This is an archive of past discussions about Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Adding Belarus into the location section of the infobox is nonsense. This is a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Belarus has nothing to do here. No fighting has taken place into its territory. Belarus did allow Russia to invade through it, yet again there has not been war in its territory itself.
Some arguments for including Belarus have been that Russia has launched missiles from its territory. I do not agree this is a significant threshold for inclusion. Russia has launched missiles from the Black Sea or the Caspian Sea too. Seas are often included into infoboxes [1]. So what, should we also include these two seas? I've also seen that Ukrainian troops are being dispatched to Belarus' border. Definitively not meaning the invasion is taking place into Belarusian territory.
There is more discussion required, the last discussion gathered the support of only two users. I also believe Russia should not be included as only strikes in certain targets have occurred, no large-scale military operations. Can one call the 2023 Iran drone attacks a war? Hardly. Again, more discussion is required. SuperΨDro13:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The last argument would only make sense if you convinced us that the thousands of missile and drone attacks are not part of a war, or maybe that we don’t know if a war participant conducted them as in the Iran case. —MichaelZ.21:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I have no problem with the idea that the northeastern Black Sea is a location of the war, but is that level of detail necessary? Actual sea engagements mostly took place at or close to Snake Island, Ukraine, and Sevastopol, Ukraine, and as far as I know all in Ukrainian territorial waters, in the broad sense (although there was reportedly at least one naval drone attack on Novorossiisk). —MichaelZ.21:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Another argument is that Belarusian territory is part of the crime scene. See Crime of aggression#Rome Statute: the crime of aggression includes “(f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.”
Belarusian territory has been used for perpetrating an act of aggression. There has been war in its territory, in international law.
(And obviously in the pragmatic sense: when you launch a missile from in or over the middle of Belarus at civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, that is conducting an attack, in Belarus.) —MichaelZ.22:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Belarusian territory has been used to perpetrate aggression, but that this would imply that war is taking place in Belarusian territory is something different. when you launch a missile from in or over the middle of Belarus at civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, that is conducting an attack, in Belarus if we applied this logic in other articles, such as again in the 2023 Iran drone attacks, we should include both Israel and Iran as the location of the drone strikes because while they hit Iran, they were an attack from Israel (it is not confirmed, but that does not matter for this argumentation).
That article is not about an invasion nor about part of a war. Different.
But if it were a close parallel, then that’s still an argument that the two articles are presenting the info differently, and not that this one is either right or wrong.
Hi SuperΨDro, thank you for discussing this more on the talk page. Originally I was actually unsure if Belorussia should be added but with the missiles and attacks being launched from there and the consensus on the Russo-Ukrainian War I thought it was reasonable for inclusion. The air drone attacks among others listed in 2022 Western Russia attacks makes it clear that Russia is also a location of the war even if it is assuredly on a far smaller scale than the fighting in Ukraine proper. BogLogs (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment I have no issue with the status quo ante that listed only Ukraine as the location (the primary location) and a footnote that there was spillover into surrounding locations. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the key point is that the conflict is overwhelmingly being fought in Ukraine. The intricate detail is that it has not been totally confined to Ukraine but relative to the scale of conflict within Ukraine the "detail" is of very small significance. As to inclusion of Belarus, this already detailed in the footnote where it appears under the belligerent section. We are told not to write the article in the infobox. If we need such detail as per the change made, it probably doesn't belong in the infobox. Corollary: if it can't be summarised simply, it probably doesn't belong in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you that writing the article within the infobox and exessively long and intricate footnotes therein are not good practices. However I would disagree that the attacks in Russia are simply spillover and not worthy of clear mention as they are on the other war page. The current footnote is also quite clear and concise compared to the previous version and others in the infobox. Belarussia`s inclusion on both pages could certainly be discussed more if editors wished to. BogLogs (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The status quo ante footnote could be simplified by just stating "spillover into surrounding locations." None or almost none of the intricate detail is presently supported by the article. It is therefore not a key fact supported by the body of the article that would be summarised in the infobox as a key fact. The present version would imply that there is significant fighting in Russia and Belarus, which is not the case and nobody is expecting that the border regions of Russia and Belarus are immune from the conflict - just not in a significant way that would make for their inclusion a key fact. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I would be very hesitant to say the aerial attacks in the Russian regions of Saratov Oblast and Oryol Oblast are routine spillover or on the same scale as what might have been simple mistakes leading to the incidents in Poland and Moldova. That said if the current article does not support as key fact that the war is not limited to Ukrainian soil then those additional details need to be added to the article. Incorporating some of the materials from the 2022 Western Russia attacks would be a good start. BogLogs (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
2022 Western Russia attacks is a link from "Russia" in the amended version of the infobox. The article reports perhaps 50 attacks (no number is given per se) with 90+ casualties reported. Relatively speaking, they are orders of magnitude less than what is happening inside Ukraine and much much closer in scale to the "mistakes". Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
~50 attacks in Russia proper vrs. 1 in Poland and 3 in Moldova. Casualties as well of 90+ reported would warrant mention in any similar article. Of course an article titled 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' would be mostly about the actions within Ukraine but they certainly arn't limited to being on that territory alone and that information is useful to readers trying to understand the scope of the conflict. For what its worth, even with the very different situations, we can compare this article to the Vietnam War where the locations are listed as "South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South China Sea, Gulf of Thailand". BogLogs (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
the casualties within Ukraine are three orders of magnitude greater? And other countries in the Vietnam War are not comparable since the casualties are much more significant (comparable to those within Vietnam. No, actions are not limited to just the Ukraine. However, if one is to argue usefulness to our readers, that fails because it is not supported by the article. Write the article first. Then the lead and the infobox will follow naturally. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Fair point I have added information on the Dyagilevo and Engels air base attacks to the article text and more of the incidents having taken place in Russia can certainly be added. BogLogs (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The Vietnam War saw the supply of the Vietcong in South Vietnam by North Vietnam through Cambodia and Laos and also Vietnamese (north and south) involvement in the Laotian Civil War and the Cambodian Civil War. I do not believe it is a comparable conflict. As Cinderella157 states, the amount of conflict that has taken place in Belarus and Russia is very small relative to that in Ukraine. SuperΨDro07:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
This is why WP:OTHERCONTENT exists, because a comparison may superficially appear valid, but not be. To compare the rocket strikes into Russia with just the carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos by the U.S. – in which more ordnance was dropped on those two nations alone than was dropped by the U.S. in every theatre and on every front throughout the entirety of the Second World War and which resulted in tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths – is inapt. That's aside other issues such as the above reference to the Ho Chi Minh trail. There are orders of magnitude, to borrow the phrase, of difference. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Not as a matter of casualties but the location of the war existed well outside of just North and South Vietnam. Though to be honest I cant recall how many tens of thousands of casualties there were in the South China Sea and the Gulf of Thailand during that conflict. How about this other example of the Korean war '"Korean Peninsula, Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, Korea Strait, China–North Korea border" or for a less recent conflict page the War of 1812 which includes the whole of North America , the Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean.
Listing the location of where there has been fighting shouldn't be controversial. Russia has had attacks inside of its territory during this war. Let's list it as such. BogLogs (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
It is a matter of key facts and significance. Intricate detail is for the body of the article and listing Russia implies significant (major) fighting within Russia, which is not the case. The War of 1812 is a good example of locations reported because the article establishes that significant engagements occurred on the high seas and across North America which are "key facts". Geopolitically, North America was quite different and the cross-border engagements were substantially more than lobbing a few cannonballs across the border. The Korean War is a bit different, in that a more succinct summary of locations could be provided as "Korean Peninsular and surrounding waters". That is the problem with OTHERSTUFF/CONTENT arguments. Per Mr rnddude, a comparison may superficially appear valid, but not be.Cinderella157 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
From the Template:Infobox military conflict page the parameter place is described very clearly "place – the location of the conflict. For conflicts covering a wide area, a general description (e.g. "France", or "Europe", or "Worldwide") may be used."
The conflict has been in Russia as well as Ukraine. We can list it clearly in the infobox line as it is now or hide it behind a footnote because we are afraid are readers will take it as large land battles are being fought east of the border. And frankly I doubt the dead or their families would consider them more a few cannonballs in this or any war. BogLogs (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Russia has an area of 17b km2. Ukraine has an area of 0.6b km2. As a general description "Ukraine" is quite consistent with the documentation for the infobox. Adding Russia is not. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Edit War
There has been an ongoing edit war for almost a month that has been changing the 2022 russian invasion template back a forth in the belligerents section at least once a day. Could we please have a discussion rather than continue to revert edits. Starship 24 (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The only edit-war regarding belligerents that has happened to the template was resolved a month ago via a consensus on this talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
It isn't. The most recent edit to the belligerents section of the template was on February 4th to remove a floating tag, which shouldn't render any visual difference to the section. Prior to that, there is an edit on January 22nd, removing an undiscussed addition of Iran and Syria as belligerents in the war. These are the only edits I can identify to the section since the time of the dispute. There are other edits elsewhere and a current dispute being discussed in a different section of this talk page, but these are unrelated. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
There is an edit war there, between BogLogs, Jipancho, and Super Dromaeosaurus. It has been changed on the 6th, 7th, 10th, and 11th in Febraury alone. Starship 24 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Regardless, the named editors above seem to have been ignoring the discussion and continuing this edit war. They need to stop and wait until there is a consensus in that discussion and then keep it there. Starship 24 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The template was last edited at 16:37, 11th February 2023 and last edited by any of the named editors at 00:44, 11th February 2023. That's well more than 24 hours before this thread was opened at 22:07, 12th February 2023. It is now 00:15, 16th February 2023. The editors are participants in the discussion and one of them opened it. None of the named editors edited the template after they started participating on the talk page. Consequently, both of your charges are false. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
add nato as supporting ukraine
nato countries are already sending tanks, artillery and afvd to ukraine. why list belarus as supporting russia but not nato supporting ukraine? 🤨
The main difference between Belarus and other countries is that the territory of Belarus is actively being used to carry out the attacks, so the country's involvement is a lot larger than just supplying weapons. BeŻet (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Nice argument, but you literally failed to read the reply, nor interpret what it means. It reads, "The main difference between Belarus and other countries is that the territory of Belarus is actively being used to carry out the attacks, so the country's involvement is a lot larger than just supplying weapons."
This is me testing the water before considering a full move request. Maybe I'm missing something...but should this be 2022–2023 now? CT55555(talk) 01:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Should the relevant articles for the fifth phase of the Russian invasion be created, as well as a new page for the 2023 Russian offensive? See sources: [2], [3], [4], etc. Compusolus (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's enough information for an entire article yet but you can probably make a sub section for it that can be branched out if more happens. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The Infobox was updated a week ago to reflect the surge in Russian troops, and the main article now includes a reliable source for the location of the surge in the Phase 3 section. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
This offensive was insignificant. Russia only had gains around Bakhmut (fighting there started way earlier anyway) and in two villages in Kharkiv Oblast. An article is not warranted. SuperΨDro20:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Just now I struggled to determine the major outlines of the Ukraine war. I had already found Eastern Ukraine campaign which considers itself a major subpage of this page here. I figured siblings of the Eastern campaign could be quickly discerned here. But I was wrong.
If I was more of an infobox kind of guy, I would have figured this out sooner. But I regard infoboxes as supplementary (so does Wikipedia policy) and my preference is to look first to the text of the lead. Turns out, what I was seeking is most obviously conveyed in the first campaign infobox. But this infobox is hidden by default and doesn't display at all on mobile (according to its template documentation).
Clearly, this shouldn't be the primary resource for my mission.
It also turns out that the lead does—sort of—solve the riddle, but under heavy camouflage. The word "campaign" from the target page titles has been systematically changed to "front" in the lead here, because the treatment here is chronological, and I guess it's a SPOILER to indicate that the Kyiv offensive and Northeastern campaign were largely resolved in spring of 2022, whereas the other two rage on without respite or resolution at the anniversary of the invasion.
One could insert a parenthetical that two of the initial "fronts" set the table for major campaigns that would continue to rage a year later. It's a bit tricky to say something short and correct which doesn't disturb the narrative flow.
The other solution is to tack a short paragraph at the end of the current lead (after the condemnation paragraph, which some editors might regard has having pride of place) to summarize that of the four initial fronts, three progressed to become campaigns, with one campaign resolved in 2022 (at least in relative terms), while the other two campaigns continue to rage with unabated ferocity in 2023.
Regardless of the editorial tactic, it shouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce from the lead that the Kyiv offensive, and the three "compass" campaigns progressed to become the primary conceptual map as the initial invasion gave way to a sustained contest.
I tend to think of the Northeast campaign as centering around the major city of Kharkiv, the Eastern campaign (aka the southeastern front) involving the semi-separatist industrial heartland, and the Southern campaign centering around the "land bridge" to Crimea, difficult logistics for the Russians, the Dnieper as a natural defensive barrier, and the frail Kerch bridge.
One might reasonably also summarize in the lead key differences in the nature of the terrain in connection with these campaigns (thickets between Kyiv and Belarus and unfavourable to tanks; relatively open in the southwest and far more favourable to maneuver warfare) and seasonal considerations (aka mud).
In the Ukrainian counteroffensive, a key consideration is whether they make a territorial advance giving them missile coverage of Russian installations in Crimea—using cost-effective missiles that they can actually get their hands on. This largely concerns the eastern flank of the Southern campaign.
Ideally the lead must summarize the major themes of the article. What I've said above is the least strategic summary I would give of the current state of the war to anyone with half a brain. But probably a lot of people want to put a lot of things in the lead, so maybe that's just my own slant on what's most worth mentioning. A year into the fracas, isn't this why informed military strategists talk about campaigns instead of continuing to lean on "fronts" as they developed on day one? — MaxEnt15:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The issue of the multiple fronts and changing fronts since the start of the invasion will likely be discussed after the name change requests for the Invasion timelines are settled, with the rfc currently in progress. After that, the TOC can be discussed for the best direction to take for improving the presentation of the multiple fronts and the changing frontlines. You are welcome to add you support-oppose opinion to the move request pages currently in progress. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
January 2023 NYRB article by Tim Judah; Should the TOC for this main article be updated. Another editor feels this is a done deal.
Tim Judah writing for the New York Review of Books has presented a new outline for the Russo-Ukrainian War and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which brings up the discussion of whether the Wikipedia articles for these subjects need to be reviewed and updated. Tim Judah states the following outline as being the most appropriate:
Volume I: Maidan in 2014, Russian annexation of Crimea, seizure of parts of Donbas in eastern Ukraine by Russian proxy forces;
Volume II: (We are currently living in what Tim Judah calls chapter 4 of Volume II)
Chapter One: Russia's lunge at Kyiv which was repulsed and failed;
Chapter Two: Russia's disorganized retreat from Kharkiv, which failed to win popular support within Ukraine;
Chapter Three: Russians are driven out of Kherson in the South by the end of November 2022; and
Chapter Four: Russia's attempt to destroy Ukraine's electical grid, water supplies, and infrastructure as an attempt to internally destroy Ukraine by attrition (Up to present date).
Is this outline by Tim Judah useful to discuss for reviewing and updating both the Wikipedia articles for the Russo-Ukrainian War and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The above Tony Judah summary was published on the Russo-Ukrainian war Talk page with no comment and no takers. Another editor wishes to now make it a done deal; that Phase 3 is finished and that Phase 4 is underway. This matter is based only on the Tony Judah source summarized above, and it seems to need some discussion to see if all editors are in full agreement with Judah. This is the Judah article here: [5]. Comments of support or oppose below if possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
(I apologize to the editors of this article for my heavy-handed editing. After much discussion, the editors of the timeline articles decided to use Tim Judah's chronology, since Tim is a Reliable Source, and we have no source for the previous chronology. I edited this page to make the dates match the timeline articles. In retrospect, I should have involved the editors of this page before making the changes.) John Sauter (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
(There is international coverage of the invasion in 180 nations, however, none seem to have adopted Judah's language of a "Fourth Phase". Even in the USA, the New York Times and the Boston Globe have not picked up on it.) ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause - We were following the original timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as per [1]. A major edit was made by one of the editor and phase 4 was created. When discussed with WP:CONSENSUS about phase 4 need, most of the discussion led to either Delete or Merge. So nominated the same for AFD
The admins decided to keep the timeline phase 4 article and discuss the rest.[2].
After this we started discussion of the split for each timeline and Tim Judah sources had been the closest to split the timeline into phases (Especially phase 4)
In case the question of WP:RS not reflected based on Tim Judah timeline and the mere existence of Phase 4 is not needed since most WP:RS sources did not have mention of 4th phase. But the Phase 4 timeline article has been decided by admins to Keep. If you have any idea provide us with the same. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@Mzajac, Oshwah, and Andrevan: There appears to be a conflict between the main page and some of the subordinate sibling articles. Based on the nearly isolated article by Tony Judah in the NYRB from month ago, several sibling articles have incorporated the language of a fourth phase in the 2022 Russian invasion; the term was apparently Judah's own invention and has not been picked up in the general press by The New York Times, nor the Boston Globe, nor the Chicago Tribune, nor the LA Times. Hoewever, sysops has apparently endorsed keeping the '4th phase' wording at one of the subordinate sibling articles merge requests, which we are now discovering is inconsistent with the main article here. As a practical matter, the '4th phase' does not exist in the international press and the main article has not incorporated it in anyway. The blowback from the sysops decision from a subordinate sibling article for "2022 Russian invasion Timeline Phase 4" has led some editors to try to incorporate the edits from the subordinate article into the main article with incompatibilities. How does one bring this back to normal, since the sysops decision favoring the 4th phase in a subordinate sibling article is causing incompatibilities with this main article for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I have not reviewed all of the relevant articles. But generally, it’s probably best to refer to phases, sub-phases, and super-phases at many different scales of such a massive subject by descriptive names, rather than by specific figures, especially when there is no consensus for a numbering scheme in sources. —MichaelZ.19:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
This is a tricky situation, I mostly agree with Michael. Wikipedia's titling should be descriptive and reflect the sources, it shouldn't rely too heavily on any given source, and consistency isn't the top requirement: it's commonness and descriptiveness. Ernest, you might read Vanamonde's close of the AFD closely[7]. It sounds like there is a consensus to keep the content but the title could still be OR/too much reliant on a single source, and that wasn't rebutted sufficiently. I think there's a reasonable discussion to propose reorganizing the phases and the timeline articles, which doesn't necessarily mean deleting the material, which was kept. Does that make sense? As a constructive step forward, and because I don't know the answer or have an opinion myself, if we ditched the "phase 3/4" framing, what name would you use, @ErnestKrause? Andre🚐19:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
And I’m not saying that can’t still be used as an organizing framework. Just that the numbering might be inconsistent with some sources and could become outdated or superseded, and in articles on broader or narrower topics there may be broader or narrower versions of the same scheme where the numbers don’t make sense. —MichaelZ.05:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
My basic agreement is with Michael and Andrevan on this question; the serialization of the article into numbered phases seems un-encyclopedic, and some better thought for the future invasion section titles is justified. Vanamonde93; Currently, a sysops decision you have made for a subordinate sibling article about a "Fourth Phase timeline" article has caused some blowback to the main pages for the Russo-Ukrainian war and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, mostly because the main articles do not recognize Tony Judah's designation of a "4th Phase" (summarized above in this thread) as being definitive or at all widely accepted in the international press. The most straightforward fix at this time, based on reading Michael and Andrevan above, would be to change the names of the Timeline articles which you edited as sysops to "Phase Three timeline: early operations" and "Phase Three timeline: later operations", or something like that. Possibly you have a better idea you could add here, though Michael and Andre seem fairly resolved that looking forward to going from 3rd to 4th phase now, would only invite looking forward to phases 13, 14, 15, etc, in the future which would be un-encyclopedia. If you are comfortable doing the page moves as I've suggested, then I think its a quick and reasonable fix, and you can add further thoughts here for everyone to respond. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
{{rpp}} I'm not seeing how the closure of the discussion, rather than the substance of the arguments therein, is materially affecting anything here, so I don't see what there is for me to add. Vanamonde (Talk)00:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree, Vanamonde, and ErnestKrause, I believe the close leaves room and no prejudice to propose a new page move or retitling. Andre🚐01:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Just a suggestion instead of early operations and kind of, could we move upto feb 23rd 2023 in thrid phase and from feb 24th 2023 we could start phase 4. Seems to be a better fix instead of making a phases - sub phases
The anniversary of the invasion seems new offensive from either side and it has a wide number of WP:RS coverage of the topic.
Mzajac has already stated above that he would prefer not to see the article go in the direction of phase 3 leading to phase 4 leading to phase 5, etc. I'm agreeing with him since in the several books I've read on WWI and WWII, none of them have taken the approach of describing these wars in terms of 10, 20, or 30 phases; the approach is just not taken in military book documentation. None of the links which Pranesh has just presented are using the specific wording of "Fourth Phase" either; only Tony Judah seems isolated in this specific usage from his single article from one month ago. My suggestion for the 2 simple article name changes that I suggested above a day or two ago, still seems to be the most straightforward fix to the contradictions at Wikipedia between the main articles which do not recognize a "Fourth phase" and the subordinate articles which seem to insist on a "Fourth phase" in the article titles. Maybe Michael can do these 2 changes which I previously suggested since he has sysops tools for page moves and name changes to articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause if the timeline of Russia invasion of Ukraine is based on WP:RS and its exact phase mentioned in WP:RS as 1,2 or 3 then there seems to be contradiction to timeline in the main article as per the below WP:RS
The timeline of 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine seems to span more than two months, so it seems to need much more WP:CONSENSUS on how we could work on these timelines so that we could resolve the conflict that might arise in the future. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
As Michael has suggested above, all of these follow-up questions about the exact dates and the exact names of sections can be considered down the road at some future time. Michael has also stated above that he is not particularly pleased with using the iterated Phases approach for the long term. Pranesh Ravikumar; There's no reason not to bring up the issue of a new TOC for the article which may or may not include specific dates in a new thread dealing with the long term future adaptation of the TOC. I'm asking here that the involved and knowledgeable editors make a correction to mutually contradictory article titles between Wikipedia articles at this moment. Some of the subordinate articles are assuming that there is a "Fourth Phase" when no such "Fourth Phase" exists in either of the two main articles at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or Russo-Ukrainian war. Could Mzajac or someone else from sysops I have pinged do the short term article move fixes I described above, or, should I try to locate another sysops editor to assist on the straightforward article name change which fixes this problem of contradictory article titles of sibling articles at Wikipedia? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause if the timeline as per your idea is split as timeline phase 3 early operations and after operations, hope this will be made as a sub division in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine third phase. If it is only for timeline and some other editors will again edit the main article stating that it has been discussed that early operations and after operations split for phase 3. Could you confirm whether the split will be reflected in main article. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
That's an accurate reading of it; the article name changes currently in progress are for purposes of being consistent with the main page designations and should be updated on the main page as soon as all the name changes are installed for the subordinate sibling articles. After that I'll likely be adding a new thread about refinement of the TOC of the main page for adding future operations based on current RS. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
It's been bothering me for a while that "claimed" is the only linked word rather than "falsely claimed". Given how it links to an article regarding disinformation, the "falsely" part is kinda important to include. Nice argument (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Question: Not quite clear what you want changed. Please make clear which link you want added, and where in the article you think it should be added. Compusolus (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
It's been bothering me for a while that "claimed" is the only linked word rather than "falsely claimed". Given how it links to an article regarding disinformation, the "falsely" part is kinda important to include. Nice argument (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
the topic of the article should be changed from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to 2022-23 Russian invasion of Ukraine because the year which is going on is 2023 and the war is still ongoing. E.A.C.K.A.C (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
There is already a redirect: Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022). What if the article were to be moved over the redirect? The invasion was one year ago; as Russia occupies part of Ukraine to this day, the mooted title remains accurate. If Russia were to withdraw from Ukraine completely, a new article (or perhaps a new sub-section of Russo-Ukrainian war) would be created reflecting the new condition. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)15:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I'm color blind but I find it hard to differentiate between the blue and purple countries on the map showing which countries are imposing sanctions on Russia and which are blocking sanction circumvention. Could one of the colors be changed to something more distinct? JorikThePooh (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
What platform/system are you using to render the pic? Also, do you actually have any reason to believe you might be color blind?
It looks fine to me, and I'm using a heavy redshift filter right now.
I'm using chrome on a Mac. I think I'm mildly red-green color blind but it only really affects me occasionally, such as on thematic maps. It might be a rare problem but I still think for inclusivity purposes it might be good to change it too blue and orange, or something like that. 74.207.34.40 (talk) 74.207.34.40 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Why not indefinitely ECP this page?
This page was recently protected for a period of 1 year by User:Deepfriedokra following a request at RFPP. WP:GS/RUSUKR gives admins the ability to indefinitely ECP pages within this topic area. Why shouldn't this page be indefinitely protected, if there are so many others that already are? Let's just protect this page so that we don't have to think about it later. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 20:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Here is a copy of the citation dump that was placed into the lede, so that anybody interested can write out an appropriate paragraph using them and then, if/as necessary, adjust the lede accordingly. Don't dump 40 lines of wikitext into the lede, it creates a navigation nightmare.[14] Seriously, look at where my signature has to go in relation to where the main comment is located. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
As of March 1, 2023 The casualty estimates have problems. Specifically that the "us estimate" (citation 461) is an article that is using the UK ministry of defence estimates that actually appear on the same list (citation 464).
This RfC was started in response to a one day visit by Biden to Kyiv and the issue of WP:Recentism has been raised. The opinions in the RfC have taken a significant slant toward opposition when the first half of the RfC is compared with the second half of this RfC. Although at the start the opinions appeared to go back and forth, currently the opinions Opposing the merge appear to have eclipsed the Supports by over half (there appear to be about 20 Supports and about 33 Opposes). However, in the second half of this RfC, the last seven opinions have been consistently in Opposition. Also, among the Support opinions there appears to be a further division among those who feel that the article may be merged, but only to other articles than this one. Given the combination of strong divisions within the Support opinions, the consistency of the Oppose opinions, and the trend to seven straight Opposes indicating that Recentisim was a factor, there is apparently sufficient ground to close this RfC as being Opposed to the merge. If the RfC is re-opened it should explicitly make clear the options which currently have divided the Support opinions as to which article the merge is to prevail. At the present time, the smaller number of Supports do not appear to agree on where to merge the Biden article, and the prevailing opinion among editors is to OPPOSE this merge. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-EC comment - wouldn't it make more sense to merge into the Joe Biden article, under his current presidency instead? Possibly notable as the 'first visit' during the current invasion, but not so much as to stand by itself as an article. It would be more fitting as an item in his presidency page, I think. King keudo (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Zelenskys visits to the US and UK are if anything less significant than a US President visiting a country at war with Russia, and both of them have articles. You would have to delete half of all content relating to the invasion if you want to be that strict about Recentism. Precedent certainly supports this being an article even if it needs work. --jonas (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I am not seeing any direct connection between that and Biden's visit. It is almost certainly a response to the continuing US support for Ukraine. The visit changed nothing. It was a photo-op. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
It was the one-year anniversary of the invasion and a clear signal to Putin: we're not backing down, and here's another $500 million to prove it.[8]soibangla (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Support merging for now into Joe Biden and his list of international trips page. Although there isn't enough information right now to warrant, I do hesitate to merge quickly as more info is to come out in the coming days as indicated by this[1] NYT article. This article does not meet notability requirements. Yeoutie (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Strong Oppose highly notable event for reasons listed above, including its (un)precedence. It may need some text that emphasizes its precedence if necessary, but well referenced throughout anyways. OfTheUsername (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. I believe that merging the topic into the Ukraine article wouldn't be beneficial, as it would essentially make a footnote of a former well-made article representing what is documented as a historic event by a plethora of sources. Though points can certainly be made arguing against its historicity, it's nevertheless been shown to play major significance and would be useful as an individual article. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) [she/her] 06:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Support Do we really need a seperate article every single time a US politician visits a country in either diplomatic or direct conflict with a hostile nation DarmaniLink (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This is more americanism than anything else.
I say this as an american.
Are we going to write an article every time some european leader meets up with someone? If the president of say, Liechtenstein met up with the mayor of Crimea, would that get its own article? DarmaniLink (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Notability & well referenced. Precedent for having pages for US president 1st presidential visits to countries amidst significant political backdrop (in this case the Russian Invasion of Ukraine). Example: Nixon to China etc Yeungkahchun (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Then I don't understand the policy argument. The norm is that pages must meet WP:GNG and that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability per WP:SUSTAINED. The norm is that an article such as this is not notable. Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time per WP:N. This is something that is not being addressed in these oppose arguments. Stating it is notable for its own article is not evidence that it has gained "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think enough time has yet passed to say that this visit hasn't gained sufficient attention over a period of time; it has no doubt received "sufficiently significant attention" thus far. Compusolus (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
That is a reversal of the policy. Note again, that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Wikipedia is not a news site, it is an encyclopaedia, and articles are written when the notability has been established, not when it is unclear whether notability will be established. That is the policy. What policy arguments favour keeping this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose—per reasons above, and the fact that this visit was the "first time in modern history that a US leader has visited a war zone outside the shield of the US military." This article definitely meets WP:LASTING, and there has been significant independent media coverage. Compusolus (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Support and merge into Biden related article per reasons of nom and WP:NOTNEWS, since at present, the sourcing is NEWSORG. I can't see that Kennedy's trip to Berlin has its own page. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose merging. The article was created too soon, but it has been created and I think it is clear now that this is a significant topic. Reliable sources are equating it to Kennedy's and Reagan's speeches in Berlin, and calling it the closest a US president has come to the battlefield since Lincoln. I am also convinced, at the risk of using a crystal ball, that we will see coverage of this visit in the future; histories of the Russian invasion of Ukraine will include significant coverage of this visit. BilledMammal (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Support merging. It has become a very important article since Biden said he would supply millions more military arms to Ukraine. I don't see any reason it shouldn't. Note: I've been using this page to note the Russo-Ukraine war and document it for the future... ThatADHDperson (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Note Your !vote states you support merge, but the text of your explanation calls it a, "very important article." Could you clarify your position? Juneau Mike (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Clarification Sorry for confusion, I meant that it is a very important article in the sense that it's important info. I support merging, sorry if my wording is difficult to understand. ThatADHDperson (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Support merging Content is minimal and the trip is already over. It is not independently notable and there's nothing more to add. All we'd need is a sentence or two at an article on the invasion and at an article on Biden's foreign policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Support merging This was a minor incident, a quick visit where he spent only an hour or two. Merge it to this article, with a sentence or two, or at most a small subsection. Also probably a mention under Presidency of Joe Biden. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I stand corrected, Prolog. Five hours, not one or two. However, it was still a very brief visit. And how many of those "24 hours in Ukraine" were spent on a train? Ten to get from Poland to Kyiv (mentioned by all sources), probably another ten to leave (not mentioned anywhere that I saw). In any case, it looks like the consensus here is going to be to keep the article. I defer to consensus, but IMO that has been an unfortunate trend here - making spinoff articles for every one-day development in what ought to be handled as a unified story. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. This visit has a historical significance that is just beginning to emerge. This is the first visit by a US president to a country where there is hostilities but no American military presence. Exactly the same landmark situation was with the visits of the presidents earlier: Ich bin ein Berliner, Tear down this wall!. Τάρας στον Παρνασσό (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose / Wait - Media coverage and international reactions to the event are still rapidly ongoing, so I think that it would be best to wait a week or two to assess the full scope of the visit. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at 13:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment. The article has been expanded since this was nominated. It would be useful if all respondents, wanting to merge the article because it was short, can clarify if they still hold this position also after this expansion. In general, when basic notability exists, such as in this case, it is worthwhile giving it a few days so the article can arrive at a stable state. gidonb (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose What many have already mentioned and what I said in the article talk page; per NYTimes "Since Abraham Lincoln rode to the front lines outside Washington to watch battles in Northern Virginia during the Civil War, no president has gotten close to combat," i.e. no U.S. president since then has gone to area not controlled by the U.S. military, even if it was a war zone like Iraq or Afghanistan. Putin has already pulled out of nuclear arms treaty (I am not saying he would not otherwise, but it's clear Biden's decision to go there infuriated the Russian regime and was unprecedented) and I suspect that historians will study this particular trip as an important and consequential event of its own. Ppt91talk15:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Your mention of the suspension of new start is an example itself of recentism as its now said the ground verification only will be halted and the other treaty nuclear weapons limits wont be changed.
Trump of course withdrew the US from 2 previous treatys related to ground based missile launchers(INF) and verification overflights (open skies) Okerefalls (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment I'm adding a short note about the Biden visit to the article as a standard update to the article, which should have no effect upon this RFC moving forward to its conclusion after 30 days when someone will install the outcome into the article. My short addition today is limited only to the opening section of the Invasion section and the Phase 3 invasion section of the article. The outcome of the RFC should in any event prevail after it comes to its conclusion after 30 days. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose – RSes are discussing the visit as important and historically significant, and the article on the invasion isn't a good target. DecafPotato (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Unique visit, and numerous highly respected WP:RS also describe it as such. A sitting US President visiting an allied capital in the minst of a brutal war is highly unusual and certainly notable. Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can find, the only non-summit US presidential visit with a standalone article is the 1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China, which falls under the category of summits/normalization visits.
While this visit was certainly a big deal, I don't think it will end up standing out as a particular highlight of Biden's presidency. Time will tell, I guess.
This was "merely" an unscheduled visit by POTUS to a friendly country at war to give moral support and hold a press conference. Not a visit to normalize ties with an unfriendly country (such as Nixon's visit to China or Sadat's visit to Israel) or a historic summit meeting (such as Reykjavik or Singapore).
Comment Adding to what I said earlier, the article already exists in six other languages, including Russian and Ukrainian, which points at the very least to continued coverage and resonance in regard to geopolitics; I suspect more languages will be added and I think merging would be premature at this point. Ppt91talk00:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Support merge - a pretty clear example of recentism. The event should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia but makes no sense having its own article. Saying it is significant is clearly not good enough, and neither is the fact that it is reported in this news cycle. What is needed to demonstrate notability is some understanding that this has significance as an event in itself, and it is too soon for any such sources to exist. Wikipedia is not part of the news cycle, it is an encyclopedia and the assessment of notability is retrospective. This is polcy. I am neutral on merge target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Support merge - Definitely an example under WP:Recentism; it may be notable now, but who will be talking about his visit to Ukraine in a year from now? Nobody. I also agree that it should be merged into an article about Biden. phrogge'sup?edits15:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
who will be talking about his visit to Ukraine in a year from now? Nobody. This is a very broad and bold, if not ill-informed, assumption regarding a very complex geopolitical situation. But then again, there may have been numerous people in 1987 saying the exact same thing about Reagan's visit to Berlin.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd caution against merging too soon and relying too much on WP:RECENTISM argument. A lot is pointing in the direction of it being a consequential visit (see Anne Applebaum's very good analysis in The Atlantic, for example) for the course of what is the largest military conflict in Europe since World War II.
When I say consequential, I don't mean that it will unilaterally determine the conflict's outcome, but that its implications as a major projection of U.S. political and military support go far beyond any other prior visit to Ukraine by the numerous European leaders and U.S. politicians. In that sense, I see a lot of similarities with 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan as far as notability is concerned. Ppt91talk16:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Support: I feel it is likely WP:Recentism, and the page is relatively short as well. In the future perhaps we could restore it as an article if it stays notable, but it's too soon to call it that. I think it would fit better on Joe Biden instead of the war, however. FieryRaven (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I see no problem with an important visit of a head of state to another country to have its own article. The article is well sourced, highlighting some interesting facts that have independent significance and have received mentions in reliable sources. This type of event have their own significance. That is even apart from the lasting significance which I think this visit will have, which I only see as additional support for my oppose. Debresser (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Question to Ad Orientem and/or any other admin. Is this merge discussion an internal project discussion falling to the general sanctions in place that would restrict non-ECP user participation? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cinderella157 I am WP:INVOLVED so what follows is just the opinion of another editor. IMHO I don't think it would be a huge deal if someone who is not extended confirmed commented here. ECP applies to editing the article page(s), not the talk pages where requested edits can be made. That said, it would be strictly off limits to anyone under an applicable topic ban. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article is already quite long at 12,000 words / 79,000 characters - near the limit suggested by WP:SIZESPLIT. Some might reasonably consider splitting out certain sections, rather than merging new ones into the article. As for notability, there are enough interesting and well-covered aspects to Biden's visit – the planning, the logistics, the response by Ukraine and Russia – to merit a standalone article. --Tserton (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
OpposeVolodymyr Zelenskyy's visits to the United States and the United Kingdom have Wikipedia pages, and this visit was equally if not more significant. Isaiahlaitinen99 (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Support mergeOppose doubtful that this meets the notability guideline at NEVENT, but we won't know about lasting coverage for a while. Regardless, notability doesn't meet it must be covered in a stand-alone article and it makes far more sense to cover it here. There are better places to spin out content if length is a concern. VQuakr (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Changed to oppose based on Prolog's comments below; they make a convincing case. VQuakr (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
@Prolog Thanks for this helpful summary. I would sooner propose to merge two of Zelensky's foreign visits in 2022 into one article than try to find a "fit" for this page. And the Biden visit article, per at least one WP:HEY vote, has already been improved. Given it's my fourth post, though, I'll stop so as not to push WP:POINT and wait for consensus. Ppt91talk21:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Time will be final arbiter as to its historical impact, but for now the event meets requirements for a page and the impact of it will have reverberations for the remainder of the presidents term. At some point in the future it might make sense to merge into another page once the sensationalism wears off, but then again it may not and moving into a new article would just be more work for editors. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment I keep seeing this claim that this trip is somehow unique since Lincoln. Not so. Bush visited both Iraq and Afghanistan. LBJ visited Vietnam. Eisenhower famously traveled to Korea, very near the front lines. FDR visited North Africa, although that was after military operations there had largely wound down. Not sure where this pious fiction originated, but it is simply not true. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, President Biden’s visit with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in Kyiv was the first trip by a modern president to a war zone not under the control of American forces.[9] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like hair splitting to me. Ike's trip was more dangerous. So was FDR's since the Germans still had a very capable air force and Roosevelt was traveling by air. We even told the Russians he was coming. In any event, unlike those trips, this one was basically a photo-op. The real business was conducted at later meetings with European allies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Kyiv is under Ukranian control. Biden was nowhere near the front. Any suggestion that Biden was in real danger is risible. There is no shortage of historians who have commented on the risks taken by Ike and FDR in their travels. Where is the long-term significance of this? What exactly did it accomplish? What grand decisions were taken? It's already falling off the news cycle. Whole books have been written about FDR's wartime trips. This was a glorified photo-op. Not saying he shouldn't have made the trip. But I am saying it doesn't justify a stand-alone article. And yes, that's my opinion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. It's not our job to decide what should be notable, it's our job to acknowledge what reliable sources do consider notable. Obviously this has been considered by reliable sources to be more than just a "photo-op". Also it's not clear where you would merge this into without probably needing to merge it out again as articles like Joe Biden and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine continue to get longer. Also note that the corresponding 2022 visit by Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the United States article does and should have a page. OP has mentioned some other Presidential trips that could be considered just as notable but don't have pages yet, and maybe he's right, but perhaps we should be making pages for them rather than trying to figure out how and where to merge this one. Relinus (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. It was a pivotal development. There has been a significant and in-depth media coverage making it highly eligible for a stand alone article. --Mhhosseintalk06:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment (I have already supported a merge) The comments I am seeing to oppose a merge are: it's significant, it's historic, there are lots of sources and other articles exist (eg visits by Zelensky). There are also comparisons to Kennedy and Raegan. Whether a topic merits a stand-alone article must be viewed through WP:N and more specifically,WP:GNG. [S]ignificant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.WP:NOT is then specifically mentioned, where we have WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROMO and WP:CRYSTAL. From what I can see, [almost] all of the sources cited directly relating to the visit are WP:NEWSORG. Per WP:SUSTAINED, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. ... Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. There must be sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION. This was essentially a propaganda exercise. We should remember that news organisations are in the business of selling their product and rely on a degree of hype to do this. A review of Google news shows that there has been near nothing (nothing of substance) on this for going on a week. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/WP:OTHERCONTENT are not arguments within themself but a two-edged sword. The notability of Zelensky's visits are questionable for the same reasons that this article is being questioned. Raegan and Kennedy's visits to Berlin don't have an article but an article for the speeches they made. It was not the visit that was notable but what they did during the visit. Per WP:SBST (part of WP:N), what is the critical analysis of the consequences of the visit and its significance into the future (per WP:RECENTISM) beyond the hype of it being some sort of first, but only with a degree of qualification? There is a distinction between that which is noteworthy and may be reported within articles and that which is truly notable and deserving of its own article. The arguments made to oppose the merge are largely (IMO) superficial characterisations. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Date thing
In the date part of the infobox it says that it's been 1 year and 1 day since it began. It was friday 24/02/22 then and it's Friday 24/02/23 today. Isn't it supposed to say 1 year since it has been exactly one year since it began? There hasn't been a leap year between last year and this year so I'm confused. Or maybe it's because of time zones? Either way it's quite weird and confusing. Ocemccool (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
The 365th day of the invasion was the 23.02.2023...the starting day counts as day one, so we're on the 366th day today. Lectonar (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2023
You're both wrong. Russia invaded Ukraine's 1991 borders on Feb 20, 2014, when it took - by force - the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. All this "one year anniversary" nonsense serves - intentionally or as 'useful idiots'- the Russian narrative in their war of genocide and aggression. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Anniversary
Today is the anniversary of 1 year since the war between Russia and Ukraine started. I think that more information on all of these articles related related to the Russoukranian War should be added generally.That's what I have to say. Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Also I am pretty sure Ukrain considers 20 Feb 2014 (annexation of Crimea) that start of the war. The anniversary is that of the full scale invasion of Ukrain depending on how it is viewed not the war proper. 85.148.34.37 (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Bull, Feb 20 2023 was the ninth anniversary of the Russian invasion of 1991 Ukrainian borders, because that's when the Russian military took - by force - the Ukrainian lands of Crimea, and notice....they have never left. So the "invasion" is already at least 9 years old. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The name of the larger event starting in 2014 is "Russo-Ukrainian War". It would make no sense to call it the same thing as its encompassing conflict. HappyWith (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, if you don’t want to change this page’s name to the “2022-2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine”, then change the date to “24 February-7 April 2022”, because the “invasion content” says the invasion lasted until April 2022! TankDude2000 (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello? 1991 Russia agreed to the borders.....2014 Russia started the invasion, beginning in Crimea.... 2022, Russia renewed their push to take even more of 1991 Ukrainian lands. But make no mistake, the "invasion" had already been launched (8 years earlier) when the renewed push ramped up in early 2022 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Change the description of the Phase 3 animated map to end at Feb. 23, not January 27, since that’s what the animated map shows. 108.208.123.119 (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
🇺🇲🇺🇦 CNN, citing its sources in the Ukrainian General Staff, reports that on February 28, 2023, the losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine amounted to: ▪️ 259,085 people killed, died from wounds, diseases; ▪️wounded, crippled 246,904; ▪️deserted, as well as missing - 83,952; ▪️ captured - 28 393. You can lie all you want, but the numbers don't lie.
If there is a CNN source for those claims, then you gotta link to it directly. Plenty of fake stuff posing as CNN going around[10], so some youtube video claiming to cite CNN has little relevance.--Staberinde (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Jeffrey Sachs is an active Putin propagandist, so described by reliable sources, and appearing at extremist rallies with other Putin supporters. He is the most unreliable of unreliable sources. Jeppiz (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
The recent Sachs article (he is a economist and not a historian or political scientist) appeared here last month: [11]. Sachs appears to be in agreement with Mearsheimer of asserting and calling attention to possible negligence of US foreign policy in pushing aggressively for NATO expansion after the 1990s breakup of the USSR at these recent interviews: Sachs [12] and Mearsheimer [13]. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
The title of this section states that Sachs has made a statement about losses. Reuters appears to be publishing these statistics daily. Do they (Sachs, CNN) agree or disagree with Reuters? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
It's been going on for a year without anything notable happening. This Russo-Ukrainian incident is hardly breaking news by now. 85.193.204.141 (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
About 50,ooo page hits per day, and Russia has just massed 200,ooo new soldiers on the frontline in February of last month. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I've been reading ISW's updates almost daily since March and I've noticed a gradual shift in the quality of their analyses. They're cited, sometimes almost to the extent of {{single source}}, on the Encyclopedia and elsewhere, as a top-notch, reliable, NPOV source.
I'm starting to doubt whether they are. I can provide several specific examples later in replies, but they seem to be increasingly disconnected from the actual situation. Apart from being an openly pro-Ukrainian source (which editors don't always realize), they seem to be developing unprofessional cognitive distortions, selectively processing raw data (e.g. geolocations) according to unclear criteria (presumably the said cognitive distortions), occasionally shifting their spotlight for narrative effect, and displaying unwarranted levels of confidence. And apart from their explanation of their technical methodology, they usually don't explain how or why they came to conclusions.
I think one of the issues is that they're pretty much the only game in town (in the open source, that is) for the specific kind of analysis they provide.
To be fair, they do produce quite a lot of useful work, and their citations list is also quite useful.
All I'm saying is that we need to see ISW for what it really is. No more, no less. At the end of the day, they are a somewhat POV source making armchair speculations that hardly qualify as "expert", and certainly not the gold-standard big-picture OSINT source that they are sometimes cited as.
Whenever I see "ISW is publishing an abbreviated campaign update today", I always know they're going to be talking about some random unimportant thing about Putin. Not really neutral.
And I also remember that in some maps, they've confirmed that Russians have taken territory but still only show it as claimed.
What do you mean “openly pro-Ukrainian”? It is normal to be against people and groups that commit crimes of aggression, atrocity crimes, terrorism, incitement to genocide, and possible genocide. Anyone who doesn’t reveal this about themselves can still be assumed to have such a “bias.” Anyone who is not against such acts or supports them has something seriously wrong with them, and perhaps ought to be examined as a suspect source. —MichaelZ.08:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you were subject to ludicrous, unsubstantiated, and barely coherent accusations from a random IP somewhere in Turkey (not RU 🤔).
Anywayyy…
Ignoring that disruption, there are numerous problems with the assertion you made. ISW's updates have repeatedly in recent months made statements that are POV. Deploring apparent war crimes isn't necessarily POV, but that's neither here nor there.
Furthermore, NPOV exists to facilitate accurate coverage. ISW's analyses, which have in some cases basically been paraphrased and pasted, are arguably not as accurate as spammy blow-by-blows that can be put into summary style later, along with brief analyses culled from better sources than ISW. WP:NODEADLINE
ISW may be non-partisan and nonprofit, but they are a DC think tank pushing a definite policy agenda. Or, if you prefer, armchair milbloggers an ocean away from the action who happen to have degrees in vaguely related fields, but who routinely demonstrate amateurishness verging occasionally on pettifoggery. They are not some kind of clear-eyed professional-grade OSINT agency generating robust and timely analyses with clear reasoning. Nor should they be treated as such.
I think, to an extent, this is the SOHR problem all over again (but worse): apart from hard imagery, there just isn't objective 100% NPOV OSINT analysis available (apart from the WP:OR of a certain WP editor…)
Sorry for that little rant. I've been up for almost 36 hours and I'm about to finally pass out.
Also, while the content of your recent comment is mildly concerning, I remain fully and completely supportive of your right to make such comments without being harassed by IP trolls.
Well, there's indeed an example of this. The story: ISW claims, that "Open-source Twitter accounts confirmed ISW’s previous assessment that artillery attacks against Donetsk City were likely conducted from within Russian-held territory, refuting accusations made by Russian authorities that blamed Ukrainian troops for the attacks.[19]", despite the fact, that said reference [19] is a link to a thread, which concluded with exact opposite assessment, namely "In this case it is our assumption that this shelling was highly likely done by the Ukrainian military". Seryo93 (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, and there are several "subposts" (01/, 02/, 03/, etc.). 72/ one concludes that attack in question was "highly likely done by the Ukrainian military" (see also 66/ post in that thread), and 73/ one is a quotation from Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. Seryo93 (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The main article here uses multiple sources both in the USA and internationally for referencing. This article is not dependent on one source of information. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
My main concern isn't false hard data, but a seriously flawed analytical process indicative of systematic cognitive distortions and (in the analytical sense) bias.
The only case I can think of offhand is that TOS-1 launchers are both an army-level asset and a district asset, not merely a district asset as ISW has claimed on at least three occasions. In Vuhledar and previously elsewhere, ISW has claimed that TOS-1 deployment indicates prioritization of the sector at MD level.
The reason why this difference matters is that in the case of Vuhledar, ISW's assertions as to the efforts being allocated to each axis are so obviously at odds with available evidence that they could be construed as borderline counterfactual. (WP:AGF doesn't apply to external sources, right?)
Now, maybe we shouldn't be holding ISW to the standards we'd hold a "real" intelligence agency to (they're a somewhat POV Washington think tank), but if so, they shouldn't be using the kind of technical vocabulary that they often use. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by "available evidence"? I actually agree that they've been weirdly out of touch with the state of play in, say, Bakhmut in the last few months, but the sources I'm using to get the situation on the ground there aren't really WP:RS, to put it lightly. Do you have examples of reliable sources that ISW is contradicting with in the kinds of ways you're describing? If we had those, it would let us approach this in a more methodical way. HappyWith (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Currently, I largely rely on geolocations collated by GeoConfirmed. I also read the Ukrainian channel DeepState, which is RS for claims favoring the other side. For Russian sources, I find Rybar is usually the least unreliable, although of course whatever they say needs corroboration. The issue with Russian sources reporting Ukrainian gains is that they often contradict each other. And of course, I often check ISW's primary sources. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
DeepState is also the main one I follow. The thing is, these aren't WP:RS, so I don't know if they could be useful in this discussion. HappyWith (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
According to the territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War guidelines, POV sources can be RS for claims favoring the opposite side. I would take this guideline with a grain of salt on a case by case basis, but it seems to be consensus.
The point I was originally trying to make is that IMHO ISW is often only, as they'd say, marginally RS in many cases. And they are demonstrably POV, albeit of the outside sympathizing kind. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry if there was any incoherence or ambiguity in my OP. The essence of my objection is that they're relied upon excessively in a large number of articles on the topic, when their analyses clearly don't merit being paraphrased and passed off as a general summary of analyses of the battles and events. I understand there aren't a lot of good secondary sources to pick from, but at the same time, I see no reason to add an "Analysis" section to battles that are still ongoing. Better secondary sources will appear later. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The spillovers: the recent incursion into Bryansk Oblast, the drone explosions in Belarus, and the rocket strikes in Poland and Moldova. Do the spillovers have anything to do with the recent massing of troops by Russia on the frontline of the invasion? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I mean, the rocket strikes in Poland and Moldova happened months ago, so those didn't have anything to do with the recent troop massing. I don't have any idea about how the troop buildup relates to the Bryansk incursion. Why do you ask? HappyWith (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
An article should not be created unless you can demonstrate that there are reliable sources with in-depth coverage for it. For it. The it is not the incursion into Bryansk, not the drone explosions in Belarus, not the rocket strikes in Poland or Moldova. Sources for those subjects may warrant articles on those events. You need to establish that spillover of the conflict is a notable topic. Which I'm dubious on it being. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
What sources can you present to demonstrate that the topic of spillover itself is notable? The article you've cited exemplifies a problem to avoid: a list of events, likely incomplete, tied to the topic by a Wikipedia editor, not by reliable sources. There are sixty-four citations in the article, which establishes, nevermind discusses, the subject as a whole? This is precisely the issue I'm expecting to find in the proposed article: no sources for the subject, many sources for events attributed to the subject. That is original research by synthesis: [d]o not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Though here it's: do not combine material from multiple sources to invent a topic not discussed by any source. The example article has further problems in that it contains copious uncited passages, a general lack of coherence, and patent violations of the original research policy beyond synth. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, this has been covered numerous times in past discussions. Please review previous discussions about the topic to see why the listed changes have not been made. Galebazz (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
It’s undeniable that NATO is supporting Ukraine, so why not put NATO as supporting Ukraine while putting Belarus as supporting Russia?
142.197.242.221 (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
NATO is supporting Ukraine. It would be scope creep if we talked about relations in other matter. In NATO response to the invasion, well the invasion is the topic and response is a major section. Also, it does proabbly have its own article. @Ancheta WisStarship 24 (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I hope your response doesn't imply that you support the suggestion of 142.197.242.221 . I don't think you mean to add support for adding another 2 co-belligerents to the respective sides of the infobox. Right? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)01:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
About 70 sovereign states are materially supporting Ukraine, but not involved in the conflict. At least one NATO member (Hungary) is not. But none of them is a criminal aggressor due to their provision of territory for the crime of aggression like Belarus. —MichaelZ.07:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Belarus is not yet a co-belligerent; Belarus has previously exercised with Russian troops
with you. Perhaps Belarus might not be placed in the infobox, right now? (This means seeking consensus in the infobox, to drop the supporters line; keep only the belligerents with boots on the ground.) -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)13:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be rather strong that what Belarus did/does is very different from sending supplies, I don't think it should be removed. TylerBurden (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Where is the limit. Should North Korea be added? Syria? Is just sending materials enough to warrant being in (in which case we should add NATO). This needs to be discussed in a non-demanding way (Add iran, either add NATO or take Belarus out, etc.). There is no one right obvious opinion. @Ancheta Wis@DinoSoupCanadaStarship 24 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I prefer if we could show the map in the body in the article and have the Infobox with a gallery of photos of the conflict. What's everyone's thoughts? Aaron106 (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. There's a consensus that the new title better reflects the content of the article. The opposition mainly stemmed from a desire to make this article focused on the initial 2022 invasion and split or merge the article in some fashion; there's no prejudice to towards renaming the article back if something like that happens. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not entirely sure which title is best for this page, but I'm proposing Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), (instead of "... 2022-2023 ...") due to it's preference amongst editors participating in the 31 December 2022 move discussion who supported changing the time descriptor, and the fact it makes it look like the conflict has already or will definitely end in 2023.
I support the brackets in the title Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) because it's cleaner and more descriptive. As English readers read left-to-right, the most important information ("Russian invasion of Ukraine") is seen first, and then the time descriptor, is seen very slightly later. 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine makes it look like "2022-2023" is more important than "Russian invasion of Ukraine".
I somewhat understand the argument that an "invasion" is the first stage of the conflict, so to some extent, the invasion is over and a more conventional interstate war is ongoing, therefore Escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present), or similar, could be used, but this would be extremely difficult to gain consensus on. On the other hand, many say the word "invasion" should be used in the title, as it's the most commonly used name (per WP:COMNAME).
Oppose the Invasion was in 2022, just as the Normandy invasion was in 1944. This is part of the wider war, not a new one. We can't and must not imply otherwise, which I feel this would do. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
For a few years prior to the outbreak of the current conflict, the situation was relatively peaceful. --- Tbf69P • T08:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The invasion continues, albeit with glacial slowness, as the Russians try to continue taking mor Ukrainian territory. Nothing. About the title says it is not part of the larger war. —MichaelZ.09:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this is a comparable example. There is no article that goes by the direct bang Normandy Invasion. The article is Operation Overlord, which does not have a date in the title. Moreover the operation was completed wholly within 1944 so again isn't comparable. Interestingly it does have a disambiguation link to French invasion of Normandy (1202–1204) which has invasion in the title and covers a period of multiple years. Tracland (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
How does the proposed title imply it is a different war any more than the current title does? And, like others have said, the invasion is still ongoing, with Russia slowly inching forwards in Bakhmut. HappyWith (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Support (2022-present) It would make sense for now. In the long run, I'd suggest splitting the article in two: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to describe the initial phase of the ongoing war (24 February until the retreat from Kyiv Oblast) and Russo-Ukrainian War to describe the overall conflict that started on 24 February 2022. The article that is currently under the name Russo-Ukrainian War should then be renamed *Russo-Ukrainian conflict, since most of its duration a Trasnistria-like border conflict with separatist militia groups aided by Russia took place, with the years 2019–2021 being relatively peaceful, and the actual war taking place around 2014–2015, thus making a reference to it being WP:CONSISTENT with Russo-Georgian War, that described a short direct militrary confrontation between two countries, make pretty much no sense. But, as was mentioned before, it would be extremely complicated to reach consensus on all three changes. CapLiber (talk) 18:56 26 Feburary 2023 (UTC)
That will not happen because it’s all wrong. There is no difference in meaning between war and conflict in these contexts. Courts have found that the militias were controlled by Russia and an international war started by mid May 2014. There was no change in 2019. More people were killed and wounded in Ukraine in what you call the “relatively peaceful” period of static warfare than in 2014–15. —MichaelZ.14:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Transnistria conflict is not the same as Transnistria War. Both topics are treated separately in sources. Having an article such as Russo-Ukrainian conflict encompassing the invasion of Crimea, the Donbas War and the 2022 escalation sounds reasonable to me. Though having a split in the Russian retreat from northern Ukraine seems arbitrary to me and I am opposed to it. SuperΨDro15:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm quite in favour of the split to reduce the scope of this article to be just the initial invasion (as suggested). In which case I agree the title remains appropriate. But, absent consensus to split the article (which is a separate debate), the current article covers all events from Feb 22 to date, meaning it does not only cover 2022, as the title suggests. Tracland (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Russian invasion of Ukraine: per concise. This is already a redirect to this page. There is therefore no reasonable reason why this should not be the title. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Per, the nomination, that title has been rejected already twice. Therefore, while WP:CONCISE applies, it's unlikely to be adopted for the foreseeable. --- Tbf69P • T08:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
There have also been RfCs subsequently to redirect the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" to Invasions of Ukraine, which have also failed. Any substantive argument that would oppose an RM of this article to "Russian invasion of Ukraine" has therefore not carried weight more fully. The key point is that there is no actual conflict with the title "Russian invasion of Ukraine" that would prevent this title being adopted for this article. Per WP:AT, it is actual conflicts in titling that count - not oh but there are other invasions of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Support With the current title, it's technically wrong to add any development after January 1st. We'll change it eventually in any case, might as well do it now and stop rerunning this discussion every other week. Jeppiz (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
@Chicdat I agree that makes sense, but please support the original RM proposal, to avoid a no consensus result of this discussion. A split needs a separate discussion. --- Tbf69P • T13:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that’s what doomed the last big RM. I think it’s best to leave discussion of other proposals to a separate discussion. HappyWith (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Please support the original? That sounds a bit too much like influencing others' votes. In fact, I oppose the parenthetical disambiguation (2022-present) because no parenthetical disambiguation is needed (on the other hand, the split proposal does not include parentheses, and is preferable). 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!11:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical. That someone keeps asking for a move is not evidence of consensus to move and not a reason to move. —MichaelZ.14:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
In terms of conflicts/protests with a year–present time descriptor, the brackets are always preferred. --- Tbf69P • T14:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The rationale is that the current title looks like a concluded conflict. Maybe. It also refers to a previous vote where it was the favourite among the minority that voted to change. Not wrong, but not strong. —MichaelZ.11:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
That's not what I am saying. If the current title is inappropriate and a move is required, we should also move several other related articles such as that one. But trying to integrate these parentheses will give pretty awkward results into some of them. A more natural proposal is required. SuperΨDro23:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree the brackets are confusing in the name of such an article but I don't see why that article shouldn't simply be "Women in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" Tracland (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Personally and for the reasons you and other participants have given, that would be my preference (I.e. no date disambiguation). However this has been debated and rejected so following that seeking the 'next best thing'. In my view including '2022 - present' is preferable to '2022' given what the article actually covers but my overriding preference would be to remove dates (but this has been rejected). Tracland (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:CRITERIA, the strongest policy based arguments exist for Russian invasion of Ukraine over a disambiguated title. It ticks all of the boxes and disambiguation should only be used when there is an actual title conflict. The underlying premise of the RM that Russian invasion of Ukraine should therefore target Invasions of Ukraine was a perceived ambiguity with other invasions of Ukraine. The RfD that followed belied the strength of that argument, keeping the redirect to here. IMO, there are conflicting outcomes that leave the matter unresolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
As the initiator of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" RM, I of course think that's the best title, but I'm not opposed to suggestion in this RM per my !vote above. DecafPotato (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Agreement with Slatersteven and Michael that this new name change request is likely poorly formulated. Leaving the title as having an unspecified and open invasion period seems like the most unlikely version to be contemplated. Its an invasion that took place in 2022. Its not going to go on indefinitely. Leaving the title with an unspecified end date also seems to imply another name change when the invasion is pronounced as 'ended' by someone. That's a poor approach to naming Wikipedia articles. Even the Normandy invasion was no longer part of WWII dialogue format once the Battle of the Bulge took place. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article ought not to be renamed at this time with an indeterminate name with an unspecified time parameter. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
@TankDude2000 I agree that makes sense, but please support the original RM proposal, to avoid a no consensus result of this discussion. A split needs a separate discussion. --- Tbf69P • T13:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this is a fair comparison unless we make a substantial split of this article. The 2003 Iraq invasion article covers only a campaign that started and finished in 2003. This article covers events from Feb-22 to present so covers events in 2022 and 2023. Tracland (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
As I stated previously in another RM for this article, this argument has more holes in it then Swiss cheese; you're conflating the 2003 invasion of Iraq with the entirety of the Iraq War. The former article just describes the initial invasion campaign, which took place entirely in 2003. Crusader1096 (message) 00:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Support (2022-present) because sure, there are several other titles that might work, but this at least solves the issue of the fact that the invasion continues and yet it still says 2022. Looking forward to the RM where we have to decide what counts as it ending/when it ended... Hentheden (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Prefer (2022-present). Ultimately, I agree with @Cinderella157's point about how this should be named "Russian invasion of Ukraine" since said page already redirects here and had been challenged before, meaning you can't weasel out with "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" if consensus exists that said page should redirect to this article. Crusader1096 (message) 00:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Support CapLiber’s idea Others have brought up the 2003 invasion of Iraq page as a similar scenario, I would comment an even closer fitting match, Second Sino-Japanese War. It includes the invasion of Manchuria/Defense of the Great Wall as "Prelude" and dates the war to the full scale invasion, pretty much bang on for what CapLiber is proposing here with Crimea and the Donbas.WanukeX (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
@WanukeX I agree that makes sense, but please support the original RM proposal, to avoid a no consensus result of this discussion. A split needs a separate discussion. --- Tbf69P • T13:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
@Nythar I agree that makes sense, but please support the original RM proposal, to avoid a no consensus result of this discussion. A split needs a separate discussion. --- Tbf69P • T13:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Users here voting only for CapLiber's proposal should be aware they're only heading this discussion to a "no consensus" result. A split should not come out of a RM. A separate discussion should be started for that. SuperΨDro13:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I have to point out that I supported the (2022-present) variant within this discussion. If my other idea is to be put to discussion, a RM proposal on Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict should be made, to then, if successful, transfer this article to Russo-Ukrainian War and split 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article from it. CapLiber (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Slatersteven. And yes, this invasion is a part of the bigger war started by Russia in 2014. As about the proposals by CapLiber, I think they are irrelevant. Sure, one can create sub-pages or rename other pages, but this does not affect renaming this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
By which bit of Slatersteven are you seeking to agree (or all of it). It appears 2 main points are made in their comment being
1) the Invasion was in 2022 (followed by a supporting argument referencing the Normandy invasion) , and
2) This is part of the wider war, not a new one (and the inference that this change could result in the article implying otherwise)
I'd infer from your comment that it's the former (which I think then heavily linked to the actual context of the article and the potential split proposal) but thought it would be useful to check. Tracland (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons outlined by Slatersteven and My very best wishes. This article should simply cover the invasion which only occurred during 2022 instead of constantly expanding into a wider war article. Yeoutie (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the comment and your view that the article should only cover the 2022 invasion but that is not what the article actually covers. As it stands the article covers everything from Feb-22 to date. You and others have raised this point which is effectively a proposal to split the existing article (and then retain the existing title which, as a consequence, would then be accurate). This needs a separate consensus on a split which needs to be discussed separately and no-one (including me) seems willing to instigate this. As it stands the question in this discussion is whether the title is appropriate for the content as it stands which covers events from Feb-22 to date. Tracland (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Opposed but support merge to Russo-Ukrainian War Saying the invasion started in 2022 is (intentionally or as useful idiots) to embrace Russian propaganda in favor of Ukraine abandoning its claims to Crimea where the invasion actually began on Feb 20, 2014. I don't mind having an article about Russia's "renewed push" or "Battle of 2022" or something, but to claim - obviously and manifestly in defiance of RS supported historic fact - that the "invasion" started in 2022 is to rewrite actual recorded history, in favor of Russian propaganda. I admit that a lot of western media fell for this bit of "framing the question", and that was a huge win for the Russian psyops people. But we know they did that now, and we don't have to give their fiction any more oxygen than western media has already (idiotically) provided to Russian efforts to win "hearts and minds" over their forceful seizure of Ukrainian lands on the Crimean Peninsula. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
You're arguments don't make sense. This article is not saying that Russian military activity in Ukraine started in 2022, it is regarding the renewed tensions and escalation beginning in 2022. As flawed is the current title, it doesn't even come close to insinuating that the invasion of Ukraine started in 2022. 2022 is in there because that was when a new offensive invasion began after a several year period of relative peace. Additionally, if this is your issue, I don't understand what the point is of having an article about the renewed conflict given your opposition to the title. Finally, to claim that this is rewriting WP:RS historic fact is frankly nonsense, given that every RS and country (including Ukraine) refers to this as a new invasion, or at least an escalatory/new one. There's no point in half-assing the title due to baseless technicalities. Besides, there's already a section regarding the new invasion on Russo-Ukranian War. Crusader1096 (message) 21:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Even if I agreed with the premise of this (which I don't), I can't see any conceivable way to merge these articles given the respective size of the articles.
In addition, no-one is saying that the events since Feb-22 are not part of a larger war / series of events. However, clearly the events since Feb-22 are sufficiently notable for an independent lead article covering this period (or multiple such articles, as has been proposed in this discussion). Tracland (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The terminology of invasions is clear - "invasion of Crimea" for when Russia had a goal of occupying and annexing Crimea (not the whole of Ukraine); "invasion of Ukraine" for when it tried to occupy the whole country to either also annex or put a puppet regime in power. If your frame is correct, then what was stopping Russia from launching an invasion of central Ukraine for 8 years? Did Russia had to sign a Minsk agreement and let the War in Donbas freeze, giving Ukrainian army time for rearmament and training with NATO armies, to then launch a new "battle" in 2022 in an "ongoing war"? Using this logic, we must also change the Russo-Georgian War start date to early 1990s, when the first military clash between the Georgians and the Ossetians/Abkhazians happened, or move World War 2 start date to the occupation of Czechoslovakia or Anschluss. CapLiber (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
This is irrelevant to this current discussion. Start a merge proposal as a separate discussion on the talk page if you want to continue this proposal. HappyWith (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I have to add that Russian officials do declare that the Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014. This continues to be mentioned nowadays, including in justifying what the country is doing. There have been an enormous number of statements about the "8 years of war" etc. Regarding the discussion - Support per nom. --Ur frnd (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons already mentioned by Slatersteven. While I understand the logical argument for the rename as the war continues, the size of the current article's prose is already so vast (after multiple spin-offs) that we may end up with distinct articles for 2022 in the war, 2023 in the war, and hopefully not etc... Moreover, the 2022 invasion is already commonly recognized use as a common name for the phase of the war and is likely to remain the focal point of the article, rather than serving as a general overview of the conflict. It seems that it would be more practical to keep the current article name as such. Respublik (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Per searches it's used quite commonly [14]. My objection is not solely or even primarily based on the common name argument, though. Respublik (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per the nomination, this is a multi-year time period of the Russo-Ukrainian War and leaving the name as the 2022 Invasion seems like it may be very confusing to individuals not as familiar with the topic. Navarre0107 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Support. It makes sense to describe the campaign as ongoing in the title, because that is more precise than the current title. It may eventually be the case that we get a common name that distinguishes this from other wars, but this natural sort of disambiguation makes sense given the current circumstances. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Changing the title of the article is unnecessary and potentially misleading. The invasion occurred in 2022, and the original title accurately reflects the specific time frame of the invasion. The proposed title is too broad and could potentially lead to confusion for readers. The original title clearly and accurately identifies the year in which the invasion occurred, which is essential information for understanding the context of the conflict. — Apostolica19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
This statement would be correct if the coverage of the article was the initial 2022 invasion. However the actual content covers all activity from Feb-22 to date and therefore implying the article only covers the 2022 invasion is itself misleading.
If the article is split such that it only covers the 2022 invasion then I'd agree with you. But this needs a separate consensus. Tracland (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose The current title refers to an invasion. Note the definition of invasion always includes the act of entering.
"an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army."
"the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease."
"entrance as if to take possession or overrun"
That only occurs when it happens, which was in 2022. The aftermath of the entering is another issue. It could be repelled lasting a day. It could start a war, lasting years. But the entering is the invasion, not the subsequent actions. (which points back to the separate discussion around the scope of the article) • Bobsd • (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
But 'invasion' can also mean (or the definition can be expanded to include):
'an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country' (Cambridge Dictionary)
The Russian armed forces are still trying to take control of parts of or the whole of Ukraine; so one could say that the occasion is ongoing.
'the act of invading something: such as the act of entering a place in an attempt to take control of it' (Britannica Dictionary)
Again, the Russian armed forces have entered and are still in Ukraine, attempting to take control of it. Thus, one could say that the occasion of entering a place in attempting to take control of it is continuing. Thus Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) makes sense as a title for this article.
I agree with you that given the current content of this article, Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) makes sense. But then what is the purpose of Russo-Ukrainian War. Isn't that the place to cover the past and ongoing conflict? I respectfully think we have way too much uncoordinated duplication of information and multiple articles. I personally find it confusing to figure out where to add new information, because there is no predefined editorial guidelines for the development of the entire subject matter. But I'm OT here :) see 2.5 Full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–2023)? see Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine • Bobsd • (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Can't disagree with you there. I think a wider discussion needs to be had on this and how articles are split. This will take some time to agree. In the meantime I still think it would be useful to fix this title to match the current content (even if it's only a short term fix). Tracland (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Does the article Title define the scope of the article? Or does the article grow whimsically (without regard to other articles covering the same subject) and then the title is constantly changed to fit. That conundrum is the reason that we have good arguments on either side ... Title and Scope are related. Can't really decide on one without addressing the other. It's the lack of a set of requirements that we are dealing with with IMO. • Bobsd • (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
My view on this would be that the title should reflect the content of an article and if the article naturally grows then the title should be updated to reflect. It's the overall content that should reflect a specific topic and the title should then reflect the topic. Obviously there is still a question as to whether this article is one or multiple 'topics' (to use common wording to my previous statement) but that needs a separate discussion and we can always change the title again if a split is agreed in due course. Tracland (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Well put, and I will go look through the existing guidance on how/when/where this overall discussion occurs. Thank you. • Bobsd • (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
We only choose an article title within the narrow constraints set by WP:AT in accordance with [good quality] sources. WP:NEWSORG sources are reliable within constraints. Sources also define the scope to be applied to an article title - the title is not narrowly construed by the title used but by how it is construed by sources. In an article, the scope, as determined by sources, is made explicit in the lead. In consequence, the lead explains the scope of the article. In this case, the year in the title is unnecessary disambiguation per policy. When disambiguation is necessary, we are only WP:PRECISE to the extent required - WP:CONCISE has precedence. Giving the start date (year) of an event is sufficient to identify an event and disambiguate it, further precision is unnecessary. The lead tells us it is ongoing. The premise that a year, let alone a year range is necessary in the title is not supported by WP:AT, the prevailing policy. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). The invasion is continuing (see my reply above as to the definition). Compusolus (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The war continues, but the invasion took place over a short time in 2022. It seems that many people don't understand the word "invasion". If the article as to contain content about events beyond that then the title shouldn't contain that word. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Then make this article about the 2022 invasion and that one about the war. All titles can be left as they are. If this article is to contain content about what has happened after the invasion it shouldn't have "invasion" in its title. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
As stated several times above, if that's what people think is needed then a separate discussion on splitting the article needs to be created. Tracland (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I am opposed to this particular proposal because the invasion took place in 2022, not 2022-2023. It is the war that is still happening, not the invasion. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
That may be so; it depends on which definition of 'invasion' you acknowledge; but the article covers more than the first occasion of the Russian Armed Forces entering Ukraine, including events in 2023. Compusolus (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Post-move discussion
This post-move discussion has been replaced by another move request for this article which has already been started on this Talk page. All further comments should be placed in the new move request section which has already been started below on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't have an opinion on what that article (which I see was just created) should be titled, but unless there is a second article with the title "Russian invasion of Ukraine", it doesn't make sense to have a parenthetical disambiguation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be one of those occasions where the consensus is simply wrong. Yes, the article includes events from 2023, but that means that this is not only about the invasion, which happened in 2022, so any title should not include the word "invasion". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I think that the balance of !votes and arguments is close enough that the close could be challenged and potentially overturned to no consensus. signed, Rosguilltalk19:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion has already been closed with a reasonably clear consensus. If editors want a change the logical step would be to open a new discussion but after all the discussions on the matter, and with such a recent conclusion to this one, I'm not sure how much of an appetite there is for that. BogLogs (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
That is an untenable assessment. The !vote balance is 30-14 in favour of the move (I'm not sure whether to count Cinderella's !vote as support or oppose, and I've ignored struck !votes). That's not close, it's a supermajority for the move (2:1). The arguments over article scope aren't germane to the requested move, and they make up a fair portion of the opposing argument, which further strengthens the already extant supermajority for the move. Alteration to article scope needs a separate discussion. The close as-is accurately reflects consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
On reflection, I think I agree--there's some circumstantial considerations that could have been taken into account to motivate a no consensus close, but the existing close is defensible and is unlikely to get overturned. Moreover, we're not going to settle on a long-term encyclopedic title here until the war is over (or at least until it clearly moves into a new "phase" that closes this chapter of the war decisively), so getting into a long bureaucratic discussion is a waste of time for a page that will inevitably be retitled in the future anyway. signed, Rosguilltalk16:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
That's, of course, very true. It's an issue that plagues articles on on-going events. We don't know what the article will be until the dust settles. In the title, in the content, in the off-shoot articles. These all remain opaque. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
But does really no one share my concern that the current title is using parentheses for "disambiguation" when there is in fact nothing to disambiguate from? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This is disambiguating from the other Russian invasions of Ukraine, which are documented at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine. This is clearly the primary topic for the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine", and while almost always that would mean it would be better at a non-disambiguated title, this is not a usual circumstance. We're allowed to make exceptions to usual titling guidelines for special cases like this. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
It's an article on an ongoing military conflict. That's certainly not usual.
I agree with others who have raised scope issues here; what is considered "the invasion" vs "the war" isn't exactly clear. However, that's hard to resolve during the war. Hence, it's an unusual circumstance. Once the war is over it'll be far more clear what this and other relevant articles should be titled, and what they should contain. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
How does it being an ongoing conflict mean we alter our titling decisions?
Also, what’s the invasion vs the war is very clear, and is very consistent across WP:RS. The invasion started on 24 Feb, and the war started in 2014. These are all well-defined scopes. HappyWith (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Responding as I was messaged and asked to reconsider my close: I can't overturn the close for an argument that was raised after the discussion (nor is this case where the support arguments should be discarded for clearly contravening policy/guideline). Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeoutie, WP articles stand alone. While article titles may consider WP:CONSISTENT as one of the criteria for a title, there is no mandate to apply the titling format here to all related articles - ie they can be assessed individually. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Redirects already are in action, so renaming of existing links is unnecessary. I just put in one as a test case to demonstrate that the Foundation is on it (good job, WMF). -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)00:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
If anyone is on it it's not the WMF. It's not their job to create content, including redirects, or rename articles, and they don't. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
This is an issue I continuously raised on past RMs. If this article was moved, we would need to deal with tons of others to which the proposed title might not apply as appropriately. It went largely ignored and now someone will have to deal with this. Though I'd recommend not putting much effort, as the current title will inevitably require another move once the war ends. SuperΨDro19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Can you make a case for including the word "invasion" in the title? The article contains loads of content about what has happened after the invasion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a better suggestion on how to title this article? Honestly, I'd be okay with anything that doesn't incorrectly use parentheses to disambiguate between nothng. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Implying there are two distinct wars with identical names, and parenthetical disambiguation is being used to differentiate the articles about them. That’s not gonna fly. —MichaelZ.16:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The invasion ended on the day when Russian forces stopped advancing and taking more Ukrainian territory. Everything that has happened since then is a war and occupation, not an invasion. Doesn't anyone on the English Wikipedia know basic English? Any title including the word "invasion" above content about things that happened a long time after the invasion is simply ridiculous. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mzajac, Ancheta Wis, and Rosguill: This name change actually seems to be going quite poorly rather than smoothly: the daily page counts indicate that the recent name change has driven Wikipedia readers away from the article by the thousands. The daily page counts were about 50K per day, and have been driven down to under 25K per day as a result of the article name change. That seems fairly poor for the article. Could there be at least a temporary return to the old title over this week-end in order to allow editors to sort things out. Using standard Wikipedia name change procedures has driven away over half (thousands and thousands) of readers of this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Not sure why the three of us were pinged--this seems to be a general concern that can motivate further move discussions, but there isn't an automatic backstop that we must reverse a move because of a shift in traffic (and it could be argued that the shift in traffic may even be a good sign if it means that people looking for other articles, e.g. Russo-Ukrainian War, find them more promptly). signed, Rosguilltalk18:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
That is a completely erroneous summation. The article is receiving the same amount of attention per day, it's just that half of it is going via the redirect from the old article title at present. See here. That's because the name change is only a few days old. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Stop asking for exact days. Of course the fog of war precludes that. But what is known by most sources as the invasion seems to coincide with what our article calls the "first phase", which we are told ended in early April 2022. Anything that lasts over a year can't possibly be a single invasion. As an analogy, the Nazi and Soviet invasion of Poland took place in 1939, but the war and occupation lasted much longer. And you seem to take the Wagner Group's claims at face value. I don't think that we should rely on what they say. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
And look at the animated map of the second phase in this article. It clearly shows that an invasion was not still taking place. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
It hasn’t stopped. It continues trying to fulfil its same goals. Many sources support this. I’m repeating myself now, so I think I’ll decline to continue this conversation. —MichaelZ.19:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
That's your own personal interpretation of the word "invasion". It can as easily be interpreted the other way, that the invasion is still ongoing, as Russians are still within Ukraine. The invasion ended on the day when Russian forces stopped advancing and taking more Ukrainian territory such a day has not arrived. This definition is not valid. SuperΨDro19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The invasion of Poland in 1939 ended with the full occupation of the country. As far as I know Ukraine has not been fully occupied and Russia has not been driven back to its original borders so this is still an ongoing invasion. BogLogs (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
This thread started with an OP about unnecessary disambiguation in the present AT but has digressed to a discussion about splitting the article. The argument to split is firstly based on an assertion that the invasion occurred in 2022 and that what has occurred since (ie in 2023) is no longer an invasion. An argument to split is based on a narrow interpretation of the definition of invasion being an immediate act of entering another country. Other views are that the definitions of invasion are more broadly construed and include [attempting] to take control. The 2022 invasion is part of a war, commencing in 2014. Some sources describe current events as a war. WP:AT tells us that we almost always rely on sources to tell us how to title an article. How an event is titled and how an event might be described in sources are not the same thing. The former is use in a title, while the latter is taken from prose. We should be looking to titles to tell us how an article should be titled - in good quality reliable sources. Unfortunately, it might be too soon for this to be evident. But Wiki follows, it does not lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm for Russian invasion of Ukraine too. I actually took a look at the disambiguation page Russian invasion of Ukraine (disambiguation), and there's nothing there that actually conflicts with the title. There's no reason to disambiguate the title at all using a date, as far as I can tell. This simple title would also resolve the sub-article naming issues with the parentheses.
I think if the RM-requesting user can provide a good case and explain the lack of need for disambiguation, this could happen. HappyWith (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Of course it has, but the title and content of this page seem to be controlled by a group of people who, for a reason I cannot fathom, seem to think that "invasion" means "war and occupation". I have given up arguing with them above. Maybe you can knock some sense into them? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Within the bounds of the Iraq invasion, the government of Iraq was toppled after 29 days and that's what ended the invasion so early. This invasion is an entirely different situation where an incursion has happened but there hasn't really been a conclusion yet. Basically what I'm saying is that until the conflict is fought to a definite standstill, Ukraine pushes Russia out of Ukraine, a treaty is signed, or Russia occupies Ukraine, "invasion" is still an accurate title. Nice argument (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
There have been previous discussions here about transitioning this article to an "Annexations" article since the frontline appears not to have moved for about 3 months now. Other editors like Michael, have stated that it does not rule out Russia to renew its incursions further into Ukraine on either a larger or a smaller scale. Michael seems to say its the one of the other, and we can't say which without reliable sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Starship 24, by saying that Russia launched four offensives you seem to be agreeing that this is not just a single invasion, although the current title claims that it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Formating to conventional tabs after outdent. The invasion article starting by recognizing that it was an invasion with four separate fronts launched from different locations. They are each identified at the start of the invasion section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I think he is trying to imply that one missile missing its target and landing in another country constitutes an invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
So then this should be called Russia's invasion of Europe, as more than ONE country is involved. This is why your invoking of the Mongol invasion of Europe makes no sense. It is not analogous to the invasion of one country, no matter how many overshots there are, only Ukraine has been invaded. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Belarus is listed as supporting Russia for having given Military acess, but NATO sending tens of thousands of tons of War equipment isn't listed as supporting 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.
Doesn't make any sense, and before you say "Iran isn't marked either!", Iran sells to both sides, while NATO only sells to Ukraine and sells for free 80.102.106.180 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
People (many of them unregistered IPs, that is, common readers) keep expressing their opposition to the exclusion of Western support to Ukraine from the infobox. It is clear that Wikipedia is not appropriately addressing readers' expectations and held notions. Eventually, Western support will be added in the infobox. SuperΨDro14:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I think neither. NATO supporting Ukraine should be here is the popular opinion amongst regular readers (clearly) , albeit not the one we have chosen here. Starship 24 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe time for another discussion about the matter. I mean if we are gonna talk about changing the article title every week might as well. BogLogs (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Not the first time you've said that, Super, but a bunch of IP's showing up to repeat the same point over and over again is no consensus. TylerBurden (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think these are sock as they are few and far between. Not bots for same reason. Leaves total idiots (which I dont like to assume people are) or people to lazy to read. @BogLogsStarship 24 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't as why would they be invested in writing in NATO as supporting Ukraine. I'd get vandalism as to the outcomes, calling it a liberation operation, or casualties, but NATO supporting Ukraine probably doesn't matter as much to them. Being that there has been none of the list above, I doubt it. @BogLogsStarship 24 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFC on Syria in infoboxes
After two weeks there appears to be no support for this request and six back-to-back opposes which is WP:SNOW for indicating no support. There is a recent book length study on "Putin in Syria" which may contain data of interest to the Putin article, however, it does not appear to warrant any interest here on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No The reports are vague as to the nature of involvement by Syrians, but they appear to be mercenaries recruited by Wagner and/or other Russian outfits. Apparently Syria allows them to advertise for recruiting, but that seems to be the sum of involvement by the Syrian state. Even the one SOHR article at first says that 5 fighters of the Syrian 25th Div. were killed, kinda-almost implying that a Syrian unit is in Ukraine, but then refers to them or other Syrians as mercenaries. The Syrian state is not a belligerent. If it is encouraging or even sending a few fighters to fight under the Russian flag or in Russian PMCs, that still doesn’t make it a belligerent. Ukraine and Syria may have a bad relationship, but they are not at war, and shouldn’t be marked as opposing belligerents in any infobox, because that would be misleading.
(I earlier argued that Iran should be included among belligerents because Iranian soldiers are officially but covertly involved in operating drone weapons. I am no longer confident that it should, and Syria is way below the threshold of military involvement.) —MichaelZ.23:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
No The presence of Syrians is poorly documented, somewhat attributable to a single source (the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights), and to the best of my knowledge, there's no real indication of official (narrowly defined ;) Syrian government support.
I'd leave it out (invited by the bot). I'd also leave out the 2 "entities" that exist only in the Russian's imagination that are currently listed out. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
(Incidentally agree that based on what we know at this point DLNR’s 1st and 2nd Army Corps definitely belong under “Units,” and their puppet governments do not belong under “Belligerents.”) —MichaelZ.23:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
No The presence of Syrian mercenaries does not mark the nation of Syria as a belligerent to be placed in the infobox nor should we mark these mercenaries with the Syrian flag under units. Both actions would misrepresent Syria's involvement. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
No I have had a look around and I can't find anything that would support Syrian state military involvement in the conflict. THIS (although written in the relatively early days of the most recent conflict) seems like a good summation. To say that Syria wants to support Russia (Putin) is one thing. To include Syria as a belligerent would need well sourced information that organised Syrian Government military had been actively (even in support) deployed in the area of conflict and sufficient to meet the definition of Belligerent
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 16 March 2023
"Russia's occupation of Ukraine". Not considered by me as an "invasion"
Hey people, how about the page be titled to; "Russia's occupation of Ukraine". Just a suggestion, please don't bite my head off. 😚 TypeWriter686 (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, "Russian occupation of Ukraine" has only 41 hits on google scholar since 2022 v 7,800 hits for "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for the same period. Nothing like a common name. I think this will float like a brick. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"On 7 March, the New York Times reported that Ukrainian generals were requesting permission to continue fighting against the nearly fully surrounded and besieged city.". Fighting against? Maybe what was meant was "despite the city being nearly..."? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here11:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Hmm... that would definitely fix the issue. Piotrus what do you think? Asking because of the controversial nature of this article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's dumb to think the Ukranians are fighting a war against a city, it's simply just incorrect grammar. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree it isn't, I just thought it's a small grammar error we can easily correct (but since this is a high visiblity article and I am not an English native speaker, I just wanted to get a second opinion before changing the sentence). I am unsure why we are still discussing it here? Anyway, thanks for commenting, everyne, you are doing a great job taking care of this important article. Pats on the back, everyone. We don't say nice things to others enough, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here17:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ukrainian Boy Shown as Manhandling and Humiliating Putin in New Bansky
Reuters has reported that a depiction of a small Ukrainian boy humiliating Putin in a new Bansky has been released by the Post Office of Ukraine. Should the image linked in this Reuters article be included in the article: [17]. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I honestly don't know if this is notable or not, because while it appears to not be notable, the same source also states "Residents of the capital flocked to buy the new stamps on Friday from Kyiv’s main post office." If it's raising funds for Ukraine, is it notable? Is it raising enough funds to be notable?
It probably would be notable enough for a mention on Ukraine's wartime propaganda (should we ever get a separate article for that) given the supposed number of people who seem to be getting them. Nice argument (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
It’s not quite notable enough for this article, but I think it could fit into some sort of article about the war in popular culture, if that exists. HappyWith (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment from Piotrus and others indicate that this discussion about starting to now backlog requests for changing the article title again has reached its own logical conclusion. If this request is to be restarted at some time in the future, then some comment about the already existing page for Russo-Ukrainian War should be included there for disambiguation purposes. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I understand that as a non-extended-confirmed editor, I'm unable to initiate or comment on a move request. However, I'd like to discuss informally with you my proposal. If it receives support, any extended-confirmed editor may proceed with a formal requested move proposal. My rationale for this suggestion is that 'Russo-Ukrainian War' is the term that's more prevalent in academic literature since 2022 compared to 'Russian invasion of Ukraine.' Moreover, the former term sounds more scholarly and comprehensive. I'm curious to know your thoughts on this matter. Maedc (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
While your proposal is currently being discussed above, I recommend that we consider approaching the matter from a slightly different perspective. Maedc (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
You are unable to initiate a comment or move request for a reason. Don't try to circumvent that. If others agree they can propose yet another move discussion (like the 10th one). @Maedc. Additionally, this isn't a move request or request for comment, don't treat it like one @Piotr KoniecznyStarship 24 (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Intro biased Anglo view
This thread has appeared to reach its logical end of discussion as commented on by Steven, DC and Cinderella in the closing comments. Any discussion of 'biases' needs to be done by name and by citation, with links whenever possible, to allow for Wikipedia discussion to take place. Further attempts to initiate discussion of 'biases' which do not include citations or indicate names of scholars to be discussed are subject to be deleted according to Wikipedia policy for required verifiable citations from reliable sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"American historian Timothy Snyder described Putin's ideas as imperialism. British journalist Edward Lucas described it as historical revisionism. Other observers have noted that the Russian leadership holds a distorted view of modern Ukraine, as well as its history." That's the summary of the intro. Does that look like a balanced view to anyone? Shouldn't it mention some other international historians besides those historians of the very two countries advocating for Putin's overthrow? What about what German historians or other European historians say? Or Russian or Ukrainian historians? How can the summary of the article present only the view of historians from the one country which is already clearly the main party advocating Putin's overthrow? Looks like not even wikipedia cares about presenting a fair objective article. Jimhoward72 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. In the first two sentences you identify the people cited as American and British, but later you say "...the view of historians from the one country...". Are you talking about one country or two? And are you saying that these people represent the views of the American and British governments? And was the international arrest warrant for Putin only issued by one or two countries? I am sympathetic to the idea that we should not limit ourselves to Western sources, but I don't think you have thought things through here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
international arrest warrant for Putin only issued by one or two countries?. ICC have been severely criticized for being a Eurocentric and working for european interests, the African Union (AU) has encouraged African states to not work alongside the ICC. These leaders and political bodies said that “the ICC is acting as a neo-colonial force seeking to further empower Western political and extractive interests in Africa.”[1]Stephan rostie (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
you identify the people cited as American and British, but later you say "...the view of historians from the one country...". Are you talking about one country or two?. He probably means that Both are on the same category, the anglo-saxonian western category. Stephan rostie (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Further: In the Walter Smolarek show Brian Becker said: "We have to hear the voices in the media and not trust them. To understand that the US capitalist corporate owned media is not journalism, that this is in fact a propaganda arm for the Pentagon and for the ruling class establishments in both political parties and they have decided that we're moving towards major power conflict. Right now we are moving towards major power conflict not because Russia wants it, not because Russia is taking over Eastern and Central Europe, not because China is menacing United States but the United States believes the U.S. policy, policy makers believe, and this is the consensus position which is why it's reflected without criticism in the corporate owned media. They have decided that the only way they can retain complete U.S. hegemony, dominance is by exercising primacy over Russia and China threatening them creating pressure cookers inside their own ruling parties and hoping that those parties will split apart under the pressure that Soviet Union did break apart in the late 1980s"
I agree. Diversity and covering all points of view is important, you can’t keep citing western/anglo-saxonian historians and politicians alone. It needs to include chinese, Russia,and indian sources as well. Diversity on that matter is important to reflect the view of all the world not just the west.
You can’t just lay out a menu of your favourite countries and demand there be reliable sources appropriate as a basis for this article to be found there. Academics in China and Russia have their speech constrained, and so there are few or no reliable sources to be found there, mainly only political speech to be quoted as a subject, not a source. —MichaelZ.07:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Academics in China and Russia have their speech constrained. It doesn’t deny from them their academic status or the facts they state or the right of their point of view to be shown, if they said 1+1=2 it doesn’t mean they are wrong because the western sources said 1+1=3 because they have a little more degree of speech liberty. There is no doubt that mainstream western media and sources are directed and push for political agendas that even opposes the consensus of the international community and international organizations (the entire world except the west) as clear in the cases of Israeli occupation of Palestine and war crimes, Taiwan, US invasion of Iraq and it’s war crimes vs Russian invasion of Ukraine, etc, that includes academic freedom as well (i.e criticizing israel’s crimes or zionism in academia) [2][3]. We can’t just show the western point of view alone.
also note that i mentioned Russia and china as just examples, there are the entire world (obviously the west is not the world) and other reputable international organizations like UN, ICJ, etc Stephan rostie (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
As per the above, neither Russia or China have a free press, or free academia, thus are useless except for their views (here maybe we can have a line saying something like "But Russian academics disagree" with sourcing. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Look guys, you can just be WP:BOLD and add in more sources yourself, I really don't see the need for debates about whether or not it should be more inclusive. Of course the lead section should be more inclusive. Again, really the only debates that will occur in the future is to the actual edits itself and how constructive each individual edit is. Do be cautious though to ensure unbiased scholarships of the war. If the worse comes to the worst, I think perhaps the entire thing could be rephrased as to summarizing the world's general reaction to the Ukraine invasion, and link to this page. Long story short, it'll really be hard to summarize it, so perhaps redirecting the reader to the other article while also giving some concise commentary on overall political reactions would suffice? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Useless soapboxing from a regular talk page troll
Western MSM are not free press nor anyone could freely say anything against this war and have it published in say NYT. Did ever N. Chomsky was interviewed by CNN or WaPo? What happened to the leader of "Occupy Walstreet"? Jailed. What happened to Julian Assange? Jailed. What happened to E. Snowden? Exiled. Chelsea Manning? Jailed. Why Amnesty International never voiced against caging and separating Aboriginal children from their parents in Australia? Why a student at a Canadian Catholic school was suspended after insisting there are only two genders? Etc. etc. There is a far more democracy in Russia and China than in the collective West.--178.222.169.118 (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I will respond, rather than delete this wp:soapboxing, [[18]] reporting on politicians not want to aid Ukraine (none of whom are in jail, or falling out of windows). As to the rest, noting to do with this article. [[19]] more of the same. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2023
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Adding its own thread for this topic since it shouldn't be controversal. We should have NATO displayed as supporting Ukraine. Belarus and the unrecognized People's Repubics are displayed as supporting Russia, and it would make sense that NATO should be displayed as assisting Ukraine.
There's no reasoning as to why we're not including NATO as a supporter of Ukraine, just that there's no consensus on the matter, which isn't a reason. Dotacal (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lead section trims
The lead section appears to be getting clunky, dated and long-winded; I'm suggesting that it is improved by removing the second paragraph which summarizes, somewhat gratuitously, the Background section which appears 2 inches below it on the screen. Suggesting here that the article lead section looks better without reduplicating a summary of the Background section as the second paragraph of the lead section since any editor can just look down two inches lower on the screen to read the Background section. Starship is opposed and is starting to revert this on the main page. Other editors comments for support/oppose if possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Cinderella157: Could you support removal of that paragraph on background in the lead section as being somewhat redundant and not covering the main points of the Invasion article. If you could do the lead section trim then I would support you. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I only meant that we shouldn't not summarize "Background" just because it's near the location of the lead in the article. DecafPotato (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Cinderella157: I'll support you whenever you are ready for this removal of paragraph two from the lead section as redundant material. Just ping me if anyone comments on your edit to remove it. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Cinderella157: Your delete of paragraph 2 looks good. Regarding your delete of the recent 2023 material added, then I'm not sure that helps to update the lead section to 2023; the lead section is currently strongly oriented to 2022 and not 2023. If you have a preferred update to cover 2023 in the lead section then it would help to update the lede. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
You can shorten it if you prefer and I'll try to support you; the bottleneck in the Russian invasion for the last month or two in 2023 has been the siege of that city. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, the detail you would add was as at 4 March. The Ukrainian withdrawal and Russian capture of Bakhmut appeared imminent but I am not seeing anything to state the status of the city has changed. See my suggestion. If the city is captured, the text can be edited to reflect this (and the body of the article). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cinderella157 Ah, thanks for the ping as I did not see this discussion. While Bakhmut has been significant and might fit into the lead eventually, it would be premature to add it while the situation there is still ongoing. So I agree with waiting. TylerBurden (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I've added Renewed offensive in February to the lede. No one knows when Bakhmut will end, though it is known that there was a large offensive organized at the start of Feb. You can change or alter the edit as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 14 March 2023
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. Clear consensus to move by numbers and especially by policy basis. I mean, Oppose isn’t based in policy or convention at all. So what if there have been other invasions of Ukraine by Russia? This (proposed) title is already a PRIMARYREDIRECT here; quintessential unnecessary disambiguation. Not PT by long-term significance? Perhaps. Time will tell. But, again, the PT question has already been resolved, at least for now and the foreseeable future) by the PRIMARYREDIRECT. Come on folks. You know better. This means all the related articles linked in the proposal can be moved unilaterally too (link to this RM in the edit summary for basis). However, there is no consensus for a moratorium, though I suspect it’s moot because I can’t imagine a solid argument for moving from this title.(non-admin closure) В²C☎02:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) → Russian invasion of Ukraine – Starting this new RM per the discussion above. This article was moved from its longstanding title of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to the current name a week ago, following this RM, on the grounds that the invasion remains ongoing. However, this new title is problematic: it uses parentheses to indicate the years of the conflict, (2022–present), but there are no other articles titled Russian invasion of Ukraine to disambiguate from. As you (should) know, parentheses in article titles are used solely for disambiguation purposes on Wikipedia, but here there is nothing to disambiguate this article from. When I brought this up a few days ago, some argued that there have been other Russian invasions of Ukraine as well, and the DAB page Russian invasion of Ukraine (disambiguation) was subsequently created. However, not only is there still no other article titled Russian invasion of Ukraine, but even if there was, this article is unequivocally still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As there was disagreement above as to whether the developments in Ukraine post-2022 are still considered to be part of the "invasion", I propose moving this article to simply Russian invasion of Ukraine, per WP:CONCISE and the misuse of parentheses for pseudo-disambiguation.
There is also a second question, concerning the 128 other articles, drafts, templates, and categories (the search results page includes 14 redirects and the main article) that have Russian invasion of Ukraine in the title. Regardless of the outcome of this RM, should those pages be moved to Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, or Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)? Note that due to the number of affected pages, I won't be adding them to this RM nomination template, but if someone else wishes to do so, they may. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
NOTE: Per WP:GS/RUSUKR Remedy A., this discussion is open only to extended-confirmed editors. Comments made by other editors will be removed.
One of the problems with the previous RM was that it provided no clear answer as to what to do with other articles and categories. As a result, some pages were moved while others weren't. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
No specific answer was required for the previous RM. Articles stand alone and WP:AT gives us advice. While consistency is one article criterion, it is not controlling. However, if this RM is successful, the relationship and implication for other article would be quite clear. I am just advocating the KISS principle. The other issue is a separate question than can and should be dealt with separately. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose This isn't the first time Russia has invaded Ukraine. Also the previous RM ended a week ago, there is no need to change the name again so soon after clear consensus was shown in that RM. BogLogs (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Simply stating that there are other Russian invasions (by the Russian Empire, Soviets or even the Russian Federation) is not a substantive argument, given this is clearly the primary target (which has been tested), that there is no actual title conflict and that Russian invasion of Ukraine redirects to this article. WP:AT (WP:TITLEDAB) tells us to only use qualifiers (natural or otherwise) that are necessary to resolve an actual conflict in title. This is clearly not the case here and therefore, retention is clearly contradicting policy. Statements that contradict policy should be discounted. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Invasion of Poland is a long-standing article under its current name, despite the fact that there have been other invasions of Poland, because it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It doesn't need to be the only Russian invasion of Ukraine for it to have the title. There's nothing to disambiguate from here. HappyWith (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
None of those other articles have the phrase Russian invasion of Ukraine in their titles, and this invasion is the clear primary topic. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per above. The number of move requests for this page is out of control. I think there have been 9 recently. // Timothy :: talk10:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Unless there is an agreement to split the article such that these are separate and that this is not the main page covering all three then I don't agree. The previous RM also raised questions about splitting the article but this doesn't seem to be something anyone is willing to propose. As such given this article covers all three (and isn't proposed to be split) I don't think this view is applicable to the naming question. Tracland (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the 1919 invasion could be regarded as a "Russian invasion of Ukraine", but is that the first thing the reader thinks of - eg. the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? The oppose votes on this RM aren't really responding to the main argument of the proposal. HappyWith (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I've always favored 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine and when this war ends the title will inevitably lead to such title. However, the nominator's notice of the several categories and related pages that have remained the same after the move is relevant. SuperΨDro20:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Support While I personally prefer '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine' the current title's parentheses make little sense to me. Parentheses are typically used for when the title is the title for multiple pages. Here, this is the only title which is close to 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' therefore I support this move. I also agree and have raised similar points to the nom, what should now happen to all the accompanying articles to this one? The parentheses make even less sense in Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4 for example. Yeoutie (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Support – As the person who suggested this name in December, my rationale stands. 1) It's the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and parenthetical disambiguation thus isn't needed per nom; 2) Russian invasion of Ukraine redirects here anyways, so there's not like there will be any new confusion that isn't already there; and 3) We should also change all the other pages that use the name "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine"/"Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)" to simply Russian invasion of Ukraine as well. DecafPotato (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Support This is clearly the primary target (which was tested in January). There is no actual title conflict and Russian invasion of Ukraine redirects to this article. WP:AT (WP:TITLEDAB) tells us to only use qualifiers (natural or otherwise) that are necessary to resolve an actual conflict in title. This is clearly not the case here and therefore, retention is clearly contradicting policy. Per WP:NHC, statements that contradict policy should be discounted. Opposing !Votes do not address the prevailing policy but largely make a simple statement that other invasions exist. While things can change, this does not mean that they will change. For the present (and the foreseeable future), the proposal is supported by policy. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Support There is simply no policy reason to have the term without a disambiguation qualifier be a redirect to the term with a qualifier. If someone wants to turn Russian invasion of Ukraine into a disambiguation page, that's another matter, but if it's just going to redirect here anyway, the move is a no-brainer. 25stargeneral (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
As mentioned on previous move requests this was always my preferred name as it's clearly the common name that is used and is the most concise title available. Tracland (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
'Support': This is for sure the biggest primary topic, and the title "Russian invasion to Ukraine" also redirects to this one. The main rationale seems to be that there were other Russian invasions of Ukraine in the past, but the thing is that all of those other ones have slightly different political connotations within them that really changes things. First of all, the Soviet invasion of Ukraine refers to the polity of the USSR rather than the Russian Federation, so it cannot be associated with "Russia" (which generally refers to the Russian Federation). The War in Donbas is further compounded by the complicated political situation regarding the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics, as Russia did recognize them as independent states, but the international community really didn't. This definitely muddies the things, and I'm not sure how Wikipedia handles the political situation regarding the Donbas territories. With that being said, these confusions complicate the situation, and as far as I know, the Wikipedia article does state that Russia did "subsume" the territories as part of the invasion, hence the rationale being that the political complications makes it hard to determine, and furthermore, the article deems it a "war" rather than simply just an "invasion". The annexation of Crimea would definitely count as an invasion, but again, the political situation regarding Crimea complicates things. To avoid such confusion, the status of annexation can outweigh. Therefore, I support the simplification of the title, which does disambiguate it from other such incidents. To resolve the matter however, a "Not to be confused with" tag could be placed on the top to differentiate it from past events however. -Dcdiehardfan17:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Compare this to the Republican People's Party. There are a lot of Republican People's Parties in the world, but the main one is Turkish, and the title of the article is not the Republican People's Party (Turkey). If a person searches for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he is not looking for an invasion of the Crimea and not the Soviet "invasion", but specifically the conflict that began on 24 February 2022. PLATEL (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Support The only title that makes sense to me, everything else is unnecessarily precise, is also not used for past invasions such as the invasion of Poland and completely contradicts the naming conventions of Wikipedia. --Tobiasi0 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per above. While this is technically not the first "Russian invasion", this is clearly the primary topic. Mellk (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The number of move requests for this page is out of control. Propose a one year moratorium on move requests. // Timothy :: talk10:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not sure that works for an article which is dated in its parenthetical portion; if the invasion ends anytime this year, then the title needs to be updated at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose – No. As an ongoing event, things are bound to change at any given time. If there is to be a moratorium, it shouldn't be one year long. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Support the current title and the moratorium. An argument for a moratorium of less than 1 year makes sense only if it is likely that a culminating point were to be reached before then. For example if one side were to collapse this year, as their materiel or troops were to become exhausted, and they were to be defeated (then 'present' in the current article title would turn into an actual date in the current title).
But consider the prospect that the belligerents might continue in this way for decades, given that supporters are providing additional materiel and training. Don't forget that the supporters are learning about combat capabilities for themselves, and that their timescales reach into the 2040s, and beyond, for themselves. The supporters are actually conserving their cash and their own troops.
Actually, the comment is about the spectrum of support, ranging from 'As long as it takes' --Lloyd Austin (which literally will take an Act of Congress), to last week's delivery of Leopard 2A4 tanks, to literal bake sales in Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia to partially fund a tank.
Beginning 1 April 2023 the Russian army is to be replenished by 400,000 contract servicemen.[1]
Wouldn't that just mean that a discussion of a move would be replaced by a discussion of whether to lift the moratorium, followed by a discussion of the move itself if that one is successful. That seems to me to be at least as much, and in some circumstances more, pointless discussion by people who don't understand the word "invasion". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Whilst I don't agree that constant page moves are a good thing I fundamentally oppose this suggestion. Page titling needs to be agreed by consensus and unfortunately this may take several discussions to get right. But surely that's better than having some arbitrary moratorium which could result in the wrong page name being retained without the ability to discuss the position. Tracland (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
One year? Absolutely not. This war has only been going on for one year and a few weeks, not even a month. Things can change quickly and a static year is an obstacle to improvements. I'd support 3-4 months, no more. SuperΨDro20:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
comment I agree that it is silly to have move requests so often but if something drastic did happen that would warrant a change I'd at least like the possibility to be there. That said I hope editors in the future wait at least a little while out of common curtesy.BogLogs (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Support 6 month moratorium agree that 1 year is too much, but I think a moratorium is necessary as the requests are getting absurd in their frequency. — Czello09:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose we have not seen an excessive number of RMs and it's not that clear that this RM will result in a clear consensus for any title. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Shouldn't this talk page be moved?
Since the article was moved to Russian invasion of Ukraine, and this talk page wasn't, hitting the 'talk' tab on the article now leads to Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, not the actual talk page for the article. I'd list this at WP:RM/TR, but it seems to have been deliberately avoided by the moving admin (@Rosguill). DecafPotato (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
When the article starts to discuss Russia's stated reasons for the special military operation in the introduction, there should be information on Russia's accusations of American involvement in the "Maidan Revolution", as this is crucial to their casus belli, that Zelensky's government was not legitimate because Poroshenko was removed from office through illegitimate means, and that implies that Zelensky's election was not legitimate either. This is how many Russians see this situation. Dotacal (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Putin writes "Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly interfered in Ukraine's internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements of state policy in Ukraine."
Perhaps you could provide the quote where they say "and this was one of the reasons Putin gave for the invasion", as I hm having trouble finding any such reference. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I never said "and this was one of the reasons Putin gave for the invasion". I said "there should be information on Russia's accusations of American involvement in the "Maidan Revolution", as this is crucial to their casus belli" and I gave sources showing evidence regarding that. Dotacal (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
No you said "Russia's stated reasons for the special military operation in the introduction", but if this was not "Russia's stated reasons for the special military operation" (I.E. an official justification) then it has no place being added to such a section. (which (by the way) a "casus belli" is). Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This time, yes, I did say that, but I never said "and this was one of the reasons Putin gave for the invasion".
Here's Russia stating at the UN that since Maidan in 2014, threats to Russia's national security have been increasing and negotiations have been breaking down, forcing Russia to engage in the special military operation.
I don't think the Russian government really mentioned Maidan in particular to justify this stage of invasion - or if they did, it wasn't prominent enough to get reported on. Do you have WP:RS that refer to this? Also, I assume you mean Yanukovych, not Poroshenko, lol. HappyWith (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
They've mentioned Maidan quite a bit, the government change in 2014 was seen as influenced by the US covertly with neo-nazi groups. And yes, I mean Yanukovch lol. Dotacal (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
You mean Yanukovych was removed by the Rada when he fled: Poroshenko was elected and left office normally when he wasn’t re-elected.
But if you’re going to list Putin’s made-up casus belli, you have to include “external control” by EU/UK/USA, Ukrainians are a “fake people,” Volodymyr’s baptism, NATO expansion, “genocide in Donbas,” “drug-addicted Nazi Jew,” and “satanists” (what am I missing?). —MichaelZ.17:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
"Zelensky's government is illegitmate because the former government was illegitmately overthrown with the assistance of the US" isn't as crazy or as shocking as what you're suggesting, but it has been brought up by Russian officials. It's a main part of the Russian rationale in this war. Dotacal (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should make it mandatory to read the FAQ
Seven different times people have asked to add NATO as supporting Ukraine, which is in the FAQ. Should make it so that a pop-up appears where you must check the box saying that you have read the FAQ in order to start a new discussion? Starship 24 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Can we do something about the endless move requests while we're at it? It's honestly amazing how many people think they've found some perfect solution when it didn't need to be moved in the first place. TylerBurden (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
As useful as this would be, I have a feeling it's not possible to implement and it wouldn't make people read the FAQ regardless. They can just check the box and not read the FAQ. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Or we can just delete the posts and not waste our time on something that will essentially amount to nothing. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654521:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
We occansianly spend a lot of time on the nothing:See 2 sections ago I think is worth a try bc the current system allows the same thing to keep happening. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results. That is what is happening here@Blaze WolfStarship 24 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this "pop-up" would work (and what does this have to do with efns?), but if you want people to see the FAQ, just put it on an editnotice. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Huh, I just realized that neither this article nor its talk page currently have editnotices, not even to alert editors of the sanctions. That's... odd. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I know how efns work, but I'm pretty sure the proposer was referring to pop-up dialog boxes, which don't exist on Wikipedia as far as I know. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, I'm aware of how efns work; I've used them extensively. What I'm saying is, they do not have the capability to have users check a box, and I'm not sure where you would place the efn in the article. And I believe Starship 24 was referring to a dialog box, not an efn popup. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Turns out, there were editnotices for this page, but the closer of the previous RM neglected to move them from their original locations (2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). I have moved the editnotices and transcluded the FAQ on there, I hope that will help with the situation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Ignorance of the FAQ
Honestly, I feel that from this point forward, if a question asked here is in the FAQ then it should just be removed with a note to read the FAQ. We made the FAQ for a reason so we shouldn't continue answering people's questions that are in said FAQ. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654512:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
This is more perhaps a matter of Wikipedia:Competence is required - and in part that takes a small amount of time to familiarise themselves with the "back ground" to the article. Reading the FAQs is part of this. I know it is frustrating. We need a big banner with letters ten-feet-tall, with bells, whistles, sirens and flashing neon lights that says "Read the FAQs before you post here". Perhaps an editor new to the TP should premise their new post with "I have read the banners/FAQs". Then we would need an FAQ: "Why was my post deleted". WP:GS/RUSUKR already states: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments ... Perhaps we need to go back to ANI and seek refinement or clarification of WP:GS/RUSUKR to address the issue. Acting unilaterally might be seen as contentious. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the FAQ works that well since this Talk page is still being bombarded with NATO requests; see my thread above on using the space on the main page Infobox under belligerents which is currently seen as "(this space deliberately left blank)". ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I feel like another part of the issue might be that there are 6 notices on this talk page relating to relating to discussions. Yes the FAQ might be the second to the top however the other notices might get people to be like "Ok I get it this topic is controversial" and ignore the rest of them. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Section on Phase 3 on invasion links to a subordinate sibling article about Phase 4, however, there is no Phase 4 section in this article: Is this an issue or not an issue for the main article?
Reliable sources do not use absolute phase numbers. We should stop using this novel nomenclature someone found in a single source as it is borderline FRINGE, and will continue to be problematic. —MichaelZ.20:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
It is fairly certain that 'second phase' was predominant in both the domestic press and the international press after Russia was repulsed from Kyiv. Once the second phase became common verbiage in the international press, it was natural for them to also start making back references to the 'first phase' which came before the second phase, even though it was only called that after the second phase was introduced in the press after Russia was repulsed from Kyiv. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
This article looks like it is heading directly towards a "Phase 4" designation and section within the next month or two, for lack of participation of editors in this discussion. If no one has a follow-up opinion, then the direction is towards starting a "Phase 4" section in this 2022 Russian invasion article within the next month of two. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Those "phases" are wildly different from the ones that we use. While there is use by reliable sources of "phases" to describe the invasion, there isn't RS consensus on where those phases start and end, and such consensus will only emerge (if ever) long after the invasion has concluded. DecafPotato (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2023
While we might title sections within an article with considerable licence, titling articles is quite another thing. Describing and naming of phases is a matter for reliable sources and more specifically good quality sources - which WP:NEWSORG are not. We don't lead but follow the sources and there needs to be a consensus in the sources to apply a particular title. Such a consensus can only follow the events. We don't have crystal balls. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
There is not much choice here since sysops (Vanamonde) has already decided on retaining a Wikipedia article for the Timeline of Phase 4. Also, Michael and Steven have both opted to oppose the renaming of that 'Phase 4' timeline during a recent discussion on that Talk page. It appears that without further discussion, then this main article will need to go in the direction of naming new sections in accordance with sysops decisions for retaining the 'Phase 4' Timeline article here in this main article sometime during the next month or two. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
You mention the renaming discussion, but that doesn’t support your argument at all when I actually look at the discussion; Michael, as far as I can tell, said he’s against the phase terminology in general in the discussion, and Steven just opposed it per WP:FORK. Similarly, that sysop’s closing statement was certainly not what you’re describing, as they mainly talked about how in that specific AFD, the arguments on both sides were messy and that “original research concerns about the title had not been resolved”, concluding that the content should be kept, but leaving it to later disussion as to what title or article it should be under. That is not a “decision to retain the article” in its current state and title by any means. HappyWith (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: You can link the Phase 4 Timeline article directly to see that sysops (Vanamonde) has endorsed it and kept it to this current day. I'm not sure what you mean here in your comments. Both Michael and Steven have opposed removing references to Phase 4 as well in those Talk page discussions. Unless there is a reasonable discussion among editors here soon, then the 'Phase 4' discussion will likely prevail in this main article here within the next month or two, given the opposition to removing it. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The AfD closure (by @Vanamonde93) said, ... And there are genuine original research concerns with the title that have not been rebutted. The title, and the need for a standalone page, could benefit from further discussion but given that this is already a hot mess, and that AfD isn't really the venue for discussing a merger or a retitling. And sysops have no additional weight in content disputes than any other editor. DecafPotato (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
That was the first part of the comments where Vanamonde ended up endorsing keeping Phase 4 in the title; this was followed by the second part of the related comments where Steven and Michael both opposed the removal of the name 'Phase 4' from the Timelines. At present, it appears that by the end of this month, March, and the end of April, that this main article will be fully recognizing 'Phase 4' is the absence of any related discussion about it on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Please quote the section where Vanamonde "endorsed keeping Phase 4 in the title", because I'm looking at the closing remarks right now, and I don't see anything of the sort in there. It wouldn't matter anyway, because, as DecafPotato says, sysops have no additional weight in content dispute, but I think you're misinterpreting the results of that discussion. I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth, but Michael said on the talk page, and I quote, The vast majority of sources do not recognize any “phase 3.” A better title would be Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (September to November 2022), using a terminology that’s widely used, intrinsically meaningful, familiar to all, and easily adjusted if necessary, and later clarified that the phase terminology doesn’t meet the WP:CRITERIA. I have no idea what phase 3 is. Slatersteven didn't support the phase terminology in that discussion either, only opposing the move because of WP:FORK. HappyWith (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, you have not achieved consensus to insert the phase 4 into this article. You say that because of the absence of any related discussion about it on this Talk page, this article will soon include that terminology, but that's not how the process works. The discussion slowing down is not a substitute for consensus, especially since, with my rough count, most editors in this discussion are against this proposal. HappyWith (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I think this whole business with "phases" is in need of a centralized, well-formed RFC to establish a clear, well-sourced format for organizing the war's progression that editors can agree on, because it seems like no one likes this current situation. HappyWith (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This is Vanamonde's close of the AFD where she in the end decides to keep it: [25]. Right after that, two rename discussions were opened, as suggested by Vanamonde, with both Steven and Michael stating Opposition to removing titles with 'Phase 4' mentioned. That pretty much cements 'Phase 4' into those Timeline articles, and it means that 'Phase 4' is likely to be fully incorporated into the main article here before the end of this month or next month at latest in the absence of any other discussion among editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
With regard to the argument over the stances of other editors, please read over my and DecafPotato's last post again, where both of us quoted passages from those users that directly contradict your characterizations. But, that's not really important, and I don't want to argue over what other editors meant in statements they made months ago. What's important is getting consensus here, now, among editors. Michael, Cinderella, DecafPotato, and I - that's a majority of editors in this discussion, by my count - have all raised WP:OR concerns about this terminology that simply has not been answered. Editors can't just not provide arguments and then assume the resulting silence is consensus. HappyWith (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Your comments keep me thinking that you are looking at the article as it was two months ago. The current main article here already includes a link to the Phase 4 Timeline article (by another editor) in the Invasion section of this article. Its already there. The Phase 4 Timeline article appears to be cemented in place following Vanamonde's decision to retain it (with her explanation), and the decision of Michael and Steven to Oppose renaming it. The 'Phase 4' link and comments are on their way to being fully included in the discussion parts of this main article within the next month or so, in the absence of any other discussion among editors to remove/support it. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
If Michael is your main source then you can comment on his reaction to these issues on the Timelines Talk page when he stated: "Oppose. The vast majority of sources do not recognize any “phase 3.” A better title would be Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (September to November 2022), using a terminology that’s widely used, intrinsically meaningful, familiar to all, and easily adjusted if necessary. —Michael Z. 14:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)".
Those are Michael's own words in his opposition to previously clearing up the 'Phase 4' references in the related timelines. The current bottleneck in the Russian invasion appears to be the siege of Bahkmut which seems on the verge of collapse, after which the Phase 4 transition in the article will likely take place without anyone against it at present. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, you added text "On 7 February, 2023 the Russians had mobilized nearly 200,000 newly mobilized soldiers to participate in a renewed offensive towards Bahkmut.", but your source is from Feb 6th. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The convention of newspapers in general is to report facts from the previous day in comparison to the date on the front page. In this case I'm finding that the article from Feb 7th is documented as Feb 7th. Is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Its from the New York Times here on page one: [26]. You do know that you can use your search engine on Google or Yahoo to pull up most articles, like those in the New York Times. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, regarding your "On 7 February, 2023 the Russians had mobilized nearly 200,000 newly mobilized soldiers to participate in a renewed offensive towards Bahkmut." Russians did mobilized 200000 but not on Feb 7th. And, they did mobilized, but not for "a renewed offensive towards Bahkmut" only, as your sentence says, but for other areas as well. Manyareasexpert (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
If you feel the wording can be enhanced and that you have a superior version of the wording, then you can put in an edit change request as a separate thread on this Talk page in the format of change text X to text Y, and another editor will evaluate it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2023
Note: Remember that edit requests should be used for clear and agreed-upon suggestions, not to start discussions. I think the hatnote is great here, especially because there is no disambiguation hatnote (!). Maybe we should add the disambiguation hatnote? I'm closing this request until we figure this out :) Actualcpscm (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Ukraine mobilization caused by lack of membership in NATO?
The following text is from the article:
As a result of Ukraine not having a military alliance with NATO, Ukrainian president [[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]] enacted [[martial law]] and [[Mobilization in Ukraine|a general mobilisation]] within Ukraine.
There is no citation to a reliable source for this cause-and-effect statement. Indeed, it is plausable that Ukraine would have mobilized in response to the invasion even if Ukraine were a member of NATO. I think the text should not go beyond what is in the cited sources. I am bringing this issue to the Talk page because it was recently removed and then reinstated, and I do not wish to participate in an edit war. John Sauter (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The current version of the last sentence of the second paragraph in the lede is very poorly worded and should be improved: "Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy enacted martial law and a general mobilisation." This makes Zelensky look anemic and hapless in the execution of his office. The reason Zelenskyy did not request the help of military allies, which any responsible military leader would normally be expected to do, is because Ukraine has no military alliances. A better version of this sentence might read as: "As a result of Ukraine not having any military alliances, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy enacted martial law and a general mobilisation within Ukraine." Two editors have reverted against this in opposition to my earlier version of adapting this edit to state that Ukraine has no military alliance with NATO. The current version of this sentence which I singled out for comment here is poorly written and should be improved to something resembling the 'corrected' version as I've try to present it here. I'll support any editor who can add it to the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The sentence is a plain statement of fact. The rewrite shoves in NATO/military alliance where it neither belongs nor makes sense as a causative agent. It is original research. With or without allies, a nation under assault will be mobilising and enacting or bringing into effect the laws necessary to its defence. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The phrasing you are suggesting is absurd. A country under large-scale attack moves to a war footing regardless of whether it is calling in allies.
Furthermore, the suggestion makes a number of assumptions about international relations, geopolitics, and the specific situation, which are unsupported and could be construed as POV.
The causative relationship in the proposal is not supported. Mobilisation is a matter of course response to a significant military act of aggression - regardless of alliances. I think it is starting to snow now. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The causative relationship is not intended there, but only the historical one. It is a historical fact that Ukraine applied for NATO status in 2008 and was rejected. Its already covered in the main part of the article. The second paragraph of the lede would benefit from some mention of it as a historical fact. Otherwise the closing sentence of that paragraph in the lede looks dull and uninformed; as if Zelenskyy felt that Ukraine could do it all alone. If anyone can improve the wording in that second paragrph of the lede to express this historical fact, then I'll support. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion should remain at the other article, though a notice placed here to draw more attention to the discussion should be fine as it is neutrally worded. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Hundreds of thousands
No outcome from the original discussion. However, this discussion diverged and there is also a parallel (duplicate) discussion that has evolved at #How accurate are the estimates?. This discussion is closed for procedural reasons so that any further discussion may be conducted at one section and not split over two sections. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At this point, I think we are allowed to say that the war has caused, "HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of deaths", not, "tens of thousands" as the article says. Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, there's been over 150 thousand deaths on the Russian side, so taking into account the Ukrainian millitary + civillian losses it's easily 200-300 thousans Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Person who started this thread is not responding, though it might be worth making a review of the Casualties and Deaths table in the article. I'm thinking that it could be improved since some of the references are quite old, and some of the estimates used conflict by over a factor of ten; that's not so good. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I know did not provide the source, BUT every single piece of information you can obtain suggests the death count is in ghe hundreds of thousands. Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This might be a matter of internal consistency. Our well-sourced casualties tables indicate ~45,000 confirmed deaths, and up to ~240,000 estimated deaths (deaths only) using the higher death estimates. If we're going by confirmed loss of life, then we retain tens of thousands, else if we go by speculative loss of life, then it'd be hundreds of thousands. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Confirmed deaths simply refers to the loss of life that has been accounted for. That figure updates itself as more bodies are recovered and identified. It'd be strange not to have such a figure, as it'd mean that no bodies have been recovered. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia which deals in confirmed facts rather than speculation. If the preponderance of reliable sources says tens of thousands then we say tens of thousands. If it says hundreds of thousands then we say hundreds of thousands. This is not a propaganda outfit either for Putin's croneys or Zelenskyy's. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
To put an objective perspective on this, we should consider order of magnitude. Anything between 3.16 x 10x and 31.6 x 10x is of the same order of magnitude. Hence, anything between 30,000 and 300,000 (noting significant figures) would be reported as tens of thousands. Furthermore, if we state in a Wikivoice that the war has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, then we are representing a fact. If we rely on the aglomeration of the tabulated sources to make a statement in a Wikivoice (even as an estimate), then we are sailing right into WP:OR. The table reports figures from belligerents that are inherently unreliable. This is OK when the source is attributed but it is not OK when stated without attribution. Because of the nuance of sourcing, arriving at some sort of total using such figures is not an exception under WP:CALC. From what I can see, total deaths (not "killed + wounded") when based on somewhat independent assessments are about 150,000 and not yet in the hundreds of thousand as an order of magnitude - even if we use Mr rnddude's 240,000. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
300,000 is not tens of thousands. It isn't Orginial research as these are published by various governments. Nearly every estimate is in the hundreds of thousands, so not WP:CALC either. @Cinderella157Starship 24 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I know you didn't mean "hundredths of thousands" have died, so I have corrected it. If figures of killed are >300,000 (or even >200,000), published in good quality sources (preferably based on independent assessments), then it is simply a case of introducing these into the body of the article and then amending the lead so that it reflects the body of the article. Steven, at the very start, ask for a source and none have been provided that actually give a figure to support this. The assertion is unsubstantiated. And 300,000 is tens of thousands - 30 of them to be precise. But what I actually said was that 300,000 is the objective threshold where we would change the reporting by an order of magnitude to hundreds of thousands ie tens of thousands (104) as a plural broad description covers the range 104.5 to 105.5 (30,000 to 300,000). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The real question is, where are these sources published by various governments that [n]early every estimate is in the hundreds of thousands? But no. It is a simple concept that to have hundreds of thousands, you need at least two of the buggers (100,000 + 100,000 not 100,000 + 1) for it to be plural. And saying that does not negate the objective basis for when we change from one order of magnitude to the next higher. Cinderella157 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
When using Google, I type in the keywords "Russia Ukraine Invasion" and the search result screen gives me a Google Infobox on the right side of the screen with the Reuters casualty information updated daily. Depending on which browser you use, then you can try to duplicate this type of search. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Here is the screen capture from the Google Infobox from today, in addition to the one I previously provided above from Reuters:
From Reuters (Mar 23, 2023) · Updated 21 hours ago
Deaths
At least 42,295 people
Non-fatal injuries
At least 58,479 people
Missing
At least 15,000 people
Displaced
Approximately 14M people
Buildings destroyed
At least 140,000
Property damage
Approximately $411B
Comment. It is not possible to get a page link to the Google Infobox, which just comes up automatically based on how their search engine works. The Google Infobox that comes up on my screen does state that their data comes from Reuters. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Google Infobox is not a good source even if it says "From Reuters". Many others are not having this infobox. Without link, there is nothing to discuss. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the closest thing to a source that has been presented in the past week of this discussion. If it is from Reuters, that's an RS and it won't be disputed by an editor, only by other RS. There won't be any change made without RS being presented to support it. At this point, this discussion can be closed as inactionable. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a reason I used the qualifier if. I am no more able to verify the original source than anyone else. I was able to verify that the figures aren't being fabricated here, because they are repeated elsewhere with attribution to Reuters (e.g. this Jerusalem Post article). This doesn't suffice to confirm Reuters' as the source; but it also doesn't alter the core issue that no source to support the alteration has been presented and that the request is thus inactionable. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I can see the Google infobox that attributes Routers as the source. Click on "Reuters" in that infobox and it took me here. That link does not link to where the figures can be confirmed as being from Reuters. If Reuters is the source being attributed, then this should be verifiable - ie one should see where this is stated by Reuters. The reality is that Google is the one providing these figure. Google has somehow collated these figures, apparently by using information from Reuters. If we were to cite this information, we should say "Google Inc attributing Reuters". This then raises the question of whether Google is a reliable source? I think not in this case. Consequently, these figures are not reliable/verifiable and should, at best, only be relied on as a guide and not used in an article. Using it as a guide, the deaths are under 100,000.
Editors have asked for sources on several occasions and "Reuters", an agglomeration of the tabulated results in the article or figures that combine "killed and wounded" are what has been provided. Per Mr rnddude, until somebody actually provides verifiable RSs of reasonably quality to support the assertion, this discussion is going nowhere. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Given the difficulty of linking to the Google Infobox, then the appropriate question would be to ask if the format they are using to present the casualty results offers any lessons for Wikipedia to learn from; would this article's report of casualties be enhanced in any way by using the Google Infobox format which I have screen captured above, which Google is stating they got from Reuters? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I think you might have missed my point. The provenance of the figures reported by Google is questionable (WP:VER and RS) so the question is moot. And this discussion is still going nowhere without RSs of reasonably quality to the initial assertion. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the first time I'm hearing that the Google Infobox has questionable reliability; especially since the very often link directly to Wikipedia articles in general. I'm not aware of any RS issue with the Google Infobox; do you plan to list them at the RS review page for questionable reliability? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I scoured the Internet but wasn't able to find the original source from Reuters, but there is no reason to believe Google Search is lying when it attributes the data to Reuters — a highly reliable source. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
But theres no reason to believe Google is lying when it attributes the data... You do know that google runs on an AI right? Ever seen ChatGPT attribute something to something unrelated. Example, one time asking about wikipedia policies on pagemoving, it used WP:NOTFORUM as a source. What!? @InfiniteNexusStarship 24 (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, not really. Misinformation appears on Google Search, yes, but only in the form of search results that link to unreliable sources. That is not what we are talking about here. Google doesn't generate its own content, all cards that appear at the top of the page are sourced from and clearly attributed to reliable sources. For example, the dictionary definitions come from Oxford, the info on Knowledge Graphs comes from Wikipedia, election stats come from AP, and it appears Russian invasion casualty numbers come from Reuters. It is highly doubtful Google will make up data and claim they got it from Reuters — that could get them sued. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment This discussion has diverged and is now totally off-topic. There is also a discussion fork so that the discussion is split over two sections. The other discussion has also diverged and is now totally off-topic. My intention is to close both discussions as unresolved/no consensus. This is not a case of shutting down further discussion but focusing any further discussion. I would suggest that there is an emerging consensus that the Google infobox is not a RS. To the proposal to use the Google infobox format, it is unclear: how this format would be presented (tabulated or prose); where this would be presented in the article; and, what data it would rely on. If these discussions were to be continued as a single new thread, I would suggest an OP should address these issues (ErnestKrause). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
That's not a reason to close a discussion. It is fairly common for discussions on Wikipedia to veer off-topic, sometimes more dramatically than others, and if that happens editors are welcome to start a new subsection asking editors to circle back to the original topic. Unnecessarily closing discussions inhibits the consensus-building process. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I just looked at the most recent archive, and it looks like a lot of discussions were closed by you and Ernest. Kindly refrain from doing so, most discussions on Wikipedia should not and do not need to be closed like this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Discussions going off topic should have a new discussion made about that topic. If nothing else needs to be said about the original topic, then it can be closed @InfiniteNexusStarship 24 (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Agree. This discussion and the associated one have no constructive purpose and are inactionable. They ought be closed and archived. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I said if it goes off topic there should be a new section. this should be kept for discussion of the original problem. if no longer necessary, then i agree this should be closed @Cinderella157Starship 24 (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"2022" in title of map
Given that the move from "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" to "Russian invasion. . ." was approved, the map of the current military situation in the introduction should reflect this change. RaiBrown1204 (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This can be done, but not really necessary. And given the number of transclusions across so many wikis, this may be complicated to do. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
They may be referring to the legend in the map which retains the title '2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine', rather than the file name. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
More information about NATO in the lead section would be useful
More information about NATO in the lede would be helpful to keep other editors from the constant influx of editor requests about NATO involvement on this Talk page. NATO is mentioned many time in the main part of the article, and seems that more information in the lede would help is curtailing the amount of misinformation which many editors have about NATO and Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Why we say "Many countries imposed sanctions on Russia, and on its ally Belarus, and provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. ", not only is NATO not the only organ supplying aid, not all NATO countries are. So why single NATO out? Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
No. While NATO played a role in the larger geopolitical picture and is now arguably supporting (please please let's not rehash that for another month at least) Ukraine, the sort of assertions you recently inserted were, to say the least, extremely problematic both substantially and procedurally.
This is one of the most contentious pages on the entire encyclopedia. Edits should reflect consensus and so forth, and with hundreds of edits to the main article as well as the talk page, I'm sure you know that already.
Apart from which, with respect, we do not make large changes to an article just to avoid repetitive discussions at the talk page. No one is forcing you to take part in said discussions, after all. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
There is still the issue of the large number of requests coming from drive through visitors to this Talk page for NATO information. Adding something about the status of NATO in the lead section might deflect these numerous drive through requests for NATO information. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Or will just cause them to want to peddle more of Putin's propaganda, no we do not make edits in the hope of stopping drive-bys, we ask for talk page protection. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Meaning that you wish to continue to engage with each and every request from drive through editors with NATO requests? You seem to have previously expressed some chagrin at all of their numerous comments... ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
That is because the FAQ is a summary, they are supposed to have read. What we do not give is give in to wp:badgering by wp:meatpupperty. Nor is this what they ever ask for. They want NATO in the infobox, They will keep on asking for that. I have no mroe to add, so will bow out. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Its not a solution and I'm thinking that some prudent expansion of the lede or Infobox still offers open possibilities to inform readers of the NATO details, and deflect unwanted and unnecessary NATO edit requests on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove 'z' in the Donetsk front sub-subsection of the Russian annexations and Ukranian counterattacks (6 September-present) subsection of the Invasion section. 64.228.216.34 (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Are the estimates (particularly regarding Russian losses) remotely close to the actual number lost given the circumstances? In particular, how much does Russia's given military corruption, poor record-keeping, and intentional disinformation campaigns affect these estimates' accuracy in these cases? Do we even have a way to know? Nice argument (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm mostly asking because in this case it's completely possible the estimates aren't remotely close, as in more than 1/3rd off the actual number. Steven is right though, that's why they're listed as estimates. Nice argument (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm more thinking about how heavily disinformation may have affected these estimates. However, as Steven points out, we don't have a way to know, and therefore there's nothing to be done about it. Nice argument (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I never said they're biased. I said they're inaccurate. Bias does affect accuracy but I'm not really taking that into account as much as intentional disinformation and poor record keeping. Nice argument (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
You say heavy disinformation (caused mostly by bais). Intentional disinformation is unlikely to be somethign done by a neutral nation. Poor record keeping is unavoidable, but genrally lowers the estimate from the true value, not the other way around. @Nice argumentStarship 24 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Heavy disinformation (not caused mostly by bias; more caused by intentional obfuscation of records and coverups of deaths especially by Russia) compounded on poor record keeping also affects the estimates made by other nations. That, and I never said the actual count was lower from the estimate, it's probably higher. Nice argument (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd close the discussion myself if I knew how, frankly it isn't leading anywhere and there's probably nothing that's gonna come out of it. Nice argument (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Are the statistics consistent with the Reuters numbers, which are published daily, or are they not consistent with Reuters? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
At #Hundreds of thousands, it was stated, ... these are published by various governments. Nearly every estimate is in the hundreths of thousands ... This was specifically in response to the assertion that we should not be relying on an aglomeration of the tabulated sources from the article. The question is simply asking for the sources claimed to support this - specifically. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Reuters is trying to do daily updates to these statistics and they have been doing fairly well so far; their numbers appear to be consistent and fairly accurate, unlike other sites which seems to vary even by a factor of ten on the statistics. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
See the Reuters statistics printed in the section above and see if the numbers are consistent or inconsistent with Wikipedia's version of the statistics. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
What about the format being used in the Google Infobox which I've presented in the other thread on this Talk page for the casualty statistics? Can the article here benefit from using Google's Infobox format for presenting the casualities, even if Wikipedia can improve on them and refine them? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
It was a format question only which I asked. Is the format which Google Infobox uses for Invasion casualties at all useful to learn from; can the Wikipedia table used in the main invasion article here be improved by looking at the Google Infobox version which I've presented in the other thread on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment This discussion has diverged and is now totally off-topic. There is also a discussion fork so that the discussion is split over two sections. The other discussion has also diverged and is now totally off-topic. My intention is to close both discussions as unresolved/no consensus. This is not a case of shutting down further discussion but focusing any further discussion. I would suggest that there is an emerging consensus that the Google infobox is not a RS. To the proposal to use the Google infobox format, it is unclear: how this format would be presented (tabulated or prose); where this would be presented in the article; and, what data it would rely on. If these discussions were to be continued as a single new thread, I would suggest an OP should address these issues (ErnestKrause). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment This is the first I'm hearing that you feel that Google Infoboxes are unreliable, and this should be brought up on the RS Noticeboard if you are serious about it. Currently, Google is a grant supporter of Wikipedia and over half of their Infoboxes often include links directed straight to Wikipedia articles. Your calling Google Infoboxes unreliable seems inconsistent with their citation refering to Reuters for the casualty numbers, and Google's multiple redirects to Wikipedia articles in general. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment Okay, forgive me for being pedantic, but I keep seeing the word "infobox" being thrown around. We've got to stop calling it an infobox, "infobox" is a Wikipedia/Wikimedia-specific term. Call it a card, a box, whatever, just not infobox. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment; If someone or anyone in this thread is stating that they feel that Google is providing bad information, or that their Reuters attribution from Google is unreliable, then report it the Wikipedia Noticeboard for RS. This is the first time I'm hearing that anyone at Wikipedia feels that Google is providing questionable data. As for the facts of the matter discussing death casualties, then Google is using Reuters to state that the numbers are well under 100,000, which is why these related thread were started here. As a matter of Google's providing data via Reuters, the actual casualty numbers are still under less that half of 100,000. I've already quoted these numbers by screen capture twice in the threads on this Talk page from both January and March of this year. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
If it's been impossible to find any sources that espouse this specific statistic other than Google's automatically generated infobox, I'd say that's a sign for it not being a trustworthy statistic. HappyWith (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Did you just suggest Reuters — one of the most respected and highly reliable sources in the world — is not a reliable source?? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I just that a government which devotes far more energy and has far more access is more reliable. I am also suggesting thatt wikipedia shouldnt say when there are tons of varied claims to base there statement of reuters @InfiniteNexusStarship 24 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the Wikipedia RS Noticeboard is against both of you concerning the reliability of Reuters; it currently has a "green" light status with no yellow flag or red flag restrictions. Reuters is a reliable source according the the Wikipedia RS Noticeboard. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Listen, Starship, the notion that Reuters is unreliable is just plain wrong and against the consensus of the Wikipedia community. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
'The be all and end all' expression, I think, has been exhausted in its value here. Nexus is trying to tell you that Reuters is listed by Wikipedia as a reliable source. I need to support Nexus on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Reuters is a reliable source, not disputing that. I never said that, you and InfiniteNexus assumed this. Now, think for a moment. Lets compare a government to reuters:
Q1:Who has more resources toward tracking casualties?
A1:A government
Q2:Who has more access to information?
A2:A government
So, who do you think is more reliable. I am not saying that Reuters is unreliable, just that a government is better equipped to make estimates and is therefore probably more accurate that Reuters, a private website. @ErnestKrause @InfiniteNexusStarship 24 (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Ukranian army using civilians as “human shields”
I wonder why something like that is not included anywhere in the article, many sources stated that The ukranian army is using human shields and launching attacks from civilian areas and infrastructure, here are some sources:
UN report from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): “ The placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields by both parties to the conflict – as documented in the case of a care house in Stara Krasnianka (Luhansk region) for instance – also raise concerns. “ [1]
The head of Amnesty International’s Ukraine chapter has resigned, saying the human rights organization shot down her opposition to publishing a report that claimed Ukrainian forces had exposed civilians to Russian attacks by basing themselves in populated areas. [2]. “ Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February”, Amnesty International said. [3]
At UN, Lavrov accuses Ukraine’s armed forces of using “civilians as human shields”[4]
A new UN report has found that Ukraine's armed forces bear a large share of the blame for an attack on a nursing home that left vulnerable residents trapped in the firing line, The report by the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said the battle at the nursing home was emblematic of its concerns over the potential use of "human shields" to prevent military operations in certain areas.[5]
I wonder why are these allegations never mentioned in the article ?
You could propose a formal WP:EDITREQUEST with the exact wording/sentence you wish to add to request it be added to the article (or one of the invasion's many subarticles). There's no need to "wonder why" the allegations aren't mentioned; that could also be taken as an allegation of biased editing. DecafPotato (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Lavrov lies blatantly. The Amnesty report was widely criticized, including by Amnesty itself, and has been discussed before (anyone remember where?): but look at Amnesty’s reports on Ukraine and you’ll see that 99% of their reports are on Russian war crimes. Two of the points above refer to exactly one incident with an article: the Stara Krasnianka care house attack. —MichaelZ.07:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
There are enough reliable sources to include the “human shields” allegations in the article, it’s an allegation from reputable international organizations (UN, OHCHR) (such sources overweight western media and officials), UN member sovereign states (Russia), and independent Press and journalism (amnesty), that seems to be more than enough for the allegations to be included in the article. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
OMG I can’t believe my eyes. Are you the real Slatersteven or someone hacked your account ? Haha. Anyway thanks for taking neutral stances !. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
No not true, i just try to neutralize the obvious anti-china and anti-non-western bias. That’s all, I don’t recall that i once called to give a Chinese article anything special or biased, for example, it’s Taiwan’s article that have special status among all other unrecognized states by the international community with omission of it’s lack of international recognition from the lead, it’s the one that have special status, not once i called to grant any thing special for china, i just call for neutrality regarding things that the western media and governments support (which is a minority in the international community) and not grant it a special status because of that, that’s all, you can’t call me biased because you want me to be anti-china and pro-western. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Lavrov also said at the UN that Ukraine was using mosquitos and birds to infect ethnic Russians. Which deserves mention only for the absurdity of the claim if anything. Recently Russia bombed a church in Odesa and excused themselves by stating Ukraine had put military hardware or something. We also have petty shit like Russian state media celebrating the strike at Kramatorsk and denying it as soon as it was found out there were civilian casualties [29] or claiming 600 Ukrainian soldiers were killed in a single strike right after Ukraine did the same to Russia in a place that journalists later visited to find not even evidence of military presence there [30]. Russia is a pretty low quality source. It doesn't matter that it is a UN member sovereign state. Additions regarding this in the article should exclude their word because it has no value. SuperΨDro14:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Lavrov also said at the UN that Ukraine was using mosquitos and birds to infect ethnic Russians.. Source ?
for the rest of your reply, the same apply on ukraine and ukraine’s officials statements and reports as well, so should we remove anything that is solely based on ukranian officials claims from the article ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
In the interests of complete accuracy and fact checking, it appears that it was Vasily Nebenzya, RF permanent ambassador to UN, who said it, not Lavrov. It does say something about the UN as a body and as a venue that such farcical statements can even be made unironically there (even if there are boos and walkouts and stuff). Can you imagine Fascist Italy unironically saying such things about the Ethiopians at the League of Nations? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: You can stop wondering why its not in the article and read WP:FALSEBALANCE, and you'll have to come up with much better sources, rather than dsistorting the ones above to twist into a narrative to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS. // Timothy :: talk14:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the key point here. The Russian army has done so much more, and so much worse than these selected incidents involving the UKR army in the very early days of the war. These could be mentioned briefly in the "War crimes" subsection, since they really did happen, but to give them equal prominence in the lead as if they're equally important as, say, the Mariupol theatre airstrike, would be heavily misleading per WP:FALSEBALANCE. HappyWith (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Much better sources than UN and OHCHR ?,do you mean something like BBC or US officials ?
You're twisting sources to fit your narrative. A people forced into fighting to defend their homes and towns from a brutal aggressor is entirely different from a brutal aggressor invading and intentionally attacking homes and towns. If Poland fought to defend Warsaw, civilians would be caught in the middle, but claiming "both sides" were using human shields would be beyond credibility, as is the claim that Ukrainians are using civilians as shields as they try and defend their homes and towns. // Timothy :: talk14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
On examination, it does seem that the OP has a history of problematic and contentious talk page stuff, including ad hominems and whatnot.
But just because pro-Russia flamers (good-ish faith, but biased and tiresome) and trolls (bad faith) are in the information space does not justify bringing pathos-laden arguments into discussions such as this.
This is an encyclopedia with pretentions of being NPOV, not a mere news source such as Reuters.
The less we bring WP:WORLDVIEW into our editing, the less time we have to waste writing detailed replies to the kinds of threads people like to start here.
I would prefer to dismiss this whole thread anyway on procedural grounds, but there is in fact a subtler issue here that should be recognized.
Just because of the demonstrably and pretty obviously… wrong things being done by the Russians and their supporters in the information space, we must never anoint ourselves with the incantation "Gott mit uns" — this tends to have… unintended consequences over time, as the past thirty years have shown.
And I'd personally argue that this attitude is part of why large sections of the Global South and others support or tolerate the behavior of the West's adversaries. Did you see all the abstentions when the UN condemned Russia's aggression? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This is obviously very contentious. Probably more so than the eternally and perennially damned infobox wars.
In principle, I agree that a brief mention is warranted. Care should be taken to ensure that coverage is in an appropriate proportion (i.e. summary) to fairly egregious incidents like Bucha and Izyum, however.
I am not sure that this would get consensus. This is precisely the sort of case where we often have serious and subtle problems due to WP:WORLDVIEW, the ongoing nature of events, and the fact that the population of the Atlantic West identifies with Ukraine as "our team" rather than "fellow humans and victims of aggression and likely war crimes" — a subtle difference but one that matters, and affects coverage.
I haven't really read the whole article on RU WP, but from the glimpses, it may well be better at this than us. If so, that would be due to a more diverse editor group (second-gen speakers in West Hollywood, California, college students in Bishkek, Estonian moms, Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian teenagers, you get the point) and likely the linguistic nature of Russian compared to English.
The same facts can easily, and usually unintentionally, be made to seem POV to any side by a few small changes in presentation. No one but God (if you believe he exists) can possibly be 100.00% NPOV.
Human shields are one of the most time-honored and grayest (difficult to identify, call out, and enforce) infractions of the laws of war. Nobody really cares. Maybe they should, but that's irrelevant.
Right now most of us are in the general direction of this. To be clear, that was World War ONE.
Due to more caffeine than I've had in many months, I'm starting to dive down a rabbit hole of larger questions outside the scope of this topic. That said, I don't see a way to handle this without a certain amount of contention. Ultimately it's a process that's sometimes necessary to reach a workable product, but I'd rather not. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
There are legitimate allegations of war crimes that have been made against both sides. Extended detail of this belongs at War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While allegations of crimes are predominantly against Russia, this article should not suggest that Ukraine is squeaky clean. NPOV is about proportionate weight. The body of the article here should reflect that. While this article does not presently have a war crimes section, there are plenty of mentions of war crimes allegedly committed by Russia but none for Ukraine. We should remedy this. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
It is not our place to "black-wash" Russia. Russia is doing a pretty good job without our help. There is no need to guild the Lilly. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Remarkable poster image; are you suggesting that there are analogies between WWI and the current Russian invasion of Ukraine? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
There seem to be NPOV issues indeed. Mariupol theatre airstrike and Izium mass graves seem to be completely missing. Mass abduction of children only vaguely mentioned. Bucha being whitewashed with extremely euphemistic Ukraine said it had recaptured the entire region around Kyiv, including Irpin, Bucha, and Hostomel, and uncovered evidence of war crimes in Bucha. Meanwhile unconfirmed Russian claims about 14 staff and patients killed in Novoaidar hospital are being reported as a fact in wikivoice. Also, regarding the human shields, the topic has been repeatedly discussed at the war crimes article, and one shouldn't confuse general endangerment of civilians by placement of military objectives, with an actual intentional use of civilians as "human shields" to deter enemy attack. The few cases of latter being reported by RS have been done by Russian Army.--Staberinde (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Mariupol is without question in this main article in the Invasion sections; also the other humanitarian infractions are covered in the sibling articles which have been forked from the main article. The issues have been covered extensively in the sibling articles if you look at them. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Please make any requests to alter the map here and provide your reasoning when you do. It's not clear why you want the alteration to be made. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Too many moves
Regardless of the "best title" this page is being moved to often and being very confusing for everyone involved, myself included. Can we do something about this? Starship 24 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
There was no consensus above for a moratorium on move requests. That said, I don't expect there to be further RMs in the near future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
A higher threshold can backfire by inhibiting the community from settling upon a stable optimal title. That said, in this case, as closer of the recent RM, I think support exceeded even high thresholds and has found a stable title. It’s unfortunate that sufficient numbers didn’t see it when it was first proposed, but that’s water under the bridge now. —В²C☎05:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Born2cycle: I've just noticed that there was a sub-RfC attached to the main RfC which you just closed which asked for a moratorium on the name change requests. After reading them twice, then I am seeing some consensus on a short moratorium of 2-3 months, if I combine all the supports requesting a 1-year moratorium and a 6-month moratorium as combined with the 2-3 moratorium requests. It seems like it might make sense to close the sub-RfC to the main one you just closed as including a 2 month moratorium on further name changes. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErnestKrause (talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Too many moves cause a lot of redirects. I was fixing the links in some of the articles to reduce redirects when clicking the link. Cwater1 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Based on my rather extensive experience with WP titles, I believe the current title is stable for the foreseeable future because there is no plausible policy-based reasoning to change it. There should be no need for a moratorium. If I’m wrong and there is a policy-based reason to change, then that should be allowed. That’s how we achieve naturally stable titles. Not with artificial moratoriums. —-В²C☎23:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong/harmful with redirects, except in navboxes and double redirects (which I and others have already fixed). Of course we're free to update them, but that's not a pressing matter. Those with access to AWB can also mass-update said links with a click of a button, if they wish to do so, so not a hassle by any means. InfiniteNexus (talk)
The two successive page moves have been very damaging to the daily page counts which this article is receiving. It was about 50K per day under the original title, which was literally cut in half when the first name change took place. After the second name change took place (to the current title), then the daily page count went down to under 20K total per day. That's a drastic count in readership which has not recovered for over a week since the first name change. The name changes do not look like they have been helping readers find this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
That plainly doesn’t make sense on its face. Why would moving the page ever decrease readership? The old names still redirect here. I think the view count is just being split in between the redirects and the new names, which isn’t a problem at all. HappyWith (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
A loss of over half of the readers of this article due to the name changes, is clearly an issue. This has had a negative impact of the number of readers who are gaining access to this article. You can view the daily page counts for this article yourself, which has gone below 20K readers per day. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
That's not what I was saying - please read my comment again, more carefully. I am saying that there is not an actual decrease. HappyWith (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the second time you've repeated the same evidence-less claim. The article was still receiving ~50 thousand views after the first name change taking into account views via redirect. The second name change took place when the article was receiving ~40 thousand views per day and it retained that viewership.1 This is not unusual for the article which cycles between ~40 thousand and ~60 thousand views, probably resulting from news cycles (see the spike on 2023/2/24 for an obvious example). There has only been any real reduction in the past 2 days, and the cause for that is unlikely to be the moves. The redirect views search explicitly says that [s]ome data is not yet available for the dates: 3/25/2023 · 3/26/20232 which may account for at least part of that loss. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I've redone the computations using the optional tabs on the Wikitools page for the Page counts, and the numbers do come closer to where they should be. Just looking at the bare page counts, however, is decpetive and does not present a reliable account of this matter. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
My statement is very plain; after the page moves and taking into account the redirects, that the page has lost about ten percent of its readers as assessed on the page counts done by Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The statement in true. The numbers before the rename were somewhere between 49K and 50K on daily page views. The numbers now, adding in the redirects which requires an extra step, is at about 42K-43K daily page views. That a significant drop of a bit over 10%. I'm not really following your random snipes here, and do you have a point to make? You also appear to be sniping at InfiniteNexus as well about Reuters elsewhere on this Talk page? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Remember this:"I've redone the computations using the optional tabs on the Wikitools page for the Page counts, and the numbers do come closer to where they should be. Just looking at the bare page counts, however, is decpetive and does not present a reliable account of this matter." You admiteed you were wrong a second ago, now you reverse that statement @ErnestKrauseStarship 24 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Your approach and comments seem odd. Possibly your are playing up to April Fool's Day. Your snipes at various other editors and myself on this Talk page are becoming droll and should end. Your comments about Reuters seem to be verging on fantasy. Reuters is RS. Could you drop the stick on this? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
See WP:CIVIL, stop making rude comments to me. As said before, I have never disputed that Reuters is RS. Please actually look at my comments. Also, you can make rude comments to drive opposing opinions out of a discussion, that is WP:BADGERING @ErnestKrauseStarship 24 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Reliable numbers from Reuters
Taiwanexplorer36051; your edits have been updating the article's statistics on the casualties and could you comment if the Reuters numbers which I placed in the threads above this one are reliable in your viewpoint or not reliable? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Taiwanexplorer has been making the recent article updates on these stats and it would be significant for me to hear from him if he is up to answering. You can archive or move this thread after he answers. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Question: Not quite clear what you want changed. Please make clear which link you want added, and where in the article you think it should be added. Compusolus (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Done. Compusolus (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
with you. Perhaps Belarus might not be placed in the infobox, right now? (This means seeking consensus in the infobox, to drop the supporters line; keep only the belligerents with boots on the ground.) -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
Note: removing the link won't make any difference as Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(disambiguation) redirects to it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect PRussian invasion of Ukraine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29 § PRussian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached. Mvqr (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
