or painting; they're relevant to the subject. We cannot attest that something shouldn't be done if it clearly supplements readers with valuable encyclopedic info, and even if the guideline was much more rigid as to ban linking countries completely, then the guideline is simply wrong and it should be revised. Wretchskull (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  You have a valid point, as it seems like as long as it's not linked twice in the article it's not a problem. However, you probably shouldn't keep relinking them to the article, as it seems like editors will keep reverting the edits, and it's not very important anyways. And also forgive me if seems like I was WP:LAWYERING. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Wretchskull: did you search the talk page archives before starting this discussion? In case you missed them, this was discussed twice previously, most recently here. I remain opposed to linking "invasion" for the same reasons I gave in the previous discussions, but accept it's a relatively minor issue. Jr8825 • Talk 23:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• As noted, this is the third such recent discussion on this. I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard requesting an intervention that will hopefully put this to bed once and for all. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  AN isn't the right venue for this kind of thing. Given that there's no real disruption, an WP:RfC is the only suitable mechanism I can think of, but it would be a bit much starting a community discussion over a handful of wikilinks. The best option is probably to just let sleeping dogs lie – yes, the last discussion's outcome has been largely overridden, but we can continue the discussion here if editors are particularly bothered, or try to resolve it by editing. It's only when things become disruptive/end in deliberate edit warring that external intervention is really necessary. Jr8825 • Talk 09:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's been weeks and no one has removed the links. I think the dust has thankfully settled. Also, yeah, RfC is not necessary. Wretchskull (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Actually the 'invasion' wikilink has been removed on multiple occasions. I for one removed it after the most recent discussion as there appeared to be a tentative numerical majority in favour of scrapping it, but someone has since put it back. As long as it's not in the very first lead sentence I can live with it. Jr8825 • Talk 09:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  An RfC seems sensible. For reasons given previously, I don't think we should be linking to "invasion". Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

More war crimes to be added

While exploring the liberated towns north of Kyiv, the Ukrainian army discovered a site of mass murder. At least 300 civilians had been killed, many with their hands tied up and bodies left littering the streets. GMRE (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been recently updated and expanded. All editors are welcome to help further improving that text. Once it's relatively stable and uncontroversial, or even before, I think we should re-write this article's section "6.3 War crimes", which basically hasn't been updated since the second week of March. Unfortunately there's lot of content that we should add there, as the reading of the new lead section makes clear. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the specific sub-article for detail of war crimes. This article should therefore summarise rather than duplicate War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That went through multiple sub-pages and got to the article Bucha massacre, which is about the exact thing I reported. GMRE (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

See also War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Mass killings of civilians in Bucha which has a hat note to the main article. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The new lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to be enough stable and established, and I'm wondering how to proceed in order to update the section "War Crimes" on this article. Basically I see two options (surely there are more): 1. Simply copy and paste the lead and replace the whole section here, adding a note on the talk page of the source article that copying has occurred; 2. Retaining the "Attributed to Russian authorities and forces/Attributed to Ukrainian authorities and forces structure", and adjust the contents accordingly. I slightly favour the second option, and if unopposed I intend to do so. Note that in both cases most of the contents now on (which unfortunately suffer from WP:MINORASPECT, given the scale of the war crimes) will be deleted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666, the option of essentially copying the lead from the main article sounds like an excellent course. Given that we have a main article for the subject, what is written here should only be a summary and we have a reasonable summary to hand in the lead. Moreover it is already pretty well all attributed to sources. With a little cross tweaking I think that all of the content here under "legal proceedings" could be written into War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and then, into the lead there with only minor changes. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Proposal to amend legal procedings/war crimes section using lead from War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Please see above suggestion by Gitz6666. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I've just added an updated section on War crimes. Please note the ongoing discussion on on how to account for the Bucha massacre in the lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

War crimes OTR-21 Tochka

I suggest together with the positions of Ukraine and Russia on the incident with OTR-21 Tochka in Donetsk to add the opinion of the OSINT group of investigators Conflict Intelligence Team in the section "War crimes Attributed to Ukrainian authorities and forces" source https://nv.ua/ukraine/events/voyna-v-ukraine-tochku-u-po-okkupirovannomu-donecku-zapustila-rf-soobshchaet-cit-poslednie-novosti-50225296.html https://twitter.com/CITeam_ru/status/1503720028293799944 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rurk777 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should be the right place for this - there is a subsection there, "Missile attack and shelling in Donetsk". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we continue to report casualties in the infobox

The proposal is to replace reports from multiple sources with a statement: "Reports vary widely: see X section" or "See X section".

The infobox presently reports ranges from multiple sources at various dates and the ranges vary widely. The proposal is made for the following reasons:

1. The reports vary so widely over different dates that they cannot be meaningfully summarised into a simple range.
2. There is nuance to the figures that cannot be captured in an infobox in respect to the reliability of sources. There is a section in the article that tabulates the multiple ranges and provides prose that captures the nuance.
3. Reports in an infobox are viewed credibly by our readers but we cannot give a credible figure or range. These figures in the infobox lack the appropriate and necessary nuance. This is a disservice to our readers.
4. Per Template:Infobox military conflict, this is an optional parameter.
5. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, detail presented in the infobox should be a "summary" of key information. Reporting multiple sources (as done) without necessary context fails the guidance.

For these reasons, I belive the proposal to be the prudent course most consistent with guidance.

I am notifying this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Yeah, the current information in the infobox is not really interpretable beyond "different sides claim wildly different numbers". This is made worse by the fact that the numbers are from different dates: how is the reader to interpret the US numbers for Russia and Ukraine, if they are separated by multiple weeks of fighting of unknown (to the reader) intensity? Replacing with a link to a section would also be aligned with the instructions for the result argument, which advises against speculation and tells to link to a section where the result is not a simple case of "X victory" or "Inconclusive". I'd be fine with listing different claims once the casualty figures start to calm down. Ljleppan (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I generally agree with the above - the situation is too complicated to easily summarize, which is the basic purpose of the box. It probably won't be for some time after the war is over that we can get a relatively accurate picture of the casualty figures for both sides. Until then, it's best to just point readers to the casualty section, where the competing claims can be discussed in context. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• No, let's wait till it's over and we have some kin of authoratative numbers. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with everyone above that we should take this out of the infobox. It's too complicated to squeeze into an infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Leave the belligerent's self-admitted military casualty figures and the UN's confirmed civilian casualty figures since they are the very bare confirmed minimum. For everything else, link to the casualties section due (as stated) other casualty estimate variations which can be seen in the table in that section. EkoGraf (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – Be careful on interpreting responses, due to the fact that the section title ("Should we continue to report...") and the top question in the OP ("The proposal is to replace reports from multiple sources...") are at loggerheads, so that a no to the title question is the same as a yes to the proposal. Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Take it out. Given that the {{Infobox military conflict}} usage instructions remind us that:

  Information in the infobox should not be "controversial". Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article or leave the parameter blank rather than make an unsubstantiated or doubtful claim.

we should leave it out. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Warcrimes in butsja

There should be topics about the horrible warcrimes done by russian military against the civilian, city by city. 185.135.135.32 (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is already an article, that goes into much more depth about war crimes during the invasion than this one does. BSMRD (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about Bucha, which seems to be the common English spelling of the Kiyv suburb. Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Genocide perpetrated by Russia in Ukraine

The article makes several mentions of the false accusations of Ukrainian genocide against Russians, but it makes no mention of the Russian genocide of Ukrainians. There are now multiple RS claiming "warning signs" of Russian genocide of Ukranians, as well as several Ukrainian officials accusing Russia of genocide.

https://theconversation.com/is-russia-committing-genocide-in-ukraine-a-human-rights-expert-looks-at-the-warning-signs-180017 https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-germany-accuses-russia-of-war-crimes-over-bucha-deaths-live-updates/a-61343522 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/2/russia-ukraine-war-kyiv-region-retaken-liveblog

I can add more if required. Unsigned: 16:11, 3 April 2022‎ Genlef

Genocide is already mentioned in the "International Criminal Court" and "International Court of Justice" sections, plus it has been included in several sections of the War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. Ilenart626 (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I disagree that it adheres to the Neutral tone guideline. Nowhere does it say that Russia might be perpetrating genocide, just it makes one mention of gathering evidence of genocide perpetrated by "all sides" given that there are two mentions of the false allegations, I do not think this is a balanced and fair assessment. If anything, we have more evidence of genocide perpetrated by Russians than Ukrainians at this point, so I believe that should be reflected. User:genleftalk 8:49, April 4 2022 (UTC)

I have read the three sources. One claims the potential for genocide. The other two report claims of genocide by the Ukrainian president and the Mayor of Kyiv. Of these, one quotes the Polish President: "[such acts] must be called acts of genocide and be dealt with as such" (in respect to the Bucha killings). We have the article, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, for detail of allegations. This article must therefore summarise rather than duplicate that article. Presently here we say: "that evidence was being collected of alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed by individuals of all sides during the invasion". The three sources are a little thin on why Russian actions might rise to the level of genocide as opposed to what are more clearly war crimes. We might report the Polish president here but I will leave that to see what others think. Having said that, I can see that there is likely to be more reaction to recent reports that will likely change what this article has to say. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new around this parts, but I would like to ask why the use of these expressions, since in other wars this expression has little use, and besides that, the propaganda that you are including is ours, western propaganda, is it so credible or is there any reason behind???

The reason for this question is that when I read the ICC advertisement, what I see is that they only mention Africa and the following mention.

"UN Security Council Referral

The UN Security Council (UNSC) may refer alleged atrocity crimes committed in any country to the ICC Prosecutor by passing a resolution authorized by the UN Charter.

• In March 2005, the UNSC referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan, to the ICC.
• In February 2011, the UNSC referred the situation in Libya to the ICC.

If a permanent member of the UNSC vetoes a resolution to refer a situation to the ICC, the Court cannot gain jurisdiction. The permanent members of the UNSC are China, France, Russia, United States of America, and United Kingdom.

In May 2014, Russia and China vetoed the referral of Syria to the ICC." https://how-the-icc-works.aba-icc.org/ [11]

is there a particular reason or is it just propaganda like theirs???

I would like to know if I can open a discussion about "propaganda", I think that everyone here is aware that the West does propaganda, or not??? Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

2017 warrning

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/is-russia-planning-a-major-land-war-against-ukraine/ The Russian-occupied north of Ukraine, corresponding to Kyiv, Sumy, and Chernihiv provinces, would be transformed into an agricultural hinterland stripped of industry and armed forces. The “excess population” would be deported to Russia’s Far East. Mikhail Khazin Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a missing T in the beginning of the refugees section

"he war has caused the largest refugee and humanitarian crisis within Europe since the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s;" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.204.27 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Resolved. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Genocidal article by RIA

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.

---

There is an article published by state-controlled RIA Novosti on 3 April 2022 that openly advocates repressions against all Ukranians who "silently" support "nazis" by equating them to the latter. It's titled as «What should Russia do with Ukraine?». I'm speechless. I think Wikipedia should document this. At least as a part of justification of the war or propaganda of hatred and violence promotion toward civilians.

…a significant part of the popular mass, which are passive Nazis, accomplices of Nazism, is also guilty… War criminals and active Nazis must be punished approximately and demonstratively. Total purification should be carried out.…

— [12]

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It actually already has its own article at What Russia should do with Ukraine. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

References

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

Collaboration with Russia during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

The article Collaboration with Russia during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was recently created. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents (New thread on: WAGNER/CHECHENS

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.

---

OK so at what point does the Wagner Group,or at least the Chechens/Kadrovites, warrant inclusion? These are actually two separate issues as the nature of these forces is different and distinct AFAIK. Specifically, the Wagner forces could be analogized to, say, Blackwater as it may or may not be mentioned on other WP conflict articles - privately funded with unknown precise relationship to the command structure. Whereas it seems that the Chechens are more readily regarded as a distinct quasi-state actor, or, at least, a belligerent from a separate state entity. (Whether or not one regards Chechnya as truly independent of Moscow is not relevant considering that Belarus is hardly more independent.) My inclination would be to include them but I will certainly yield to consensus. Wikidgood (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Kadyrovites are a branch of the National Guard of Russia and thus they are not separate from Russia and they have already been included in Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as part of Russia's regular forces. Chechnya is also internationally recognized as one of 21 republics of Russia (excluding Crimea). As for the Wagner Group, that question was already discussed three times previously (check archived discussions), and each time the consensus was not to include them as separate from Russia since they are a subcontractor (mercenary unit) that is under direct Russian command and is listed as such as well at the Order of battle. Also, Blackwater or any of the dozens of other private military contractors were never listed as separate entities from the US in the Iraq War, since they acted mostly under the command and direction of the US DoD (per their contracts) and we only listed the overall strength number of contractors involved in the war. So the only thing I would support is adding the strength number of the Wagner Group to the infobox (1,000) since the currently included Russian number of 175,000-190,000 refers only to their regular forces (which Wagner is not). EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. I wonder though if the role of Chechen detachment is different and more salient than the other 20 republics of the RF. If so, it seems that should be indicated some way. If the RF detachments draw from all 21 then obviously it would not matter one way or another. Wikidgood (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Only in an historical context of the war in Chechnia, I would say. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 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.

No source for this "four theatres" of battle construct

CURRENT VERSION: " Four major war theatres developed: the Kyiv offensive, the Northeastern Ukraine offensive, the Eastern Ukraine offensive, and the Southern Ukraine offensive. " Sounds like synthesis/original research. I have spent hundreds of hours listening to the commentaries and reading articles but must have missed this one. If there is an RS for that hypothesis let's have it. The article then goes on to list specific sites of attack, without speculatively framing it as "x number of theatres", and then seems to suggest that it is actually a fifth theatre given the attacks in the west. I think the article is better off without injecting a theoretics without RS. Wikidgood (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Adapt language in lead section to be consistent with Invasion section description of military battle fronts and not war theaters. Keep lead consistent with main article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm also a bit concerned about this, but the sources are a unclear at this time. I suggested a related merge, but it looks unlikely to succeed. Jr8825 • Talk 14:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep all 4 Now that the theatres have settled into stalemate, I think that we can be reasonably happy with them as they stand. I thought that the Kyiv and the Northwestern theatres would merge which would in turn warrant the creation of a merged entity; since that now seems unlikely, I think that the status quo should prevail. There is a minimum level of OR which makes them more readable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  The minimum level of acceptable OR is no original research. If there's no reliable source for it, it gets removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with Mr rnddude: Delete

  And I add my own Delete

  But rather than a mere numerical tally,

  I don't even buy that there are four definable or even discernible "theatres". Is that in the Russian war plan? Is that construct advanced by even one single "analyst", anywhere?

  Are there not five, or three, or six "theaters"?

  What exactly constitutes a "theater of warfare"?

  Is there even a WP article on that or even a Wiktionary entry?

  Who first ever used the term "theater of war"?

  OK so I am a bit rusty on WP so I am taking it slow but this looks like unsubstantiated OR. Please advise, and thank you to everyone who is weighing in whether or not we agree on this technical matter. Wikidgood (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Answering my own question voia WP: On War, Carl von Clausewitz defines the term Kriegstheater (translating the older, 17th-century Latin term theatrum belli) as one that: Denotes properly such a portion of the space over which war prevails as has its boundaries protected, and thus possesses a kind of independence. This protection may consist of fortresses, or important natural obstacles presented by the country, or even in its being separated by a considerable distance from the rest of the space embraced in the war." But mapping the entire Ukraine war going on now onto four discrete "theaters", not five, not three seems like pure speculation with no RS. Aside from the OR issue it does not seem to be appropriate. OK so that is my two cents I await the wise consideration of my colleagues, thank you. Wikidgood (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  The references in the lead section to "theaters" was changed over by me early this morning to "military invasion fronts" in order to be consistent with the Invasion sections of this article. Suggesting that this be applied to all parts of this article, that all instances of "theatre" be changed over to 'military invasion front' throughout the article for consistency with the Invasion sections of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  The Institute for the Study of War has a source for the statement. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Now that the theatres have settled into stalemate, I think that we can be reasonably happy with them as they stand."

  Dude, what have you been smoking? And seriously, i came to this article to see if it had any information i was unaware of and what do i find? This article is a JOKE. A BAD JOKE even. There ARE NO UKRAINIAN "counteroffensives"! There is certainly no stalemate. Ukraines "offensives" were some minor skirmish attacks and probes that for the most part barely even inconvenienced the russians.

  Russia is currently finishing taking Mariupol, while the troops that acted as diversion against Kiev(truly, 40k troops manage to tie down 120k for weeks upon weeks, that was a damn masterpiece of strategy) are mostly reorganising for next phase. To my knowledge, the Russians have not actually stopped completely moving forward for even a single day. Why do you think Ukraine has spent the last weeks begging for more military hardware?

  Oh yeah, russians says they've destroyed the majority of it, and events on the ground support that, how strange. Once Mariupol is captured, we're probably going to see one huge or several large encirclements and then eventually, late this month or more likely May or June, the complete destruction or surrender of Ukrainian troops in the east and south. Russia has been 100% in control of the war after the first 2 weeks. Talking about stalemate when it moves exactly as slow or fast as the Russians move it, is just laughable. And the map? "Ukrainian advances"?

  That makes it sound like Ukraine is actually FIGHTING their way forward, which is a completely lunatic fantasy. Also, the map does not show Russian troop presence at all in several places where they are, which is just puzzling as i can certainly recall seeing those shown in common massmedia.

  The only real question is how far will Russia push, Donbass region is obvious, but after that the question becomes extremely difficult. If you want halfway to real news, don't look at regular massmedia, CIA's infowar is so bloody obvious anyone with a brain should see how they're doing the exact same thing as aginst Iraq, Libya and Syria, just on a bigger scale, but apparently lots of people cannot think for themselves.

  Yeah yeah, wikipedia is supposed to be based on available sources and all that, yeah great, but what happens when 99% of those sources LIE? Because if there's one thing i can criticize about Russia, it's that their information warfare SUCKS. It barely exists. While CIA is accounted as having 13000 journalists on their payroll already in the 1970s when Stockwell went whistleblower on their crap. DW75 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is pure semantics. There is no practical difference between "theatre" and "front" in this war. In WW2, a theatre had many fronts. Not so here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• This appears to have been resolved by edit? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

"According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, regarding Russian military losses, Ukraine's government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims, while Russia was downplaying its own casualties." - This sentence makes a rather bold claim and appears to reference a specific source, but lacks a link to that source. Requesting either removal or addition of the correct source. 47.215.130.236 (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like that claim is backed up by this source. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Tag it by {{citation needed}} AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

No need for the tag. Source/citation is already there, right after the sentence that follows the one quoted by 47.215.130.236, because the citation is a reference for both sentences. EkoGraf (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

having on an ongoing war on the wiki

I personally don't think the wiki can be objective and accurate while the war is at this stage, and there is misinformation on both sides as a matter of course. You are all welcome to continue though. I personally think that it would take a year to be objective. CantingCrew (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but others clearly do not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Fog of war is a real issue, but what's the alternative? Not have this page? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

For now no, why not? Its not as if no one is ware of it. So we could wait till it is over. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We always document ongoing events of this magnitude (and less) or importance. We have WP:ATTRIBUTION policy, as mentioned below. Also, when Russia threatens to fine Wikipedia if it doesn't remove some details about the war, it's good to remember we're WP:NOTCENSORED. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the reason for our attribution policy. Sometimes not everything can be reliably sourced, but if the topic is clearly notable then the article should stay, and sources which may not be very accurate should be attributed so that the reader can make their own judgement. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 15:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Act of aggression/War of aggression

Although I personally didn't agree at the time, there's been a discussion and a consensus on qualifying the war in the lead section as a "war of aggression", here. I see that the text has changed and now we are calling it an "act of aggression". However, the sources we quote call it a "war of aggression". Act of aggression and war of aggression are not the same thing, and claiming that the invasion is a war of aggression is a much stronger and possibly contentious claim than saying that it is an act of aggression (which is obvious and not-controversial). A war of aggression is a crime, and many reliable sources have argued that indeed this is a crime under current international law (see Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). The choice of embracing this judgement with wikivoice is debatable, but apparently this is the choice we have made. So what shall we do now? Should we re-open the previous discussion on act/war of aggression or rather go back to war of aggression? In any case we cannot leave things as they are now: there's a mismatch between the text ("act of a.") and sources ("war of a."). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm now modifying the text restoring "war of aggression". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. In the first place, this article is not about the war (Russo-Ukrainian War), it is about the invasion. Second of all, you are confusing a critical matter. War of aggression is a generalised term, which only takes on a specific meaning in the context of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314. What I presume you are thinking of is the crime of aggression, which is a legal term in international law. However, we cannot in the Wikivoice claim that Russia is guilty of the crime of aggression until a court has actually determined as such. What the sources cited (the UN resolution and the CFR source) say is that Russia's invasion constitutes 'aggression'. Neither mention 'war of aggression', and again this article isn't about the war. The 'Lawfare' source is an opinion piece and doesn't belong in the lead at all. We can certainly say that Russia's invasion is viewed by the international community as an 'act of aggression', citing the UN resolution, but not that it is guilty of the 'crime of aggression'. RGloucester — ☎ 21:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

On this I agree entirely. Note however that we are now supporting the text with the following quotation: "Russia's invasion of Ukraine constitutes the crime of aggression under international law" [13]. I remember we had discussions on this, and they are reflected in the text of Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which boldly claims with full-fledged wikivoice: "Because it violates the UN Charter, and is more than a minor border incursion, Russia's military intervention in Ukraine also qualifies as a crime of aggression under Article 8bis(1) of the Rome Statute". I've tried to argue that this is far from obvious, but I've been told that I was engaging in a piece of Original Research, that the distinction between aggression as an act (unlawful under the UN Charter) and aggression as crime ("war of aggression" stricto sensu) is nowhere to be seen, and that we already had a sufficient body of scholarly literature on the point that invasion of Ukraine qualfies as a war of aggression. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem is that some people cannot distinguish between the various cases presented by RS for how this invasion may constitute the crime of aggression as defined by international law, and the actual process of being 'convicted' of the crime of aggression. It is obvious that the international community views the invasion as an act of aggression, which can be seen in United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1. However, again, the 'crime of aggression' is exactly that, a 'crime'. No one, whether an individual or a state, is guilty of any crime until a court of law makes such a determination. The international court of public opinion is not a substitute for the ICC, ICJ, or any other international legal body. In any case, I think we must state that the international community views the invasion as 'aggression', in line with the UN resolution. We must not, however, put the cart before the horse. RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, I agree. A distinct but concurring consideration is substantive: in the case of the crime of aggression the violation of the UN Charter needs to be "manifest"; the invasion of Ukraine may well be a case of manifest violation, but it's up for debate and I doubt our policies and sources allow us to take a clear stance on the matter. Anyway, a few weeks ago I wasn't able to express my point clearly enough, I guess, there were other more urgent things to attend to, and my comments were perceived as digressive, at odds with WP:NOTAFORUM. Now I think we can address the wording of the section Crime of aggression more carefully and thoughtfully. In the next few days I will open a thread on the talk page of Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine linking to this discussion. As for this article, "Internationally considered to be an agression" is fine with me. I see, however, that @Ornilnas thinks differently. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

My main objection was calling it an "aggression" while linking to Crime of aggression. Linking to Act of aggression would be less objectionable. I also think calling it "an aggression" is somewhat awkward (what differentiates that from "an act of aggression"?), but I see that the UN source uses that language. Ornilnas (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Calling it an act or war of aggression seems fine to me, but I believe it's inappropriate to state that it's intlly./broadly considered a "crime" of aggression in wikivoice until this is established/proven by a court of law. In the body we can explain this is the legal opinion of multiple experts, but there's a distinction/need for caution when describing something as factually illegal (according to whom etc.). Jr8825 • Talk 00:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• I am unsure that nay one is not a war of Aggression, and thing act of aggression is better, after all we do still call it a war. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

President Lukashenko's blunder

Early on in the war, the Belarus president let slip that president Putin intended to invade Moldova after he had conquered Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/world/europe/ukraine-moldova-russia-invasion.html, another source that mentions the Belarusian president's accidental disclosure of plans to invade Moldova next. 208.125.143.178 (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

References

map

The colorblind-friendly map, besides being more legible, is closer to the situation reported at Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map, so I swapped it out here and on the main article. Maybe that will buy us a little stability? (Though with Russia fining WP for covering the war, I doubt any stability will last long.) Where it differs from the detailed map is the area around Shostka, Romny and Sumy, and also W of the Dnieper, where things have changed dramatically in the past few days, so hopefully that's just a lag in updating. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Can't you just change the original map, because the colorblind one is a bit of an eyesore if I'm being honest. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the colorblind map is horrible on the eyes, can we use the original one please? Ybinstok (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We could, but that map's illegible to the colorblind. Accessibility trumps aesthetics on WP, especially given how arbitrary aesthetics are. (I personally don't find anything difficult about the colorblind version, even if it looks a bit cartoonish; perhaps that's due to a difference in our monitors?

Also, the other map is in a state of chronic edit-warring, and is either unstable or blocked and thus out of date. That really needs to be fixed there, but until someone takes charge, it's not a good map to use. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No it isn't it's updated based on reliable sources, and both are now up to date, also you could've just added blue arrows to the original. Plus, you didn't need to change it on the other pages, as per the talk section above. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I needed to change it on the other pages because they didn't display correctly with the other map. That's strange, and I don't know what was wrong, but they display correctly with the colorblind map. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The colorblind version is much more WP:ACCESSIBLE. Wretchskull (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It's still an eyesore, you could just fix the original instead, also the colorblind one has no protection, it'll just devolve into an edit war again. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It's an eyesore, so we should make the original an eyesore instead? — kwami (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the colors on the original were fine, but you can change the arrow colors instead, if you know how to do that. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I was planning on doing that, actually, but the coding is a mess, and I figured with all the edit-warring going on it wouldn't be worth it. — kwami (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You could submit a request for that to happen, because the edit wars are due to people changing the map because of unreliable sources, also if you change the maps back from the colorblind ones for the battle pages they'll work again. In fact you didn't need to change them at all, just make a minor edit and it'll be fixed. Just like I did with the battle of Kharkiv. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Another color scheme is being proposed here: Commons:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukrainee.png, with one discussion about it here: Commons:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#New_map_version. Maybe you'd like to respond? — kwami (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As someone who Is colorblind I do much prefer this color scheme and the other alternative, compared to the original Dinosar199 (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Rail war in Belarus draft article

I recently started a draft for Rail war in Belarus (2022). Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2022

Could somebody put a space in between the reference before the sentence, "The Pentagon confirmed on 6 April that the Russian army left Chernihiv Oblast, while Sumy Oblast remained contested." in this subsection? 71.178.48.58 (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2022 (2)

Remove all the bulkskip andre replace Witherspoon trutt. 128.0.20.79 (talk) 06:58, 12 April 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) 09:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Archive #8

Is there a reason why new archives have stopped being generated? Archive 6 was around 130k bytes, Archive 7 was 367k bytes, and Archive 8 is already 739k bytes and still growing. Previous archives seemed to get to around 100-130 separate sections before a new one was generated while Archive 8 is at 263. Does a new archive need to be generated manually and just no one has done it? From what I reckon, we should probably be around archive 12-13 by now (if we're standardizing archive length in some way), but I have no idea the correct way to actually do that sort of splitting.... Jeancey (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The archive page size is set to 800K by intention. The old default archive size of (IIRC) 150K -- set eons ago -- serves no one, and no purpose, by fragmenting recurring issues over 50 teensy archive pages. If you want to review the history of discussions of maps of the war, for example, it's great to be able to just search map on a single page and get everything for a couple of months, instead having to jump from page to page. Everything's fine and no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. EEng 19:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries. My comment was mainly spawned by the large disparity between the current archive and the previous ones. I figured it was a mistake rather than intentional. Nevermind then! Jeancey (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record, if you edit the top of the article, buried somewhere among all the banners and stuff you'll find the parameters controlling archiving. EEng 21:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Bring the old map back!

Please take this discussion to c:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#Voting_on_two_color_schemes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These colo/urs are awful! They're distasteful and disgusting. Please change the map. Also some of the information on map is wrong, especially on Donbass. 37.30.44.145 (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Map Color Yo whoever is changing the map colors, stop. The original colors look fine, the last 2 edits have been garbage Jdgarri3 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC) @Jdgarri3: the proper location to discuss the map is commons:File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. I'll note that accessibility is generally an important value around here, so unless there is a compelling reason to use a non-colorblind-friendly map, a colorblind-friendly one should be used. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Not able to correctly read or see map Why has the maps colors changed to this? Before, thought it was a little bit difficult as the former colors merged with city names, now I can’t actually read the map anymore and it hurts to even look at it. This isn’t a colorblind friendly map, please change this. Foxterria (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Map is useless for color-blind people

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.

---

I have the most common form of color deficiency (green-weak), which afflicts something like 10 percent of men in the world. The map in the main box is utterly useless, using two colors that look identical to me.Acsenray (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely needs to be fixed. I'll copy-paste your comment on commons:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg EvergreenFir (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Acsenray and EvergreenFir, there is a colorblind-friendly map here. I definitely think it would be wise to establish consensus so that the map can be changed, although it needs to be updated. Wretchskull (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I've created a request on the talk page to see if there is consensus for the change. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The two maps seem to show the situation North of Kyiv as being drastically different - probably needs some serious source checking to determine which one is actually reliable to the current state of the conflict. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There is the one map of Kiev in the Northern front section, and where is the second map of Kiev. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I think switching to a blue/yellow scheme would be best, for WP:NPOV reasons. Are those colours suitable for colour-blind people? BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree 73.126.133.15 (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Even for people with tritanopia. But why blue and yellow? What shade of blue are you suggesting that can be distinguished from the bodies of water? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and for reference, here's a side-by-side comparison of the current map and the proposed recoloring. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Current map

Proposed recoloring (map may be outdated)

Mainly to avoid the use of red and green, as they suggest "bad" and "good". However, you have a good point about the issue with using blue. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The alternative map looks better. >>> Extorc.talk(); 08:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

We should ensure the map has legends for accessibility. I'm looking through MOS:COLOR, and it seems it has some tips on maps and charts:

"Additional tools can be used to help produce graphical charts and color schemes for maps and the like. These tools are not accurate means to review contrast accessibility, but they can be helpful for specific tasks."

"Color Brewer 2.0 provides safe color schemes for maps and detailed explanations."

"Light qualitative color scheme provides a set of nine colors that work for color-blind users and with black text labels (among other palettes)."

It also has some links to webtools that simulate colourblindness. I'd suggest investigating possibilities with these tools before making a decision.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If we do change to a colourblind friendly palette, can we choose one that is easier on the eyes in general? The spoiled milk bright yellow and slightly sickening off-red (that together like blood in custard) on the currently proposed version sort of makes me want to vomit. The current, "warmer" version looks nicer, but if it needs to be colourblind friendly I am sure we can find a palette with more agreeable hues. BlackholeWA (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Colourblind perception of colours is a matter of contrast (a bit like distinctions in a greyscale). I think the issue is that "warmer" colours lack the contrast that can be perceived. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Orange and green version is a lot nicer. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

Could you make the Ukraine map have the blue arrows again when showing Ukraine counter-offensive, it made it a lot easier to see the movements on the map compared to the yellow lines being used now. 24.190.30.6 (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See discussion above regarding the colorblind accessible map. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Good idea IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Official sources are sometimes better than news sources

Sometimes news articles are linked rather than official sources. For example, the "pig lard" story is official information and Indonesian news sources are not really necessary.

https://twitter.com/ng_ukraine/status/1497924614865002497

I am sure there are other examples, which more diligent people than me will be able to provide. Ianis G. Vasilev ( talk ) 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Russians who have left Russia

This is an important dimension of the war, recently covered in the Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/31/russian-activists-exile-putin-protests/

In the linked source (if you click on “record numbers”): https://www.rferl.org/a/russians-flee-fearing-war-fallout/31752961.html it says estimates are 200,000 Russians have emigrated, who may become critics in exile, facilitate a brain drain, etc.

None of this is in the article, and it should be. 2600:1012:B000:3193:CC7A:E648:667:8B8E (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an important subject. It is enough for a full article in my opinion. I just started a draft: Russian migration following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft looks good so far! But remember to add archive links when citing a website. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@I'ma editor2022: There is usually no need to proactively archive sources and add them to references. External links added to Wikipedia are generally automatically archived within 24 hours, per WP:PLRT, and when external links break, archives can normally be automatically found and replaced using User:InternetArchiveBot.

So, while it's nice to do if you want to be thorough, there's usually no harm in not doing it. Melmann 14:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that, as I didn't know that before! — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Can someone add a link to that page in the “refugee” section, below the Ukraine link? 2600:1012:B06D:6661:1461:9057:11BE:236A (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Konotop is in Sumy

Under 'Northeastern front', the info on Konotop makes it look like it's in Chernihiv Oblast, but it's actually in Sumy Oblast. I can't move the text as it would mean read the references, but if someone would do that it would be great. – Tintazul ^msg 08:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Change arrangement on fronts merging Northeastern offensive into other two?

We currently use arrangement of four main fronts for this war: Kyiv/Northern, Northeastern, Eastern, and Southern. I raised on Northeastern offensive talk page a question whether it should be merged into Kyiv and Eastern offensives: Talk:Northeastern Ukraine offensive#Merge Northeastern offensive into Kyiv and Eastern offensives?.--Staberinde (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Kramatorsk train station airstrike

I recently created an article for the Kramatorsk train station airstrike. Thriley (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Article is here: Kramatorsk railway bombing. Thriley (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this airstrike on the animated map of the invasion? The animated map has not been updated for 2-3 weeks. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

Hello fellows, I suggest we change the opening sentence to match the article name as follows

"The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an ongoing military conflict that began on 24 February 2022."

Your comments are welcome! Thank you Duck Dawny (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Support I think this is a good change, the current opening sentence is very short and awkward, and (as you point out) doesn't include the title. Toadspike (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm content with both the current and proposed versions, although I prefer the current (non-bolded) sentence as it's less clunky and repetitious (try saying "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is an ongoing military conflict that began on 24 February 2022", and then compare that to the current version). The only real advantage of the proposal is that it fits in a bold title, but this is less important than natural phrasing. Jr8825 • Talk 16:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  could "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February. Internationally considered an act of aggression..." work? it sounds fairly natural, but I could see how it's still a bit clunky.

  – DirkJandeGeer щи 16:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons brought up by Jr8825. I don't think the opening sentence is great either, but I think this proposal would be a step down from what is already there. We don't need to have the bold title on every page. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Consistency between articles is important. Unless there are particular aspects of this conflict that make certain phrasings impractical, the article should look similar to those of other (ongoing) military conflicts. Both User:Duck_Dawny's and User:DirkJandeGeer's proposals look fine. Ornilnas (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed my support, as E points out that the invasion's current name is probably a temporary one. Ornilnas (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Support - Please. The current opening sentence doesn't actually explain the article topic; it reads like it could be a random historical fact. The suggested sentence or something similar is more appropriate per MOS:FIRST. I did make an attempt to change within the current structure to at least make the invasion itself the subject of the sentence, but this was changed back. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jr8825 above. — Czello 11:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support The first sentence must follow standard set by other articles. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Don't make stuff up. If you're going to claim a 'must', cite policy. MOS favours using the article title in the lead, but it is not obligatory. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose For some reason people have the idea that articles are required to open by robotically barfing out their titles. They don't -- see MOS:FIRST. This event doesn't even have an agreed-upon formal name yet (like World War II or Crimean War), much less one that should be featured in bold. Just leave it be. EEng 01:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  They don't have to open by barfing their titles, but the subject of the article should be the subject of the first sentence, which should ideally then describe what the article topic is. The current first sentence has "Russia" as its subject rather than its invasion, and is a statement of fact rather than a description of the topic. Although the current first sentence may implicitly convey the article topic, it does not actually describe it, it just makes a statement and then leaves the user to intuit that this is to be understood as a description of the topic of the article they have started reading. This is a bad way to structure a lead. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  There's no one on earth right now who will have trouble so intuiting, especially given the article's title. We just don't have to repeat it. EEng 10:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's not about whether somebody would reasonably get the intent, it's about good writing. If the article started with "Ukraine Russia big soldier clash attack boom", then most people would still probably understand what that was referring to, but it still wouldn't be an appropriate opening sentence for the article. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Great strawman. The title of the article is 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine. There's nothing for the reader to intuit. EEng 21:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that the first sentence is understandable is not an argument against writing it better, is what I am saying... BlackholeWA (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  First you said the reader "is left to intuit" something. Now that it's been pointed out that there's nothing for the reader to intuit, you're switching to a vague statement that better is better. No one's going to be against making something better. But what's being proposed isn't better. EEng 02:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per EEng. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support DirkJandeGeer's version ("The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February..."). I think, leaving aside the bolding issue, it reads the best of all the alternatives. Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Duck Dawny's version, as it is a simple and neutral start. The internationally considered an act of aggression part is very clearly laid out in para 4 of the lead. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

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.

---

Moved from Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 5

—CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 19:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello from Korea! I have an update on sanctions against Russia announced by the Korea. Can we please add this new information to section 6.1 Sanctions? I hops this information can reach those suffering from war disinformation campaign before Putin bans wikipedia... ㅜㅠ

On March 1st South Korea announced it would stop all transactions with 7 main Russian banks and their affiliates, restrict the purchase of Russian treasury bonds, and agreed to "immediately implement" and join any further economics sanctions imposed against Russia by the European Union. 222.99.95.163 (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

An open edit request doesn't belong to the Archives. Please, consider responding to this request. Or if this request is inappropriate for this article, move this request to the talk page of an appropriate article. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 19:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've added the information to the South Korea section under Reactions. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 04:26, 12 April 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.

RfC: Should the invasion have its own sidebar/campaignbox?

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

---

The invasion and some of the many articles surrounding it are currently part of Template:Campaignbox Russo-Ukrainian War. As far as I can tell only engagement-related articles seem to mostly use the Russo-Ukrainian war caimpaignbox, while most of the more political-societal and media-focused articles do not, and are not linked in it. Due to the large number (28 "See also" articles and 17 "Main articles") of articles surrounding 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine I'm wondering: Should the invasion have its own sidebar/campaignbox? Phiarc (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. The current crisis has little to do with most of the historical material in the Russo-Ukrainian war box, and there's a lot of material to cover, too much to shoehorn into that box.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. I would suggest the Template:Campaignbox Russo-Ukrainian War include only the "Prelude" and "Crimea annexation" section links (since there are only half a dozen events regarding those periods), and two general links for the Donbass war and the 2022 invasion. While the Donbass war and the 2022 invasion should have their own infoboxes that would include all of the individual battles. Or, if people won't separate, at the very least follow this format Template:Campaignbox War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). EkoGraf (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. There are enough subsidiary article specific to the invasion to warrant this. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know if this is against some WP guideline or not, but I created a rough version of Template:Sidebar 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine while this RfC is running, perhaps consider it a discussion aid or something like that. Contrast with Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has 36 categories I'm thinking the sidebar should be more focused, e.g. instead of containing every battle article, just the offensives. It would not be useful to simply duplicate the navbox, but vertically. Navbox for completeness, sidebar for overview, basically. Phiarc (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've divided and replaced the articles listed under 2022 invasion with a separate campaignbox. Viewsridge (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that what you have done is quite what we are intending (certainly not me). It would be a separate campaign box that only included those links subsequent to or directly preceding the invasion. There would also be a two-way link between it and the main box for the Russo-Ukrainian War. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It was reverted fairly quickly (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACampaignbox_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&type=revision&diff=1079445056&oldid=1079439359). In any case I agree that we should first establish what the goal is and then do that and not run off immediately changing dozens of articles. Phiarc (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, following EkoGraf's proposal – I agree, the present state of this box is absolutely unwieldy. EkoGraf's proposal is the most elegant solution to this problem. Have one 'generalised' campaignbox for the whole war, and two sub-boxes, one for the war in Donbas and one for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Crimea doesn't need its own box. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree because the main campaignbox is getting too laggy/crowded, so I would suggest a solution similar to that employed in Template:Campaignbox War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), which is a collection of campaignboxes for separate campaigns that are all embedded into the same campaignbox. This way we can separate the Invasion of the Crimea, the Donbass War, and the 2022 Invasion from each other. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Moving forward This discussion has gone stale but it appears to me that there is a consensus for this article to have its own campaign box, if not how exactly this would look. I would suggest that someone with a draft just be bold and put it in. My only observation is that we probably don't need an image and certainly not the map again. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157 - I've made one at User:Dunutubble/drafttemplate6. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

OK Dunutubble, a good start. I would see that the campaign box for here would contain (and duplicate) everything in the Russo-Ukrainian War campaign bow that is in that section headed 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any other thoughts? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 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.

Image of killed civilian

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.

---

@Hcoder3104 removed this image because Disturbing image, @Super Dromaeosaurus reverted because WP:NOTCENSORED. another reason must be given for the removal of this image. I'm not sure that the image increases our understanding of the invasion, but my main concern here is with source and privacy. The image has been uploaded on Facebook by the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs without providing information about the photographer, the subject and the context (they claim it's Kyinka or Pavlinka near Chernihiv). We should remove contentious material about living or recently dead people that is poorly sourced as per WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BDP, and we should be extra cautious in case of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE: the image could be a fake and, if it is genuine, publishing it might show lack of respect for the deceased and his loved ones. The image is not indispensable for the article and I suggest we remove it. P.S. the image is now also in Russian war crimes and in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove I don't see that its inclusion is IAW WP:IMGCONTENT and that it particularly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article's subject matter. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Much like most other article space images, this image is a window into viscerally understanding the meaning of the text next to it. If you find the image disturbing, that's good because war is disturbing, and this image serves to convey that reality. Not to mention that Wikipedia:Content disclaimer applies. I also don't agree with the privacy argument. The subject is not readily identifiable from the image as they are lying face down; thus there are no privacy concerns from where I'm standing. We regularly feature images of identifiable people who aren't public figures, for example, see human, so this argument does not hold water for me. Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs is a reliable primary source in this case, so I do not see the concern that this is fake. I obviously understand that Ukraine is engaging in a propaganda war, but there is every indication that civilians are indeed being killed, so this image fits what we know from corroborating reports.
  In summary, in my estimation the image serves an encyclopedic purpose in demonstrating the reality of the war which this article covers. Melmann 08:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs is a reliable primary source"... are you basing this on anything other than that you personally support Ukraine in this conflict and therefore believe with utmost faith and sincerity that Ukraine could not possibly be producing propaganda that works in their favor and to the detriment of their enemy? หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove poorly sourced, we know very little information about this photo Ilenart626 (talk)
• Keep - Why should we devoid the horrors of war in an article related to a war? Per Melmann. There are more images and videos related to the war circulating around the internet that are far more disturbing than the image shown (i.e. people burnt to crisps / brains, guts, everything). Giving readers a taste of the reality of war invokes a stronger perception and concept regarding the importance of avoiding one in a pretty raw fashion. The image doesn't show or hint the actual identity of the person killed, that's another reason. PenangLion (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Wasn't this already answered with FAQ #1? It was also discussed here. Beyond that the new course of the war has increasingly been defined by attacks on civilian targets, such being the case from an informational standpoint the image is just as important if not more important than the image of burnt out Russian tanks in Bucha. This is what the war looks like. I'm not saying that we make this in to a gore thread, but Russia is currently carpet bombing Mariupol, which has mass graves and dead bodies in the street, this is the war. It's worth noting that pages about similar conflicts such as the First Chechen War also feature graphic images, the First Chechen War page having an image of civilians in a mass grave, and dead civilians in the back of a truck. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep. The photo is not 'disturbing' (as for example this from an identical reality to that of the indiscriminate mass bombing of another country we see now with Ukraine. It is moderate, objective, an obvious reality of what war does, without making viewers nauseous by exposing them to a brutal goriness few of us can watch without feeling unhinged.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment My !vote to remove (above) was not because the image was too confrontational but that it did not increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter (per WP:IMGCONTENT). If anything, an image sufficient to increase the readers understanding would be more confrontational. If the present image doesn't do what it should, it should be removed or replaced with one that does (IAW policy). Cinderella157 (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - Ditto Melmann. Recall photos on World War Two, the Korean War, the Rape of Nanking and so forth; so long as it is relevant, factual, and relatively informational, I'm fine with keeping. Obviously balanced writing is necessary, and gorification ought to be avoided, but I find no issue with this specific photo. Augend (drop a line) 17:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove - content from a self-published source that's currently involved in an information war. A similar image verified and published by an independent source would be much more inline with WP standards. Aside: the acceptable nature of the content shouldn't be used as an argument to override or sidestep sourcing and privacy concerns. --N8_wilson 22:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep because this definitely "increase[s] readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". That was already decided in previous discussions (link by Alcibiades979). There is no copyright issues if I understand correctly or anything problematic per policy with this image. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Images of the exteriors of shelled apartment buildings are commonplace. Cinderella157 argues that this particular photo does not "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter", but I disagree. This photo of the interior of an apartment where someone was killed at home significantly increased my own understanding, and when I see exterior views of blasted apartment buildings in the future, I will have a much better understanding what the people who lived in those buildings suffered, and the horrors that could be seen inside those shattered apartments if a photographer entered those devastated places. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 20y 22 (UTC)
• Keep (unless better alternative found) - As far as I'm concerned, the focus of this RfC is not about it being disturbing (though the edit war was about that), it's about whether the source is reliable. However, I see no reason to even suspect that the source has fabricated the image in any way, as there seems to be no need to do so. Suspecting this image as fabricated seems akin to suspecting the US of faking the moon landing-- it's literally easier to get the real thing than to fake it. Lack of photographer credit means little during war time, and the source is an official source even if it uses facebook. I do see the arguments made above that a better representational image might be found elsewhere, (which might be even more disturbing that this one) and I would support replacing this image with such an image if found and sourced... but I also have no objections to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs' facebook page being a source. Fieari (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question This image appears in the section "War crimes:Attributed to Russian authorities and forces". How does this image of a dead man contribute to our understanding of war crimes attributed to the Russians? There is nothing that would indicate this death actually results from a war crime? On the otherhand, deliberately targeting a well marked hospital is pretty clearly a war crime. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah. I think this is where I fall. I agree the image could be suitable for placement in the article at an appropriate part of the prose, but it's unclear how it relates to "war crimes by Russian authorities". Unless someone can clearly explain how this image depicts a war crime, its placement doesn't seem relevant in that section. The particular contents of the image (i.e. whether it contains a body) doesn't seem too relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Laws of war generally distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets. The target of the attack must be a legitimate military target, and the damage to civilians must be proportional to the military objective that the attack attempts to achieve. Although I am under no illusion that a bunch of volunteer editors can meaningfully adjudicate whether a war crime has occurred based on one image, if we just take it on face value, we have an image shared by a legitimate government source accusing the Russian military of killing this civilian, with the image showing a civilian who appears to have been killed by military action while in a civilian residence, which is unlikely to be a legitimate military target. Further to this, we know from WP:RS reporting that scenarios similar to what this image purports to represent are indeed occurring.
  Of course, there could be further context we are not privy to, such as this civilian opening fire on Russian troops, or providing material support to the Ukrainian military, which could make them a legitimate target, but the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest that this image depicts a war crime against the civilian population of Ukraine. Melmann 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Bodies of some of the hundreds of Vietnamese villagers who were killed by U.S. soldiers during the My Lai Massacre. This is a compelling image

Civilian deaths are an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of war - being just too close to a legitimate target in the wrong place at the wrong time. The image of itself does not rise to depicting a war crime rather than an unfortunate event. I am not judging the act but the efficacy of the image to depict what it is supposedly intended to do per image policy. There are probably more confronting images that better support an understanding of the subject section. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC) See an example of a compelling image. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Borderline Keep I feel that WP:NOTCENSORED gets unfair weight in these discussions, being used in the sense that the content should be included because not doing so would be censorship. We should really pay more attention to WP:OM, and in particular WP:GRATUITOUS. As this policy says "Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship." and goes on to say (my bold) "According to the Wikimedia Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment'; that is, we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." There is a point at which images become too gratuitous, and I feel that this image is probably somewhere around that limit.Mozzie (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would tend to disagree that this image is offensive to an average reader. Obviously, the level of offence is highly cultural, but this image could have easily been a still from any number of police procedural dramas or action films, readily shown during the daytime in most Anglophone countries. The only meaningful difference between this and the procedural drama example is that we know for a fact that this image is real, while images from those dramas we know to be staged. This image does not show gratuitous violence, beyond from what is required to demonstrate the encyclopedic point in question. There are no internal organs strewn about, the victim is not beheaded, there isn't even a meaningful amount of blood on display. If anything, this is the mildest photo that can convincingly demonstrate the reality of death of civilian population of Ukraine. I understand your point, and I do agree to a point. I would not support ISIS beheading videos being the first thing the reader lands on when reading the page ISIS, but in this case, I think we are a long way off from getting the balance wrong.
  I can understand how a reader might find the image distressing, but the topic of civilian death in a war is highly distressing on its own, and this image demonstrates the reality of it without displaying needlessly unmerited violence. Melmann 12:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep I remember switching on the News after school as a four year-old during the Vietnam War. Images such as this (viewer discretion!) were common. No one had to tell me war was Disturbing while putting their own spin on "the facts" - a picture is worth a thousand words. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep It is an article on a war, some disturbing images are expected, as the war is itself a disturbing event. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Per reasons given above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 23:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question Can anybody tell me how this image is clearly about war crimes? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree. Single incidence civilian deaths with no supporting evidence can't be automatically attributed as war crimes. Also any claim in that direction would need to verify three things: that the assailant was a combatant (in legal terms) and that the victim was a non-combatant, and that the attack by a combatant against a non-combatant was intentional. All of these things are extremely difficult to verify. All may not be as it seems, especially in a situation where it is alleged there is a widespread resistance movement within the civilian population. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove I have seen much worse in relation even to this war, and the person actually looks quite peaceful and 'undamaged', but the relatively acceptable nature of the content shouldn't be used as an argument to override or sidestep sourcing and privacy concerns., nor that we actually have no idea what the picture depicts and whether it does or does not illustrate anything specific about this war, nor about war crimes. It reitetrates the obvious, that people die in war, and violent death never looks pretty. Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Statistics. In terms of opinions for consensus purposes only there appear to be 12 Keeps and 4 Deletes, which is at about 3-to-1. Wikipedia policy is generally to be against censorship, and consensus should decide if the image is useful to the article as a whole on its own merits. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I would make it 5 to remove. However, those arguments are being made mainly on the source of the image and policy - whether the image is adequate to support the accompanying text. They are not being made for reasons of censoring. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Remove I have no issue of citing materials from verified social media accounts of government agencies or reputed individuals. My issue is the appeal to sensation instead of providing substantial context to the alleged war crimes committed by Russian troops. It's fair that we employ much stricter criteria when deciding what we should include in such article with high traffic because of the ongoing military campaign. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:42, 5 April 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.

The Ukraine support is totally missing here. Why?

Misinformation 82.77.10.112 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but we have WP:NPOV. This is a encyclopedia, WP:NOTADVOCACY. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 14:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Its not, we have information about it, under Foreign military involvement (for example). Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2022

Add under "Commanders and Leaders" for Russia General Alexander Dvornikov. Source Perathian (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

He is added as lead commander for Russian invasion in the "Invasion" section of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia has appointed a new commander of the entire invasion: Please add to Infobox This was reported in the BBC News today (9 April, 2022). See here. (no signature)

→‎Invasion and resistance: Dvornikov assigned as military commander of 2022 invasion by Russia. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Kyrgyz mercenaries?

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.

---

RFE/RL: "many Kyrgyz citizens -- in Russia as migrant workers -- have voluntarily joined the Russian military as contractors in return for money or fast-tracked Russian citizenship." https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-russia-invasion-ukraine-fighting/31795637.html

---

Երևանցի ^talk 12:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Contract soldiers serving in the regular Russian military to gain Russian citizenship. Almost the same as non-US citizens serving in the U.S. Military so they could gain US citizenship. So not mercenaries. EkoGraf (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Foreign contract soldiers in regular/official armies are ordinary thing. Such troops are not mercenaries (see definition of mercenary in Geneva Convention). Alex Spade (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2022

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.

---

1. (minor edit) Error in the lead: "in an internationally condemned an act of aggression". The "an" before "act of aggression" needs to be removed.

2. Additionally, I think the lead should say the persons, groups, or states who consider this an act of aggression. According to the sources given, this would be the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations, who should be attributed in-text (In My Opinion).

Thanks -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Part #1 appears to have already been done. I actually agree with the "Oh the hilarity ensues" section; this should not be included in the opening sentence or lead whatsoever. Remove this from here but mention further on, as with other articles covering similar topics. QueenofBithynia (talk) 12:56, 12 April 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.

Invitation to participate in article template discussion

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.

---

Available here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 9#Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox - DownTownRich (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC:)

This discussion has been closed 2-3 times by separate editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:39, 10 April 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.

Equipment

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.

---

Is there any reliable data what heavy equipment is available to both sides? While there is considerable open source intelligence about confirmed equipment losses, it is obscure e.g. how many tanks participate in the invasion. I think the article would gain from that. --Rebentisch (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The tank and infantry divisions are listed at the start of the Invasion section of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 9 April 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.

Ukrainian intelligence service denies sharing information of Chinese cyberattack, says they have no evidence of said attack

From the official Twitter account of the Security Service of Ukraine, translated: https://twitter.com/ServiceSsu/status/1509983294334582793

"The SBU did not provide the media with any official information that cyber-attacks from China were allegedly carried out on the eve of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our military and other resources. The SBU has nothing to do with the findings of The Times. The Security Service of Ukraine does not currently have such data and no investigation is underway."

Chokoladesu (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Anyone have any idea what we're supposed to do with this? EEng 10:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Chinese military attackers were also alleged to have conducted a massive cyberwarfare espionage programme on the eve of the invasion, including on nuclear infrastructure, pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge." is written under section Prelude - Escalation.

  Since this was refuted by the Ukrainians themselves, this should be noted, or the sentence could be done away if other editors think it should. In addition, "pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge" is a clear WP:NPOV violation and needs to go.

  On a related note, some experts believe (not weasel-wording here) that actually China took the invasion by surprise. I think a section titled Chinese Reaction, regarding the Chinese reaction as well as standpoint on the invasion can expand on this interesting topic. Chokoladesu (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of the term "falsely accused"

I wrote this in my editsum, but whilst the RS does use the word "falsely accused" and the factual basis of the term is relatively well-established, the problem is that the term "falsely accused" is more partisan and accusatory than, for instance, "accused without basis". See WP:PARTISAN -

reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.

The truth is that the language used seems, at least from a semantical standpoint, to be potentially problematic. Augend (drop a line) 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In essence, we go with the language RS use. But without knowing what you are talking about its hard to say if the use of false is valid. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking here: "Russian president Vladimir Putin espoused irredentist views, questioned Ukraine's right to statehood, and falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority." As a side note I agree with the usage of "falsely accused" in this case. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand your issue Augend and agree with you that the usage of the term "falsely accused" is problematic. In my opinion it goes against WP guidelines on balancing our language and keeping it neutral. Maybe note in the sentence who considers it as a false accusation, attribute it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion it goes against WP guidelines on balancing our language and keeping it neutral. What kind of WP guidelines are you talking about? Renat 10:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

While it is clear that RS almost universally concur that Putin is exaggerating in the extreme, "without basis" does not work because there is a lot of basis for conclusions which are similar to the ones he draws. It is not so much a lack of basis, there are heaps of evidence of unusually pronounced affinities for Nazism throughout the record of Ukraine's various social phenomena. It is just that Putin makes a wild leap from that basis to a conclusion, framed here as Nazi "dominance", which lacks a sufficent basis to support his extreme conclusion and remedies. It is confusing though to state "without basis" which may be technically correct regarding the Putin conclusions because there is nevertheless a lot of basis for relatively non-controversial conclusions which lead towards, but do not arrive, at Putin's endpoint conclusion. Therefore, while supporting the spirt of the proposal "without basis", I do not support the use of "without basis" as a way out of this conundrum. IMV. Wikidgood (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The above in reply to . Alcibiades979 (talk) as to the edit in his link "I'm thinking..." As stated eslewhere, I believe the lede is problematized more by the inaccurate characterization of Putin's remarks as a problem of Nazi "dominance" than by the characterization of his words as false accusation, although I concur with EkoGraf and others that "falsely accused" fails WP:NPV and 'balance'. There are many accusations floating around which are not necessarily so clearly false, eg., that shelling by UNG into Donbass is excessive, that UNG units such as Azov violate HR conventions, that Russian language-speakers are unduly suppressed by the Ua legislation, that the Party of Regions has been subjected to bullying, that the Odessa fire incident was an outrage raising certain red flags, that the use of the wolfsangel in official regalia is suggestive of inappropriate Nazi affinities, that some of the territorial acquisitions @ Galicia were suspect in the inception, etc etc.

None of these are universally regarded as "false", and they all could be woven together in a general theory of creeping Naziism afflicting Ukraine, which a significant plurality of commentators may believe. (I don't, by the way.) The point is that "falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis" is just not a great piece of writing, it looks like writing-by-committee and we may be stuck with it.

If there is a way out, IMO, it would be to start with revisions that state more precisely it is that Putin does and does not say. We can then more readily determine the proper way to qualify his contentions. That would require quite a bit of thought, and, even if someone devoted some time to reformulation of that phrase, there would then be the task of winning support/consensus. It is not unlikely then that there debate will just continue around how to qualify what I believe to be the flawed subject of the qualifier. Thus is the nature of collective encyclopeiation, alas. Wikidgood (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. Anyone who reads the article, or listens to the news, knows that Putin is lying every time he opens his mouth. However, using a finger-pointing term like "falsely" to hammer home the point here is both redundant and unencyclopaedic. But, there's already been a similar discussion some while back, and the outcome was to keep the term, so good luck with trying to get it removed or changed HieronymousCrowley (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

However, using a finger-pointing term like "falsely" to hammer home the point here is both redundant and unencyclopaedic. Why do you think so? And what is your policy based argument? Renat 10:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with User:Augend. I think the use of "falsely" is biased and non-nuetral. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So you're adding your support to Augend? EEng 13:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment It is one thing to be quoting a source (directly or indirectly using non-neutral terms, it is quite another to be writing in non-neutral terms in WP's voice. The lead is a summary of the body. We might state that the allegations are false in the summary if this represents the consensus of opinion in good quality, independent reliable sources. Even then, we should (probably) not be saying this in a WP voice. The body of the text should be showing us that there is such a consensus to show that the allegation can be considered false. We are putting the "falsely accused" in a WP voice before the cart ... analysts have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence .... Of the two news sources cited to support this, one doesn't appear to be referring to the opinion of anybody particularly and the second refers to a representatives of an American expatriate Ukranian organisation, an American Jewish organisation and a former American ambassador to Russia. I think that the description of "analysts" is being a little free with the truth. Now, I'm not saying that the allegations are true but it does appear to me that we are probably being a little free with what should be said in a WP voice and WP:NPOV. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder, WP:NPOV does not mean we must be kind or take a middle-ground stance. It means we must report according to what the sources say. In this case, all reliable sources are unanimous that this is a false accusation. There are no reliable sources that say otherwise. This is exactly the time to use wikivoice. Fieari (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not said that we couldn't use WP voice but that we haven't gone about things the right way by which we could use WP voice. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As said above, even though they are considered RS by Wikipedia, they are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, so this has to be taken into account. Agree with Cinderella157, a right way needs to be found to convey the information in WP's voice. EkoGraf (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess I have an issue with giving credence in the lede to a conspiracy theory that is currently being used to justify a war. Multiple RS's refer to these allegations as false. I'd also take it a step further and say that I think extra caution needs to be taken in this instance since the accusation is that one of the world's two Jewish heads of state is actually a nazi who is committing genocide against Christians. This is clearly extremely problematic, and the accusation is deeply anti-semitic. Putin's accusation itself is a text book example of WP:NAZI: "That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or hold an ideology that is worse or morally equivalent." As far as reliable sources go:

• NewYorkTimes: "Neo-Nazis have been a recurring character in Russian propaganda campaigns for years, used to falsely justify military action against Ukraine in what Russian officials have called “denazification.”"
• CBS: "Putin built a false premise for a war against "Nazis" in Ukraine"
• CNN: "The false accusations of Nazism and genocide from Putin and his aides against the Zelensky government have drawn outrage."
• NBC: "Putin has long sought to falsely paint Ukraine as a Nazi hotbed, which is a particularly jarring accusation given that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish and lost three family members in the Holocaust."
• WallStreetJournal: "The references to Nazi Germany come against the backdrop of Russia falsely alleging that the Ukrainian government is run by neo-Nazis and that one of the aims of its war is to “de-Nazify” the country"
• Politico: "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is Jewish himself and whom Russian President Vladimir Putin has cynically and falsely called a Nazi"

This is what the sources say, and what is in common usage, and for good reason. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobody here is advocating for the truth of Putin's statements, nor do we support the use of these mistruths in the advancement of an aggressive and damaging warmaking policy. That said, I also do not believe Wikipedia ought to be used for sending political messaging; the outrageous nature of the comments is not justification for our supposed burden to right great wrongs. Augend (drop a line) 15:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Calling false accusations false is not political messaging; it is a factual statement, and being mealy-mouthed about it would be false balance. To quote our policy on NPOV: we...describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. The proper context of these accusations is that they're false, which you don't dispute, and it's not a NPOV violation to describe them as such. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. The logic behind @Alcibiades979's post implies that the nefarious nature of the commentary somehow emburdens us to emphasize the lack of truthfulness or otherwise highlight the falsehood of the commentary. This is not true. Whatever the purpose of Putin's comments are, we are not obligated to act any differently because of them.

Within the context of WP:IMPARTIAL, [t]he tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Forgive my pedantry, but the use of the term here is explicitly rejecting a point-of-view. Now- while the existing terminology "falsely accused" may be fine within the current context, the question ought to be framed more so as whether an alternate phrasing may be better. I am of the opinion that the use of a more neutral term, incorporating such language as "without evidence" or "without basis" would be more suitable. Augend (drop a line) 16:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL is incorrect in this instance specifically because WP:NPOV refers specifically to reliable sources. Vladimir Putin is not a reliable source on nazism in general, or nazism in Ukraine in particular, nor is it credible to state that he is. We have a number of Reliable Sources in this thread, all of which refer to the claims as being false, in fact I chose the sources I did because they mirror the article's terminology almost exactly: "false accusations". As far as I can tell there is no debate that the accusations are false. We should follow the Reliable Sources. What's more is that we as edittors are not "neutral", in the sense that we give false balance, rather, we are neutral in our reporting and representation of Reliable Sources, which may lead to what maybe construed as "not neutral content" there is nothing wrong with this as long as we are fairly representing the Reliable Sources, which we are. In short, there's no WP:OR there's no going out on a limb, the article is just following Reliable Sources to the letter. For instance with the Gleiwitz incident the article simply states that it was a false flag attack, not that "Germany invaded Poland because it claimed that Poland attacked a german radio tower." Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Breaking this down...

Vladimir Putin is not a reliable source on nazism in general, or nazism in Ukraine in particular - nobody said he is. I'm pretty sure nobody in this thread has ever claimed Putin's words have any truth value. That said, I am challenging the wording because it (a) provides, at least, the presentation of an NPOV violation & (b) may or may not be a leap of encyclopedic register. For instance, can you give me a single difference between my suggested wording and the extant wording? Why must we use the word "falsely" exactly?

We should follow the Reliable Sources - "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" - we do not, and indeed, probably should not, follow RS' semantics choices verbatim.

For instance with the Gleiwitz incident the article simply states that it was a false flag attack, not that "Germany invaded Poland because it claimed that Poland attacked a german radio tower." - yes, but the term false in that context is a false flag (a well-established term) - it alone is an incomplete clause. It would obviously be appropriate for use in that context. If you are suggesting we call Russia's invasion a false-flag, that is a separate discussion.

Finally, there is considerable historical consensus based on a wealth and breadth of knowledge on the topic since WWII - unlike this situation, where this is still a considerable degree of uncertainty (if anything, just because of how vaguely worded the subsequent clause is and the relative novelty of the entire phenomenon). Hence I do not believe it would be problematic to err on the side of caution (see [a]). Augend (drop a line) 05:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"unlike this situation, where this is still a considerable degree of uncertainty" Where is the uncertainty? Where are the sources that state then that the Ukrainian government is dominated by nazis? I found and listed a number of sources stating that the accusation is false. Do you have sources that say that Volodomyr Zelenskyy is a nazi? Otherwise to me it is exactly the same as the Gleiwitz incident, and if we get rid of the exact phrasing and just allow it to be RSs that refute the statement that Ukraine is a neo-nazi state then I can easily produce dozens of RSs which state that it is false. The middle ground is that the jewish president of Ukraine is not a nazi, that his government is not nazi and that he's not perpetrating genocide; that is the middle of the road NPOV statement. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

OK how about "incorrectly accused", is that better? We reflct what RS say, so we can't imply this is not incorrect or false.. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we have RS that use "incorrectly"? Renat 10:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• FYI, this was already discussed at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8#NPOV in the lead section? Putin "falsely" accused Ukraine of being dominated by Nazis. I'm generally very cautious about Wikipedia using judgemental terms in wikivoice, and have argued very strongly against this where I feel the sources are more cautious/hedged than our article voice. However, in this case I think "falsely" is clearly vindicated by the sources (as Alcibiades979 helpfully shows above). As it's factually true (Putin's claim is baseless and described as false) I think there's no need to qualify, attribute or water down this wording. In the previous discussion I also noted that MOS:WEASEL encourages editors to use their discretion with potentially opinion-sounding terms in the lead and in topic sentences at the start of paragraphs, as sometimes words which sound opinionated best and most accurately reflect the sources which are later expounded on the article body/following sentences, which I believe is that case here. That said, I didn't particularly mind Augend's suggested wording "without basis" – but I think the rationale for change, that there's a neutrality issue, is wrong. Jr8825 • Talk 11:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  "We will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine" is not a factual statement which can be assessed in terms of true or false, but a declaration of intent hinting at regime change, plus an expressive statement aimed at escalating the conflict. Saying that it is "false" in the lead section is a way of taking a clear stance from the very start. Of course we should debunk false information, as we are now trying to do decently in the "Russian accusations and demands" section; and of course Ukraine is not run by fascists. But claiming that the statement "we come to wipe out the fascists" is false, without basis, etc., is just getting caught in the dumb talk of propaganda war. And yes, there are fascists on the ground in Ukraine, they’ve been responsible for atrocities, and yes the members of the Russian community may reasonably think that they’ve been subjected to systematic discrimination based on language and nationality. I think that our RS are much more reliable for facts than for value judgments. Echoing them doesn’t bring us closer to peace nor to truth. I’d remove the "falsely" adverb from the lead. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I also came here specifically to ask for the removal of falsely in this context. Falsely somewhat implies that there is certainty that those accusations are false. Accused itself, however, do not carry the connotation that the accusations are true. My suggestion is to use allegedly. ... accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who allegedly persecute the Russian-speaking minority. In this way, we still play down the possibility of persecution of Russian-speaking minorities, while do not dismiss whether some neo-Nazis are active in Ukraine right away. 88.243.148.71 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"Falsely somewhat implies that there is certainty that those accusations are false" – that's precisely why "false" is appropriate here. There is no reasonable doubt that Putin's accusation that Ukraine is run by Nazis committing genocide against Russian speakers is false. The sources are unanimous and express certainty. Jr8825 • Talk 13:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the sources is that they are all USA sources. Using the words of the press of a country heavily invested with one side verbatim is not constructive. Moreover, we have a seven paragraphs of Neo-Nazism#Ukraine and Racism_in_Ukraine mentions neo-Nazism three times. People who use wikipedia as their primary news source and who don't know anything about the conflict would probably think that there is no shred of evidence that there are any neo-Nazis in Ukraine, after reading this sentence. 88.243.148.71 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sources do not cease to be Reliable just because they are American. Fieari (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If wikipedia is to copy the US media verbatim, we can redirect this page to New York Times and all of us can call it a day. Or, we can use allegedly which is only slightly less sure than falsely.176.89.106.252 (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with IP. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• The BBC: The claim of Nazis and genocide in Ukraine was also a fiction. [14]
• The Guardian: Putin’s claim that Russia is invading Ukraine to denazify it is therefore absurd on its face [15]
• Der Spiegel: Just as they now provided false pretexts for the invasion of Ukraine? [16]

This is not a US-exclusive phenomenon. To qualify this as anything less than false feels like false balance, at best. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I can find several BBC videos on short notice stating some neo-Nazi groups freely act on their own, totally above the law. At least one such video suggested that the previous ministry of interior, Avakov, is affiliated with such groups. So, stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine. We know that overwhelming majority of scholars do not believe neo-Nazism do not justify an invasion but stating that all neo-Nazi accusations are false is not something we should do here. It doesn't even make sense, considering the fact that just next to the "falsely accused", neo-Nazism in Ukraine and Russophobia are linked right there.

Also, about WP:NPOV and specifically about false balance, "the minority view" is assumed as the minority view among the western readers. The countries that abstained in the UN GA collectively hosts about half the world. Offering the Western media verbatim here is an indirect show of western supremacy.

I want to reiterate my suggestion: ... accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who allegedly persecute the Russian-speaking minority. This way, we do not comment on the accusations about neo-Nazis but we still play down whether these neo-Nazis prosecute Russian speaking minority. 88.243.148.71 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think we are misusing NPOV and false balance. They are more applicable on issues that are exhaustively discussed on a scholarly level, such as Armenian Genocide. This is why WWII analogies do not work as well. Here, we use the language appropriate to use after a military tribunal, for an ongoing conflict. As things stand, someone who is sceptical about the mainstream western views on this conflict would not keep reading this article because he/she would think this article is western propaganda and why shouldn't they if we copy the western media verbatim? 88.243.148.71 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The actual claim as written in the article is Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism. Your statement that " stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine" is nonsense; the article says or implies nothing of the sort. Your suggestion would have us leave the statement that Ukraine is "dominated by neo-Nazism" unchallenged, only qualifying the persecution bit. "Accuse without basis" and "falsely accuse" are two (somewhat-)reasonable ways to frame this, but your suggestion is a complete non-starter. (Also, glad to see the goalposts have moved from "US" to "western"; not particularly unexpected.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the claim is wrong: Putin never said "Ukrainian society and government [are] dominated by neo-Nazim". This is a point I've raised in an earlier discussion with no avail, yet I think it's relevant. We have the full text translation of the 24 February address on Ukraine by Putin (which the Russian Federation also submitted to the UN as official justification of war). It is here (Bloomberg) and here (TASS). We also have en extensive excerpt in the New York Times, here. This is what he actually said about nazism, verbatim: "Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine"; "we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine"; "Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine". These are declarations of intent, policy objectives, political judgments and predictive statements - not mere statements of fact, which could be true or false, like "Ukrainian society and government [are] dominated by neo-Nazim". This is a ridiculous statement which Putin never pronounced, and by labelling it as "false" we are getting trapped in war propaganda. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. "Ukrainian society and government [is] dominated by neo-Nazism" is a fair interpretation of "Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine". If this were clearly a predictive statement, as you seem to suggest, then that would be something like "tomorrow's neo-Nazis". The very next line is "You swore the oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian people." That's present tense, not future. But more to the point, this is why we use secondary sources, rather than the primary source of the text of Putin's speech. And the secondary sources about this are pretty conclusive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly.Gitz: "Putin never sai..." This struck me as creative writing and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Where did Putin ever use the term "доминирует" (dominated) to characterize his take on the neo-Nazism allegations regarding Ukraine. The encyclopedic requirement of reflecting RS should use the precise wording as the default and not reframe with connotations not in the original. Wikidgood (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: [your] statement that " stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine" is nonsense; the article says or implies nothing of the sort - I presume you are referring to the extant Wikipedia article? Clarification here. Augend (drop a line) 04:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps there's an alternate rationale for the change? Augend (drop a line) 04:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There is academic consensus that Putin's claims about genocide, Nazism etc are false. See https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/345515/statement-on-the-war-in-ukraine-by-scholars-of-genocide-nazism-and-world-war-ii/. The statement was signed by 309 scholars of genocide and Nazism. Summary of the statement is in the body of this article. See 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Russian accusations and demands. So the body supports the word "falsely" in the lead. Renat 10:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, what the letter states is: This rhetoric is factually wrong, morally repugnant and deeply offensive ... Cinderella157 (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 wait-wait. Forget the letter. It looks like we need to discuss this issue step by step. Let's start over. Do you agree that we have reliable, published sources that use the word "false" when they describe Putin's claims about genocide and Nazism in Ukraine? Renat 12:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

We have a lot of news sources expressing in their own voice the opinion that the claims are false. But per WP:NEWSORG, these sources are not a WP:RS for such opinion. Few of them give attributed comments and where they do, few of these attributed commentators rise to being "recognised experts". Whether the attributed comments of recognised experts explicitly describe the claims as "false" (and this is a consensus among them) is ultimately is a tenuous assertion. The attributed comments (as in the letter) tend to be more circumspect. The sources that are quoted in the body of the article that are intended to support the assertion of "false" are not, to my mind, particularly credible and paints the term "experts" with too broad a brush. WP is not a mirror of the opinions of the press. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This part of the guideline talks about materials from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/, https://www.nytimes.com/section/opinion, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/commentisfree , https://www.theage.com.au/opinion and https://www.aljazeera.com/opinion/. But in this case our content is supported by factual content, not opinion. And not only from news sources, but also from subject-matter experts. Renat 12:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author [emphasis added]. Per WP:RSPRIMARY, All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. WP:RSPRIMARY gives more cautions. We are lacking secondary sources on this issue. "Facts" are not opinion or conclusions and subject-matter experts must be attributed. But as I said, the news sources paint these with a broad brush. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There's a bucket load of reliable secondary sources saying Putin's claim that Ukraine has a genocidal neo-Nazi government is false. I can't help feeling we're overanalysing/overcomplicating things here. It's an obviously false statement, we have many reliable sources emphasising its falsity and no sources dispute the fact that it's false - the only problem would be if we weren't conveying this situation appropriately. Jr8825 • Talk 13:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that the sourcing in the body of the article hasn't substantially changed since I last looked at it, then why aren't we using some of this bucket load of reliable secondary sources that say the claim is "false"? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Falsely is judgemental, it should just be "Putin accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism and invaded." Or "The pretext of invasion was that the Ukrainian government is led by neo-Nazis and needs to be de-nazified", ect. RomanPope (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Notification This discussion has been notified at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Use of the term "falsely accused" at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Still going on over there. EEng 01:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not certain if anything clearer has emerged there? Cinderella157 (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Funny how Wikipedia editors are all citing English-speaking, Western-propagandized news sources to call something “false”. If you do more research, using more academically acceptable sources for INTERNATIONAL POLITICS from different non-Western countries (definitely not biased news websites—BBC, The NY Times, and for God’s sake, Business Insider, seriously?) you will realize this is a DEBATABLE topic.

So yes, “falsely” is a biased word, coming from Western propaganda. Chiemvu (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not. Nor is your assumption that a source is "biased" because it is from a Western news organ valid.50.111.59.42 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the BBC & NY Times are both considered generally reliable. There is no consensus on Business Insider. As for only the matter of the predominance of English sources, well this is English Wikipedia. I encourage you to be bold, fix it yourself, & add reliable sources that might be in other languages. Peaceray (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

'Russia admits ‘significant losses of troops’ in Ukraine'

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

---

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/8/we-have-significant-losses-and-its-a-huge-tragedy-kremlin

Please sign your posts on talk pages, using four tildes (~~~~), or clicking the signature icon on the edit toolbar. --Renat 12:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

One fifth of the total of Russian troops killed in the Ukraine were officers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 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.

just a small typo

"killing a Russian prisoners": should be "killing a Russian prisoner" (no "s"). (The edit needs to be done by someone with sufficient rights) Thank You! --Sasha7272 (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources seem to say it was more than one. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Resolved by removing the grammatically erroneous 'a'. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates § Russian cruiser Moskva

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.

---

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates § Russian cruiser Moskva. Venkat TL (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

. This is now posted. Venkat TL (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

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.

---

Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Change "news tha" to "news that

 Done. lol1VNIO^{[not Lol1VNIO]} (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Answered= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Club On a Sub 20 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 April 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.

Looting article

I think there has been enough coverage for a standalone article on the looting done during the invasion. I started a draft here: Looting during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley: there is also some information and sources in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Looting.--Staberinde (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Bulking down the article: Currently over 400Kb in size

This article page is so large it's daunting and it's continuing to grow. Reliable sources are stating to expect the second phase of the Invasion to start within two weeks now that the 'first phase' has come to a completion with Russian troops redeploying away from Kyiv. There are several sections which might be reconsidered as to the best place to keep them on Wikipedia and which sibling articles on Wikipedia might be the best place for moving them. One suggestion is to possibly split or re-allocate the "Legal implications" section with all its subsection to go fully into its sibling articles. All of the potential prosecutions will only take place after the Invasion is completed and it seems unlikely that any Military trials will take place at least until next year, and possibly later than that. For example, the "Nuremburg trials" only took place after the end of WWII, and they are treated as a separate subject. Also, its possible other editors have other suggestions for thinking about bulking down this very large article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's rather speculative to predict that prosecutions will only start after the invasion has finished. More significantly, there are multiple steps that are all significant: establishing the investigation (ICC), laying charges, issuing arrest warrants, and then the actual trials. There are no sources pointing to any military trials; there might be military trials, but those are a different topic, not yet documented in en.Wikipedia (military trials have the problem of lower standards of transparency, rights of the defence. There is also the legally innovative aspect of the ICJ regarding the crime of aggression, which ties the legal aspects very closely to the invasion itself.

For the moment, I would suggest first splitting off less central issues, such as Media depictions, Sanctions and ramifications and Reactions.

The Reactions section is really Reactions + Protests. Protests are a form of reaction, but make sense in their own article. Dropping Reactions/Protests to a brief summary here, and making sure any extra material here is integrated into the sub-articles, would seem quite doable. In principle, this is already done, but editors have a tendency to add material directly to the summary here, instead of first adding it to the content in the sub-articles, and then letting the summaries be updated if/when needed.

Of course, Legal implications will probably have to be split off too, with its own overview article, sooner or later. Boud (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Boud, If you could choose one or two of those less central issues which you mention, such as Media and Reactions, to integrate them into the sub-articles, then I would try to support your doing this on the main page in order to start to bulk down this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sure there's stuff that should be trimmed, but I continue to be astounded that, in this day and age, we're still hearing about raw source size as if it matters. EEng 10:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  High-speed internet access is not universal, especially when there's a communication blockade imposed on a geographical region. And that's one of the reasons why war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine after about 6 weeks have got much more Wikipedia coverage than war crimes in the Tigray War have got in 17 months. Efficient use of computational resources is still justified for many reasons. Boud (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The size of wiki source (the 400K someone cited), the download size of the rendered page, and the length of readable text are completely different things, and only weakly related. If you're worried about download bandwidth then remove all the images, because even one of them uses more bandwidth than all the text put together. "Computational resources" are entirely on the Wikimedia Foundation's servers, and they have said over and over and over that we should not worry about that at all (see WP:PERF). EEng 21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Ad hominem is not needed. If you have arguments and evidence, then presenting them would be sufficient, and more appropriate. Editors are one of the groups of people who use Wikipedia. I would be surprised if there were no significant correlation between the wiki source size, the rendered size and the length of readable text, apart from images. It's also not strictly true that the computational resources are all on the WMF servers' side: lightweight browsers will ignore images and javascript and minimise CPU usage, while heavy browsers can consume a lot of CPU and RAM locally. WP:PEIS has been a practical problem for a few COVID-19 pandemic pages; the main page hit that several times, if I remember correctly. There's no need to wait until we hit WP:PEIS here. Boud (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I would be surprised if there were no significant correlation – I didn't say there's no significant correlation; I said the correlation is weak, and it is. (Significant doesn't mean strong.) Anyway, why waste time trying to reason from something irrelevant (wikisource size) when you could just talk about something relevant, or at least closer to what's relevant, which is word count? (Although, as noted elsewhere, people don't read from top to bottom anyway, so that's no all that relevant either. But at least it's better.)
  • apart from images ... lightweight browsers will ignore images and javascript and minimise CPU usage – Once you ignore those, you've cut bandwidth usage and cycles by 95%. People who need to do that will do that. Great! But that's not enough for you? You now want to cut the remaining 5% in half as well?
  • Editors are one of the groups of people who use Wikipedia – If by this you're suggesting that total source length might be a problem for someone editing: that's what section edits are for.
  • There's no need to wait until we hit WP:PEIS here – Yeah, actually, there is, because otherwise you're wasting time, and distorting article structure and content, in order to prevent something which (a) might not happen anyway, and (b) is easily handled when it happens.

  EEng 00:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy is to try to keep its articles to within a reasonable reading time. The current read time for the article takes over 45 minutes if a reader tries to do a top-to-bottom reading of the article as a whole, which is above expected article reading time length at Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  In 20 years I'm not sure I've ever read a non-stub article from top to bottom. No one does. That's a very poor criterion. EEng 21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• It would be a service to all readers to move the three or four largest sections to sub-articles and leave a succinct summary of each in this article. That way the reader can get an overview of the topic within a reasonable time reading top to bottom. If they want to dive in for more details about those sections, they can. In addition, bandwidth considerations are eternal. Many people are on slow or over-burdened networks. These are two good reasons. Anyone willing should just proceed. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Jehochman, Boud has already done the section on 'Reactions', and possibly you could try to do this for some of the remaining sections still to be done for the 'Media' section or for the 'Sanctions' section. Either or both of the section would bulk down the article significantly. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Boud, It looks like Jehochman is supporting your suggestion for doing all 3 sections of "Media", "Sanctions", and "Reactions", which I think means that he and I will support your going forward with the merges and deletions whenever its convenient for you. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @ErnestKrause and Jehochman: I wasn't actually volunteering to do the work... Anyway, Reactions is done.  Done Feel free to double-check and clean up. General comments: NATO and EU reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine appears to be notable enough to be its own article, and will quite likely be worth either developing or merging into "X-Y relations" articles - after all, the result of the invasion will quite likely result in Ukraine being either formally in NATO or de facto in NATO with UA's proposed "security guarantees" from a few mostly NATO member states, and membership of the EU is now quite likely once the invasion is over; 2022 protests in Russian-occupied Ukraine was not mentioned here, despite the obvious significance of protests in RU-occupied parts of UA; there were quite a few bits of redundant info, but some non-redundant sentences; I took the summaries essentially from the individual sub-pages, so as not to override (or add too much to) summary work done in the individual pages.
    Extracting some of the more significant intergovernmental organisational reactions (suspension/exclusion/self-exclusion from the Council of Europe; suspension from UNHRC) would be justified restoring here briefly as some of the more notable reactions, but better first try doing summaries in the individual pages. Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, based on its summary/WP:LEAD at the top and the first sections looks mostly like a long list of blabla rhetoric by politicians, and the institutional reactions of significance are hidden lower down. Being thrown out of an institution is more significant than having critical comments stated. Anyway, the split is done so summaries should be a bit easier to handle now. Boud (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Boud, Support for the edits on splitting Reactions. I have started to expand on the lead section there. If you can look at the next one of the two remaining sections such as Media or Sanctions, then both Jehochman and I can continue to support, and I will offer to expand on the lead sections on any of the articles which you feel need to be split. That saved about 40Kb in downsizing the article which can be followed up by the other section splits which you have assessed above. Just ping me when the new lead sections need to be expanded. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• As EEng correctly said above, the whole 'page source size' metric is useless. As is the 'full reading time' one. And IME splitting tends to be a lazier solution to the real problem, which is a lot of trivia information that needs to be trimmed. Splitting out indiscriminately, including valuable info, isn't really a good solution, even if it may be faster. We did kinda well keeping readable prose size manageable earlier when I (and a few others) kept a focus on trimming extreneous info, but I'm guessing we've just stopped doing that as much recently. Should do that first before any splits. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia policy does have several points to make about size here at WP:Size. Still, if you have trims which you can make to those two large sections which Boud has pointed out, then it might be a good time to do the trims you have suggested. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not volunteering for the "Media" and "Sanction" sections - there's a lot of material to check - it's not nice to the people who made the effort to develop it to remove material without first checking if it would make sense as non-redundant material in the sub-articles. Anyone willing to have a go at trimming while respecting other editors' work should go ahead.
  Someone might like to check how many times WP:PEIS was hit for COVID-19 pandemic. When I was keeping an eye on it, that happened at least twice. The first time around, I wasted a lot of time trying to understand what had happened. The second time round, I had to search for my old notes and try to remember the WP:PEIS acronym. For a very high readership article, having an article with no references displayed (an effect of WP:PEIS) makes the article look like a "heard it on the internet somewhere" article to a big number of people. Waiting until WP:PEIS happens is not wise in terms of keeping up Wikipedia's reputation for well-sourced information. Boud (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I just saw that ErnestKrause has handled the Sanctions section... Boud (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I am already working on media for the information war article and volunteer for that section. Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I did a trim for wordiness and paused to see if anyone has any objection to any of that. I am working with Mass media in Ukraine and Russian information war against Ukraine. Neither was created by me and each has its own problems, which I am trying to address. I could also add Mass media in Russia, as I have looked at that also and it also needs work. There is definitely some overlap in material. I guess this query should be its own section but for now, to get your attention, I will put it here. What information should I definitely leave in this article? I am thinking that the fact that most Russians AND most Ukrainians get their information from television is very important, and so is the censorship law in Russia. Probably other things too, but definitely that. The use of social media by the Ukrainian government and by younger demographics in both counties also matters. It is discussed at length in the information war article, but it likely should be expanded there and remain here as well. Thoughts? I am tied up RL all day but may be able to check in a couple of times and/or start a section to discuss this and some other thoughts I had. Elinruby (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Also note, the ownership of Ukrainian television networks isn’t mentioned here but it is notable and probably pertinent, still updating and fact checking that Elinruby (talk)

Elinruby, The trims are fine and it looks ready for the section splits and moves to the main articles for those subsections. Just leave a short 1-2 paragraph summary in this article when your done with that, maybe over of the next day or two if that's possible on your calendar. If I understand correctly, there should be no subsections left in that section as a whole and only the redirects and 1-2 paragraph summary when you are done. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: That should be fine. My response to comments may be delayed by a few hours is all. I wouldn’t normally even note that, but this is a big, high-traffic article on a contentious topic. I have questions but will start a new section for them Elinruby (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Section Break 1

This is simply a section break to allow easier commenting, as the trimming for this article moves ahead. --Sm8900 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of group resource

I would like to invite any interested editors here to join the task force for Contemporary History. One of our core goals is to highlight and promote the coverage of contemporary history as its own distinct area here at Wikipedia.

We differ from a simple effort to cover current events, in that we seek to provide the editing community with resources that would allow it to provide broad and comprehensive coverage of articles on contemporary history as a broad topical field, rather than simply on individual current events as they may occur.

to that end, we have set up articles such as 2020s in political history, which allow the whole editing community to adopt a broad scope in keeping wikipedia updated with broad historical trends, topics and events, as they occur, but also as they become relevant to the field of history overall. I hope that sounds helpful and worthwhile to you. you are welcome to join us in any way, or to offer any input or ideas that you may wish. we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Putin's spokesman Peskov on Russian casualties

I think this needs to be included in the casualties-section. As far as I'm aware, it's the first more or less official statement by the Russian government on the casualties their military has suffered since the doubtful figures they put out on March 25. Full text in the video of the interview, short summary (from Sky): "Vladimir Putin's spokesman has admitted a "significant" loss of Russian troops since the invasion of Ukraine began, telling Sky News their deaths are a "tragedy"." Source: https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-putins-spokesman-denies-war-crimes-but-admits-significant-russian-losses-12584552. I see no reason not to include this statement. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

RIA Novosty losses

Source

Буча и концентрированное зло: последний аргумент против русских - РИА Новости, 05.04.2022 (archive.org) deleted link:ria.ru

Article Archive:

Буча и концентрированное зло: последний аргумент против русских - РИА Новости, 05.04.2022 (archive.org) http://web.archive.org/web/20220407222347/https://ria.ru/20220405/rusofobiya-1781778401.html

Losses 5 April

Per Russia (5 April): 1,500 soldiers killed,

Per the DPR and LNR (5 April): 1,500 soldiers killed

Translated Text:

More than twenty thousand people have already died in Ukraine - almost fifteen hundred of our military and about the same number of soldiers DNR and LNR, and under twenty thousand on the Ukrainian side (including about a thousand civilians). That is, this civil war, and it is a civil war, albeit in the form of a conflict between two states, is already costing us a lot of Russian blood (it is shedding on both sides). This is a real tragedy for the Russians. More than twenty thousand people have already died in Ukraine - almost one and a half thousand of our military and about the same number of soldiers of the DPR and LPR, and about twenty thousand from the Ukrainian side (including about a thousand civilians). That is, this civil war, and it is civil, albeit in the form of a conflict between two states, is already costing us a lot of Russian blood (it is she who is shed on both sides). This is a real tragedy for the Russians.

The BBC is reporting this as part of today's (7 April) news covering the UN expulsion of Russia from the Humanitarian committees, adding the casualty statistics here as [17]: "However, his (Peskov's) admission that Russia has suffered significant casualties is striking. On 25 March, Russia's Ministry of Defence said 1,351 of its soldiers had been killed in combat. Ukraine puts the Russian deaths at almost 19,000." ErnestKrause (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause 196.191.229.87 (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a Casualties section in the article now which some editors are trying to maintain; the issue of discrepancies between Russian reports and Ukrainian reports is sometimes discussed under the topic of the fog-of-war. Current statistics of the casualties toll in Mariupol is in the tens of thousands for civilian casualties. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Expansion of NATO

Finland and Sweden have both declared that they intend to join NATO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to wait till they do. Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Official confirmation of them applying for membership would be the appropriate point for a mention here.--Staberinde (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

They have expressed desire however that does not really mean anything unless they join NATO or are recognized as a major non-NATO ally. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Opening sentence; Part Two (Oh the hilarity ensues)

The very first sentence of this article begins:

"Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 in an internationally condemned act of aggression."

And yet the article say on the Second World War begins:

"World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945."

Or the Korean War...

"The Korean War (see § Names) was fought between North Korea and South Korea from 1950 to 1953."

Neither of article begins:

"The such-and-such conflict/war began on this [date] when such-and-such country invaded another such-and-such country in an internationally condemned act of aggression."

Spot the diferrence? This article starts off with opinion before it even gets to the facts. All military conflicts are an act of agression. Hilariously bad even for amateur night at Wikipedia.146.200.202.126 (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Tact aside, the IP has a point. Some of the more comparable articles I can see are Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the United States invasion of Grenada - all with obvious aggressors condemned internationally. In those articles, international reactions show up in the 3rd, 2nd, and 5th paragraphs of the lead respectively. Our current lead section for this article already has an entire paragraph for international condemnation (5th paragraph) - I say reserve the first paragraph for the invasion itself and the background. Juxlos (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Reword the sentence, move out the "aggression" part to the appropriate paragraph/section. EkoGraf (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

+1 Jr8825 • Talk 14:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I would think that lede should follow the general structure of the article. In this case: background -> invasion -> impacts -> etc. With that in mind, you could feasibly simply change the leading sentence to: Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 marking a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began following the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity. Everything else in that first paragraph may then be moved to the appropriate location and the second paragraph joined to the first. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The current version of the Normandy invasion (also known as Operation Overlord) introduced the article as follows: "Operation Overlord was the codename for the Battle of Normandy, the Allied operation that launched the successful invasion of German-occupied Western Europe during World War II." The previous version of this discussion in the sections above on this Talk page should somehow be linked here. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• I like Mr mddude's suggestion Elinruby (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Per the emerging consensus here, I've edited the article's lead to attempt to address these concerns. Feel free to further refine as appropriate; I've been relatively conservative here in only moving the information about the international condemnation to the second sentence, rather than to another paragraph entirely (which would require more restructuring of the lead section). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would say keep the lead paragraph short - the international condemnation is already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. In the Annexation of Crimea article, for example, the lead paragraph consist of two sentences:

  In February and March 2014, Russia invaded and subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. This event took place in the aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity and is part of the wider Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

  Although I suppose one can argue that the international reaction for this is much more notable and strong than it was against the 2014 annexation, so maybe it does belong in the first paragraph. Juxlos (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

I started an article for the Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Armenia accepting Russian economic migrants

The Refugees section lists several countries that have accepted Russian political refugees and economic migrants ("A second refugee crisis created by the invasion and by the Russian government's crackdown has been the flight of approximately 300,000 Russian political refugees and economic migrants, the largest exodus from Russia since the October Revolution of 1917, to countries such as the Baltic states, Finland, Georgia, and Turkey"). Armenia, having accepted 43000 refugees from Russia, was listed among them but has since been removed. The referred article in this section talks mainly about Armenia as the major destination for Russian IT workers.

--Unotheo (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Modify article structure, based on chronology

As of this week, the war has appeared to enter a new phase. Based on this turn of events, i would like to recommend that we create some chronological-based structure for this article, rather than solely by region.

• all of the current sections would be grouped under a larger heading, "Start of invasion until early April 2022." then an entirely new section for "Early April 2022 to present" would be created,
  • this could also be grouped further in subsections by region, or by military campaign, or various other mechanisms.
• there need not be an absolute cutoff in time from one section to the next. if the end of a campaign that began in the first phase has overlapped slightly in to the second phase, then that would be totally fine.

as per an article in the Washington Post, please see the quote below. this highlights a vast new conflict that appears to be starting in the eastern region of Ukraine. this amounts to a major new military campaign.

Russian forces bombarded several towns in eastern Ukraine on Sunday, destroying an airport and damaging several civilian targets, as the war careens toward a pivotal new phase. The shift of the war and fears of full-scale military confrontation on open terrain prompted Ukrainian officials to again call for Western alliances to step up weapons supply efforts to strengthen Ukraine’s position on the battlefield. Ukraine is preparing for a “massive attack in the east,” its ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova, warned Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Of the Russian forces, she said: “There are so many of them and they still have so much equipment. And it looks like they’re going to use all of it. So we are preparing for everything.” Military analysts have been predicting the movement of the war toward the eastern border that Ukraine shares with Russia in an area known as Donbas. The energy-rich region includes territory where pro-Russian forces have been battling the Kyiv government since 2014.

how does that sound? Please feel free to comment. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Seems like a good idea to me. Jr8825 • Talk 14:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Both Russia and Ukraine have acknowledged that a second phase of the Invasion is to be expected at this time following its withdrawal of the Kyiv front. This next phase is to start within the next two weeks, allowing for the resupply and redeployment of these Russian troops to Southeastern Ukraine. Suggest for now that editors wait at least for the start of the incursion by this second phase of the Russian invasion in order to see how extensive the Wikipedia outline for this article might need to be updated. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I hear your point, and I appreciate your reply. However, for articles that track current events, it is often better to simply change the structure now, if we know we will need to do sin the future anyway. This conflict is complex and so fast-moving, that respectfully, I would like to open a new chronological structure now, just to greatly make it easier to update this article and to keep it current. One of the main benefits of articles like this one, is that we can capture events as they happen, open up new possible ideas, ad then restructure later.

Based on your comments, I will create a new article now, just to provide a chronological approach to this conflict. this structure is already in effect fo the Syrian Civil War , on a notable scale. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

In principle that's possible, but at this point its still unclear if Russian will be combining both the Southern front and the Eastern front into a newly integrated Invasion front under the newly appointed field commander. At present the article is organized into two fronts operating in the southeast of Ukraine awaiting reinforcement by troops and tank divisions being redeployed from the Kyiv offensive. I have added just now the satellite image articles for this redeployment of Russian military divisions. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sm8900 Rather than breaking off a new article for this second phase of the Invasion as you did here Russian Invasion of Ukraine (April 2022 to present), would it not be easier to simply start of a new section for the second phase of the Invasion here in this article? Why create a new page which will need to reduplicate much of this article as to its references, background information, and citations? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

you make some good points. okay, I will move that article to my own user space. I will create a new section here in this article within the near future, as long as no one objects. I appreciate your helpful comments, ErnestKrause (talk · contribs)--Sm8900 (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

If you think its useful, then I could reorganize the Invasion section here to combine the two active fronts (Southern and Eastern) into a single section of the TOC in the invasion section here, and that will allow you to start the second phase of the invasion when you are ready. At present its just not know if there will be multiple fronts in the second phase of the invasion all originating in a newly united Russian Southeastern invasion front. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, that idea sounds pretty good to me. I favor any structure for this article which primarily aligns with some chronological sequence for the conflict overall, and then within that time-based structure, can also focus on specific regions, campaigns, or battles, but primarily based on when they happened, rather than solely based on their geographical location. so yes, I would suggest you move ahead with the changes that you propose above. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The TOC of the article is now adjusted for the active fronts being separated as a section to "Southeastern fronts" and different from the other fronts which have been closed by the Russian troop withdrawals. The article TOC is currently set at '3' and you may want to change it to '4' to make the subsections I have just created visible in the TOC displayed for the article as a whole. The active front sections are now created within the current Invasion section. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

that sounds good. thanks for your efforts. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add some additional text to the section heading for the current section "Invasion and Resistance", to explicitly reference one general time period which includes the period of time from the start of the invasion, until the start of April 2022; and then the new section would explictly indicate a second time period, starting in April 2022. I don't have any urgency for this to occur; you are free to make this edit, or I may do so in a little while, based on the content as you structured it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My original thought was that you wanted to do a Phase one and Phase two for the Southeastern front section, which still makes sense to me, and that you would then date the Phase one and Phase two as to the dates which fit the best. When I previously thought of doing this as a complete section duplication, then there was a problem of all of the other subsections of the article at its tail end which deal with Western Ukraine, the large scale missile attacks country-wide, etc., which would be difficulty to reduplicate. Can you do what you want to do on the principle of a Phase one and Phase two within the new Southeastern front section which I just added to the TOC? Also, it might help to mention a time-frame for doing all this; Russian sources seem to be emphasizing that the end of the siege of Mariupol will signal the end of Phase one and the start of Phase two for the Russian invasion. Is this worth noting for what you have planned at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. ok, that sounds totally fine. I can use the approach that you suggest, exactly as you describe it above. if I need to change it, I can always change it later, and discuss it here. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, no, wait a second. my thought was to do a "phase one" for the entire conflict, and a "phase two" for the entire conflict. since this is an article about a historical event, the time frame is of paramount importance. the sections on regions can stay as they are, but they need to be grouped into an overall section for a phase of the conflict based upon chronological grouping for the entire conflict, not just for one region. after all, future readers, editors, and future generations will view any historical event based upon its timing, its dates, chronological sequence, etc.

if we adopt a set of time periods now to define the history of the conflict, we are only anticipating the structure which we will undoubtedly adopt for this historical topic eventually anyway.

the section for Phase Two would of course have its own subsections, based upon region, just as Phase One does. but this way we are keepign the chronological period for individual events, as a sound chronological basis for the entire sequence of events in this conflict. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the time frame, it seems to make sense to wait perhaps 2-3 days for what many sources are calling the immanent fall of Mariupol. Russian invasion in phase two should be very clear at that transition point. Is it possible to wait 2-3 days for end of Siege of Mariupol before a final decision on the TOC? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure! okay, this sounds fine. I would be glad to work cooperatively on this. if you wish to wait for that time to elapse, and then pick an approach on that basis, that sounds totally fine to me. We can discuss this further later, using the time period that you indicate. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, I am playing catch-up with this discussion as I have been away for a few days. I have no issue with the present "Invasion and resistance" section being refactored to represent a period of time from the start of the invasion up to some point in time that represents the end of the first phase of the invasion. However, I don't think we are at the point where we can populate a section on the second phase except to say Russian forces are reorganising and that isn't enough. The key point I would make is that we have a number of daughter articles that are hat-noted for many of the subsections presently under the main section "Invasion and resistance". Consequently, we need to be aware of, and maintain a harmony and consistency between this (the parent article) and these daughter articles. I think we should continue to use the present "Invasion and resistance" to report the first phase - ie we don't try to rewrite what is already in the article, though it might well need some tweaking for continuity. This appears to me to be the proposed course and I would add my support to it. As we now have daughter articles for much of the events, I would also suggest that we can be more ruthless in our summary of events in the parent article (ie here). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

On April 14th the Russian Federation flagship, "Moskva," sank. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/14/europe/russia-navy-cruiser-moskva-fire-abandoned-intl-hnk-ml/index.html. Russia has aid that ammunition had an accidental explosion. The Ukraine forces have announced that they targeted and hit Moskva with 2 Neptune missiles and it started a fire, listed to the side and began to sink. The loss of this vessel is a huge morale boost to Ukraine and loss to Russia. This ship had bombarded Mariupol. It has surface to air (both short and ling range), naval ship to ship missiles, anti submarine armaments and other weapons. https://en.as.com/latest_news/moskva-ship-how-big-is-it-when-was-it-built-what-weapons-does-it-have-n/ AgAero89 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I made this addition after the Russian and Ukraines both reported the loss of this vessel. AgAero89 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Please be specific as to the edit you are requesting to be made. The article already has a paragraph on the sinking of the Moskve. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 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. Melmann 10:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Moskva edit request

CNN is saying that the Pentagon now confirms that this ship was struck by two Neptune missiles. As of right now the article is still both-sidesing this.

I could of course make this change myself but I heard this rather that saw it online, and since it’s disputed, somebody should make sure other media are also saying it. I am myself somewhat behind on making changes to this article that I promised to take care of, and the resulting need to update daughter articles, so I will just be the messenger here. Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Top image

I think the top image should not be an up to date map, but instead one that shows Russia's maximum control over Ukrainian territory before they were pushed back before Kiev. The up to date map should be further down in the article. If Russia is pushed further and further back, the map would have less usefulless in illustrating an invasion. In a hypothetical scenario, where Russia is pushed back to the same borders as 2014, the map would have zero value in illustrating anything. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Child casualties

Child casualty estimates should be included in the article. Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. At least the Ukrainian authorities do publish them. Russian authorities, of course, hold on to the official narrative. The pinnacle came with the Kramatorsk missile strike, the Russian missile being marked "(in revenge) for the children". 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:ACA9:F624:F56D:2AE2 (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022

I recently created a draft for the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022. It is currently being voted on in the United States Congress. Thriley (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No Peace

Ukraine has warned that if Mariupol falls, a red line will have been crossed and any further negotiations will cease (ie, the war will continue indefinitely). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

I cannot find any such story. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian Nazi SS Connection?

I am not a linguist but someone recently pointed out that the Russian term спецоперация - currently translated to mean special operation, is Sonderbetrieb in German. Why's this a problem? Because SS Sonderbetrieben at Nazi extermination camps concentration camps slaughtered those held then used Sonderkommandos to dispose of the bodies. Given the frequency of, and numbers mentioned in reports about the horrific war crimes committed by Russian forces, could it be that the reason Putin chose the term 'special operation' (спецоперация) is because like Nazi Germany he wants to ethnically cleanse the land of Ukrainians not just conquer it? As I say, I am not a linguist but the connection, in conjunction with known warcrimes, is alarming. 人族 (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Media depictions: Uncited OR?

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.

---

Moving this here for discussion: "social media users showed sympathy for Russian narratives more due to cynicism about US foreign policy rather than support for the invasion as such."

While possibly true, this is followed by zero citations. There are quite a few in front of it though Elinruby (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It could be deleted or have a cite tag added prior to it being split to a new page or moved to one of the sibling pages, and deleted from this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Nod, just noting it as a change somebody might disagree with. I will restore the text if the citations that precede it support it or if somebody has another good reason why it should be there. I will need to verify those sources anyway. I have seen the kind of post this is talking about but it should be cited. Has anyone started a social media in the Ukraine invasion page? One might be warranted. For now I guess I will summarize these two paragraphs and move the highly referenced detail to Russian information war against Ukraine. This does also include Ukrainian actions, which is about to become more prominent in the pending reorganization, if anyone is concerned about that. I will now be offline for several hours Elinruby (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby, I take it that there were no sources cited to support this statement? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually there has been some user page discussion about that and I have been working on other parts meanwhile. Somebody made a case to me that it is supported by the references that *precede* it. I can look into that tonight; I am not quite home yet and have in the corners of the day been dragging Media portrayals of the Ukraine crisis, where much of that will be going, out of past tense and 2015. Elinruby (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby, as you correctly indicate, we would need at least a reputable news source for the claim. Let me know the outcome and I will close this as resolved. Alternatively, you could close this yourself using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} (see examples above). Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I can do that, and it will probably be tonight. If a reference that supports this statement precedes this, I will add a named reference, if not edit into a true statement. I am home now and gearing up to move text. Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

on reflection I am going to copy this text over to Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis and finish verifying the references there. (There are eight in that sentence and so far they are very good but don't support cynicism about the US so far). Considering the extent to which I've been ask to condense this is too much detail considering the size of the article. I can always re-add the cynicism later if that seems like a good. My feeling is that it is probably both true and citable, if not yet obviously cited, but in an article this prominent and disputed it needs, really needs, to be specifically cited.I have copied the whole section over and now will summarize hard, in which this fragment will go until specidically cited. I have today free to sort this out. I am leaving this talk page section open for at least part of the day to give people a chance to comment. Unless somebody else wants to close it as clearly uncontroversial, shrug. Over and out. Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Part of the statement seems to be supported by the citations. They all support that social media users showed support/sympathy for Russian narratives due in (large) part to dislike/distrust of US/Western foreign policy or anti-Western/anti-US sentiment. Whether they do this more than show actual support for the invasion is more dubious, so that part can be deleted. But if it read: "social media users showed sympathy for Russian narratives due in large part to dislike or distrust of US foreign policy", it'd be valid (& I would support it being re-added to a more relevant section like "Reactions" for a WP:GLOBAL perspective). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s been moved already but I am not against Donkey Hot-day’s proposal to put it in Reactions instead (or as well), if that edit is made. I came in here to close this section but since there is a new proposal I will leave it open a while longer Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 18 April 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.

'Debate about genocide' article

There's a newly created article Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some editors here may be interested in:

• choosing a more accurate name (the article is mainly about a debate about whether genocide has taken/is taking place, or even more about whether well-known politicians have made the statement; it's not an overview about what genocide scholars or lawyers or other WP:RS say is genocide;
• copyediting it (quite a bit is needed).

The place to discuss is Talk:Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the place to edit is directly in the article. Boud (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

THis is not the place to discuss this it is at that page. Maybe launch an wp:afd. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Invasion

I don't feel that invasion is correct term for Russia's "operation". Russia is murdering and terrorising civilians, destroying homes and infrastructure, and forcefully transporting Ukrainian citizens to Russia. There are too many incidents for this to be a case of few hot-headed individuals; this is part of their plan.

Those cities that are not under Russian control are bombed ruthlessly, targeting as many casualties and/or fear as possible. Those cities that are under Russian control are terrorised in the most despicable, cruel, and inhuman ways.

It is more and more evident that the goal of this operation is to destroy Ukraine, not to invade it. This means destroying Ukrainian culture and cities, murdering huge amount of Ukrainians, and trying to scare those who are alive to become Russians.

I agree with one thing that the Russian propaganda is spitting out: this should not be called "war". Even in war there are some rules, and there can even be something humane as a reason for war.

Alas, my English skills are not strong enough to find an accurate name for this operation. Invasion sounds too neutral, and does not convey the message that Russia is trying to commit genocide. Optimally, the term would also say that Russia is committing acts of terrorism. 130.234.128.26 (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We go with what wp:RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both the IP and Slatersteven. Yes, we should go with RS. When we named this article, early on the in the war, most RS used 'invasion'. At this point, more than 50 days in, my impression is that most RS are talking about "Russia's war on Ukraine", with War having become much more common than simply Invasion. Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We have that already. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The war on Ukraine is already an article. It encompasses the topics of Crimea and the Donbas as well as the current invasion. For now, this invasion is just another (very devastating) phase of a pre-extant war. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ukrainian civilians and soldiers take shelter under a bridge in Kyiv.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Kherson splitting notice

A split proposal is ongoing on the Battle of Kherson article. Feel free to participate in the discussion here. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Russian military weapons destroyed and seized by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal of Article Creation : World War III

According to you, as though by yourselves, experts wikipedians, who do not allow others contribution, and prefer Wiki sometimes with Errors and Wrong, we understand here at home, that the WWIII following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine had indirect started. More and more Nations as USA, France, Slovenian, Slowakia, Germany etc. contributes with Vehicles to Ukraine to Combat USSR or Russia. For example, GM sent 50 Chevrolet Tahoe, Germany sent 50 Gepard Tanks, Slowenia sent 50 M-84 aka T-72 to help and received Marder Tanks of Germany. USA Ministers visited Ukraine President, given US$ 3.5 Billion money, as well as the UK Prime Minister helping with many money and Tanks. So. The World War III had began, different, passive or indirect, not so active like WWI or WWII, but it is there. --90.186.249.22 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

When RS say WW3 has stated we can have an article on it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

it is ok, the Article already exists, but saw just after, thanks ... My Statement can be archived 90.186.249.22 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022 (3)

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.

---

Please change the caption of the animated map of the invasion under the heading "Invasion and Resistance" from "An animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 9 April" to "An animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 21 April". The animated map has been updated and the newest date is now 21 April. K1401986Talk with me 22:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The date has been updated. Viewsridge (talk) 12:17, 23 April 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.

"Byelorus"

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.

---

I am not logged in at the moment, but I am assuming that in the sentence "At the start of the invasion on 24 February, the northern front was launched out of Byelorus and targeting Kyiv", the intended word is "Belarus"? I am not familiar with geography in the region but I do not believe that Byelorus is a place. Can an editor rectify please. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I corrected it. Probably someone confused with Byelorussia/Belorussia. Mellk (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

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.

---

Certain city names are in their Russian forms are opposed to Ukrainian ones. Mikolaev and Odessa, for example, should be spelled Mykolaiv and Odesa respectively. Ian Lautert da Costa (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I changed "Mikolaev" to "Mykolaiv" as the article is Mykolaiv. The Russian-based form is Nikolayev/Nikolaev, not Mikolaev. Odessa should remain unchanged because the article is Odessa. Mellk (talk) 13:35, 22 April 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.

A Prelude to World War Three?

The Royal Navy nuclear powered submarine HMS Audacious sailed from Gibraltar after several days in port, during which it loaded Tomahawk missiles while berthed alongside the Z Berth in the South Mole of the dockyard. The vessel was seen heading into the Mediterranean after leaving Gibraltar. The American nuclear powered submarine USS Georgia also docked at Gibraltar two days prior to the British submarine. Its destination is unknown.

Five USAF F15Es and a tanker plane where pictured flying in formation over the Strait of Gibraltar at 20,000 feet on Wednesday 20/04/2022. The planes had just taken off from the USAF base at Moron, Spain and were believed to be heading to the Middle East. If this last detail is correct, then Middle East could include Turkey and from Turkey to Ukraine is just a short hop across the Black Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Pleae see wp:crystal, this is pure speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM 50.111.30.135 (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Russian military weapons destroyed and seized by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Armed activity of other states for defense/release of their citizens in Ukraine

There are sources that Belorusian and Bulgarian troops take activity for defense/release of their citizens in Ukraine. May be suitable for Foreign military involvement section. Alex Spade (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Casualties

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.

---

Hey, just wanted to suggest that the casualty numbers get updated. They’re from Feb 25 I believe. I would try, but I’ve never edited an info box and I’m scared I’d mess it up. FinnSoThin (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The Infobox avoids casualty numbers of any kind and there is a better way to handle that.

Instead, list the estimates from the most notable sources and say, for example "per Ukraine" or "per United Nations" or "per Russia", etc... and let the reader understand that. This is much better than deciding for the reader that they shouldn't know any of the notable estimates because the process is not perefect. Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 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.

Concerned that this was such a short discussion. I also think the "outcome" is not adequate, most Wikipedia articles about war DO have casualty claims from all notable parties in their Infoboxes. Each claim is mentioned as a "claim" and not a fact. Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Of concerning note: this discussion was both started and closed (after only 2 hours and 25 minutes) on the same day (15 April) and only after 2 comments, a "conclusion" was drawn. Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The consensus here was established by this discussion at: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8#Should we continue to report casualties in the infobox, in accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I closed the discussion because your response to FinnSoThin appeared to be quite an adequate answer to the question they were posing. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Problematic sentence about casualties

The article currently contains the following sentence:

"According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, regarding Russian military losses, Ukraine's government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims."

There is no citation, which needs fixing. If there is no citation, the statement needs to be removed. If a valid citation does indeed exist, it needs to be put into context and verified (does wikipedia have a policy on statements of individual researchers?).

PerLugdunum (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Add link to text in question. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It's better to include the claims of various sides re: casualties and describe them as "claims". Otherwise then we are censoring and not allowing the reader to think for themselves.

Simply adding "per Ukraine" or "per the NATO" or "per Russia" to these numbers is far better than having an article with zero numbers.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Source/citation is already there, right after the sentence that follows the one quoted by PerLugdunum, because the citation is a reference for both sentences. As for source verification, it has already been previously discussed and editor consensus is the source is reliable and there is no reason to exclude the sentence. EkoGraf (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, the quote is almost verbatim from the source. It was my mistake to assume the reference did not cover both sentences. My second question was about whether one should have statements attributed to "a researcher" as opposed to a large body of researchers. I know too little to suggest anything concrete and will not push this further. PerLugdunum (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole discussion under the casualties is problematic. The truth will come out, whether or not certain "editors" can dissemble at the moment via weasel words about unnamed "researchers" and "analysts". Yellowmellow45 (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

As per previous editor consensus, the source is considered verifiable and the analysis is properly attributed. Also, per previous discussion, editors are welcomed and encouraged to add any other researcher opinions to show different points of view. EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is settled on reliable sources WP:RS - when an opinion (e.g. of a "researcher" or "analyst") is provided, that person should be named and identifiable, and it is preferred that references to such research or analysis comes from the source, rather than newspaper reports. Clearly, the current fog of war makes it easier for editors to flout these standards. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I just came across the second part "Analysts warned about accepting the Ukrainian...", and I have to say it looks cherry picked. The Guardian article it's referenced to is about Russian disinformation, with one sentence given over to talking about Ukrainian figures. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the other reference, which can be read here, it has the same problem. Most of the article is about the difficulty of obtaining the real figures, and although there is more on Ukrainian misinformation in it than the Guardian article. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to say I don't doubt Ukraine is pushing the higher estimate, and Russia suppressing the figures, that is what countries at war do. But there is a need for better sourcing. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. This is exactly the issue with a lot of sourcing on pages related to the invasion, so it's difficult to unpick, but it's something that more experienced editors should be aware of. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned about the sentence "According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, regarding Russian military losses, Ukraine's government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims.", which is near word for word copy from the source. It need sto be rewritten in your own words, as it's a copyright concern. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yellowmellow45:, first, for reference see previous discussion here [18]. Now, if one of your issues is that the researcher is not named we can add his name (which is stated in the cited source). Further, there is no rule prohibiting us to cite media outlets as sources for analysis if the outlets are considered reliable sources (RS), which both Fortune and the Guardian are (and which you have been removing). Pinging editors @Cinderella157:@Slatersteven: who were involved in the previous discussion to show if they have changed their opinions, as well as some others @Mr.User200:@Beshogur:@Phiarc:@Jr8825:@KD0710:@LightandDark2000: who have been involved on the various similar issues and can possibly express an alternative opinion. Also, I would ask that you do not remove the text as you did here [19][20][21] before reaching a new consensus and the discussion is closed. Finally, agree with @ActivelyDisinterested: that the Uppsala sentence needs to be reworded due to copyright and that the Guardian sentence needs more expansion regarding the Russian disinformation that is also the subject of the report. Also agree with ActivelyDisinterested, and I have already stated this many times before, more alternative/different analysis should be added to present all sides POV in a neutral manner. EkoGraf (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Changing the second sentence to begin "The Guardian reports that analysts have warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as", could be a start. We do need better sources for it to be more general. The first section shouldn't be reinstated with the current wording. Mentioning Shawn Davies by name word remove the "researcher" issue. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problematic thing regarding that sentence, the citation fit the source. But to show a neutral tone we could begging with "The Guardian reports that according to one/two/etc analysts have warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as premature/unbased/unproven not verificable, etc.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence that shouldn't be restored is the other one, referenced to fortune.com, that is nearly word for word copy from the fortune article. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly problematic with the sentence. If anything, it should be attributed to the researcher by name rather than the paper in which he was reported and might be tweaked so as not to be such a close copy. To the "Russian disinformation", pretty much everybody knows this, however; we can't expand on a simple statement if that simple statement is all we have sourced. We would need another source saying more IMHO. However (per the previous discussion) the existing sentences serve their purpose - neither the Russian nor the Ukranian claims can be considered accurate since both are (likely) inflated/deflated to serve state interests. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

In that section, the Guardian source doesn't really say what the text claims it says. At most it says that nobody really knows. Removing. Volunteer Marek 12:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I also don't think that this one guy's opinion is really WP:DUE. Especially since it really boils down to "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated to some degree" which is to be expected. Gonna replace present text with that. Volunteer Marek 12:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the current working is on the way to neutrality, but I do agree on the WP:DUE point. Having said that, there has been a massive improvement. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And further on WP:DUE, Shawn Davies of Uppsala is a research assistant without any published papers, and a quick Google reveals this is his only public comment on any topic. Something to consider. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: you say the Guardian source doesn't say what's been written in the WP text, however the Guardian source says, and I quote, "And Ukrainian officials on Monday evening estimated that more than 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed... Analysts have warned about taking that information at face value during a war where western countries want to emphasise the toll of the war on the Russian military while the Kremlin wants to downplay its losses". Thus, I would ask that you please reinstate and rewrite the sentence (if you think it doesn't fully represent what is written). As for the opinion expressed by the researcher regarding that Ukraine is engaged in a miss-information campaign for sake of moral, as both @Cinderella157: and @Mr.User200: have said, I also do not see anything problematic about including it. You inserted "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated to some degree". I think it nicely rewords the "miss-information campaign" bit, thanks, but I would expand this to "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated for sake of moral" or "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths, generally accepted by Western media, are exaggerated for sake of moral" since I see no reason to omit the purpose in his view of the Ukrainian's exaggeration or his obvious critic of the Western media. But I would settle with just the purpose of the exaggeration as stated by him (without the critic of the Western media). EkoGraf (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian article doesn't mention it, but only in passing. It's one sentence in an article about Russian misinformation. Maybe a sentence could be craft using both the sources. Something like "The West has generally accepted Ukrainian figures, but these may have been inflated for the proposed purpose of moral.[1][2]", but written with better prose.
I still feel the problem is one of needing better sources, unfortunately reliable independent Russian sources are hard to come by. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: What you just wrote actually sounds pretty good and if it was something along those lines I would support such a (merged) sentence with citation to both sources. EkoGraf (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yellowmellow45:@Volunteer Marek:, any opinions on this as a possible compromise? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sounds good. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 16:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the "may...to a degree" version is closer to the source and the "for the sake of morale" veers towards original research and possible bias. This is a current event and it's better to be cautious about imputing things that are not yet clear. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you accept "The West has generally accepted Ukrainian figures, but these may have been inflated to emphasise the toll on the Russian Military.[1][2]", which is closer to the sources. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"for the sake of morale" is not original research since its what's in the source nor is it bias since its properly attributed with RS citation (this was already reaffirmed in the previous discussion) and we leave our readers to make their own opinion. A third source can also be added, which also goes into both boosting of Ukrainian morale and Russian downplaying of its losses [22]. First, as suggested, "The West has generally accepted Ukrainian figures, but these may have been inflated to emphasize the toll on the Russian Military for the sake of of morale.[1][2][3]" Additionally, all three sources can be used as citations for Russia's downplaying of its losses. Further, the part "Ukraine was quieter on its own military fatalities." (can attribute to Davies) but an additional second source (directly from Ukraine) can also be cited as well [23]. Sentence can be reworded. Finally, the third AJ source I mentioned earlier and the Ukrainian one I just mentioned can also be used to point out both Russia's and Ukraine's admissions at one point of suffering "significant" and "considerable" losses respectively. EkoGraf (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have previously stated that I found the previous text fairly satisfactory. The attributed assertion is not an exceptional claim - ie that claims by either side should be treated skeptically. It is a fact of war that should not be ignored just because we (the West) perceive Ukraine as the good guy. The previous statement was simple and direct to this point - both sides are playing the propaganda game (ie they are managing information to their own ends). I think that this current iteration is neither as succinct nor as direct. IMHO Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Cinderella157: Yeah, agree with you, as I said before, I also did not find anything wrong with the sentence nor did I see it as an exceptional claim taking into account the proper attribution. But trying to find a middle ground taking into account the concerns of the above editors. EkoGraf (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
    • EkoGraf, I don't think the concerns are particularly strong. A [very] close paraphrase of a single sentence [?] in a greater source where the source is attributed is (IMHO) fair use and not a significant concern. I acknowledge your intentions but I don't think that the changes (beyond specifically reporting the person to which it is attributed) are necessary or an improvement. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Low-yield nuclear weapons

The article contains the following sentence: "The use low-yield tactical nuclear capacity was originally discussed in the decade following the end of WWII by Henry Kissinger as a tactical weapon separable from the use of other atomic weapons in warfare." Emphasis is mine, and I initially thought this fragment should read "The use of...". That does not seem to fit the rest of the sentence, and I am unsure of what the best edit might be. TJSwoboda (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Your grammar is correct. Adding to the section. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

bio chem  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.30.36 (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What about it? Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Link to Russia in first word

The link to Russia in the article's first word was removed in this revision: Special:Diff/1084574301. This link should be present, as stated in surrounding comments. Okay420 (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The link has now been replaced in this revision: Special:Diff/1084740539. Okay420 (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

"Russian invasion of Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian invasion of Ukraine as it does not currently redirect to this page, and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hentheden (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Kherson‎#Requested move 24 April 2022

Please be notified of Talk:Battle of Kherson‎#Requested move 24 April 2022. It affects many articles related to the invasion. The proposal is to move from "battle of X" to "battle for X". Cinderella157 (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022 (2)

Add Denis Pushilin and Leonid Pasechnik, leaders of the DPR LPR to commanders Scu ba (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Denis Pushilin has a single mention in the body of the article and Leonid Pasechnik has no mention. Addition of either is supported by the body of the article (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I am writing to report the map that shows the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The names of the cities that are written in English are transliterated from Ukrainian and are spelled correctly. However, the names of the cities that are spelled in the Cyrillic alphabet are spelled in Russian and not in Ukrainian!

Please change the spelling of those cities whose names are written in the Cyrillic alphabet from Russian to Ukrainian.

Thank you! 188.163.232.130 (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This request should be handled on Commons at Commons:File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. The map has Russian translations but not Ukrainian translations. Glrx (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg

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.

---

Moved: was at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly version

• Comment: I think a much better proposal would be to use the colors I proposed on Commons, as shown below. One option [24] for making the Ukrainian territory a lighter yellow (my personal preference, I think), and another option [25] for making the Russian territory a slightly darker shade of pink (the closest option to the current colors and my proposal). Both of them have good contrast, are distinguishable both for normal vision and colorblind readers, and are similar to the current, widely-accepted map colors. Not only that, but these colors are more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Options 1-4 as being discussed (on the Commons discussion).

Option 1

	Land	Arrow
Ukraine
Russia

Option 2

	Land	Arrow
Ukraine
Russia

The colorblind simulations are in the respective links, so please have a look at those. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The images shown to the right depict the color schemes currently being discussed and voted on on Commons. And I'd prefer the first three to the proposal in question here. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Test map with blue (0099F7) arrows

Original colorblind friendly map color

I would much rather us stick with the status quo than switch to a new color scheme that is as jarring and unappealing as the proposal in this discussion, especially as it still has contrast issues. I'd even prefer one of the two map options I listed just above to the proposal (the current map with blue arrows, and the original colorblind-friendly map), but I prefer the proposed colors that I have laid out. Also, I think we could really use a color theory professional here, as the colors in the proposal were rather poorly-chosen. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Both options look much better than the White & Orange. Both of these choices look much more visually appealing to non colorblind viewers than the White & Orange proposal. I personally think option 1 is better visually, but it appears that option 2 would be better for colorblind viewers as it has a little more contrast. Physeters^✉ 21:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Greyshark09, Spesh531, Kwamikagami, Dawsongfg, RobiHi, Outth, Eoiuaa, Kippenvlees1, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Chesapeake77, Fogener Haus, Physeters, Viewsridge, Lx 121, Berrely, HurricaneEdgar, MarioJump83, Tradedia, Ermanarich, Brobt, CentreLeftRight, Wiz9999, Borysk5, Oganesson007, Nate Hooper, Rob984, Ceha, AlphaMikeOmega, WeifengYang, PutItOnAMap, TheNavigatrr, Beshogur, AntonSamuel, Paolowalter, and Emk9: Pinging other users with an interest in this topic, and those with experiencing in working with military conflict maps. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf, Rr016, Tan Khaerr, Kami888, and MrPenguin20: Missed a few. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment it looks ok for me but gray arrows look kinda bad. Beshogur (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 is my first choice I prefer this to the other proposals as it does the best job resolving the issue of contrast which is important. Plus the background color is better in Option 1 than Option 2 (brighter, whereas Option 2 is a bit dim). Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - I think this option satisfies all objections above, assuming it is correct to say that this version is still colorblind friendly. The lower contrast does not "make Russian gains seem overwhelmingly dominant". I also agree that the original proposal created MORE difficulty viewing it for NON-colorblind people, and option 1 does not do this. I approve, in general, of the goal to increase accessibility for colorblind users, but I also agree that the original proposal was not the best option to do this. I do think the new option 1 should suffice. Fieari (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I've split this discussion because it has nothing to do with the specific proposal listed in Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly_version. That proposal is about replacing the one file with a specific different file, and this one discussed details of a commons file, a discussion which should normally be had on the file's talk page, not here. Melmann 06:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 appears to be the best across the four simulations and for unimpaired vision. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 but perhaps with light yellow arrows instead of blue. Viewsridge (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 has the best contrast for the arrows, but all of them are great improvements in presentation. If none of them were used, the original colorblind-friendly one is also an improvement by itself and could be the main one. Rauisuchian (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option visually ok, if it helps colorblind too. Beshogur (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I do not see a version I particularly like here: for 1–3, the colour of the arrows is too different to that of their background, while for 4 it is too similar. Obviously, the arrows must contrast to the background, but this is weighed against the fact that a map is more intuitive when each side is assigned a single colour. Dark-red arrows on a light-red/orange background is a good compromise for Russia, but for Ukraine, blue on yellow and grey on beige are unintuitive and unsightly. Have white (#FFFFFF) arrows been tried for Ukraine? I imagine these would work well on either yellow or beige backgrounds. In general, I think the arrows would look best as a lighter/darker shade of the colour behind them. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 or the original colorblind-friendly version. Options three and four have a really unpleasantly strong yellow, I'd strongly oppose these two.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 As a colorblind person option 1 looks best-looking to me. EkoGraf (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1, including color mark change Per EkoGraf, and I think mark colors should be changed too, not just yellow but something other than that. Cyan or blue would be good MarioJump83! 08:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• I vote for blue arrows and against yellow (or grey) arrows. Tradedia^talk 21:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Going to be a bit WP:BOLD here, but can we close the voting on here (and wherever else votes have taken place)? Option 1 is a clear winner here, at least for being the colorblind-friendly color scheme (at the very least for arrows and territorial control). Does the "Air and ground bombardments" icon need to be changed? They contrast well with both the new Ukrainian yellow control and the Russian red (which is the same as the original). If there's an agreement on the other icons, then Option 1 and the Original need to be put up to a vote. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 05:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the voting is a WP:SNOWPRO in favor, somebody should close this. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 19:29, 23 April 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.