Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

HELP : in finding a source with photos of the Kyiv Aircraft Factory Destroyed

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
hi guys... do not go to read those immense texts ... because everyone knows Putinitler made a war to Ukraine ... this is clear to whole planet however read today at G1 Globo, the Russia attacked an aircraft factory at Kyiv... do not know where to find pictures to suggest Aviation Safety Database --92.218.124.118 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC) please read wp:soap, as to what I think your question is, please read wp:or, you need to provide a source for this claim. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Do you mean Putler? Phiarc (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) yeah... it can be those versions A. PUTINITLER B. PUTLER C. PUTANLER (when the Portuguese word for Prostitute makes a play, Puta, fdp or so) but has also the BOLSONATLER, who met him ! 92.218.124.118 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Putino & Putiler in Ukranussia... Você está Emputinado ? É putinização ou patinização ou putanização 😂 Sim, putinado Bolsonarismo e 'ucranização' - 'putinização'. Estamos Putinizados ou Ucranizados 😂 pics https://ibb.co/f0Q9txj https://ibb.co/VHMPgtn https://ibb.co/c3pb61s https://ibb.co/1Gjktqk https://ibb.co/vXfXCsB https://ibb.co/4T8ypk6 https://ibb.co/hMGYyBZ https://ibb.co/vhcpZrM --92.218.124.118 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC) THis article is not about Putin, or his nicknames, so please do not turn this into a wp:forum about him. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC) it is all only about him... the whole world is seeing what he started !!! 92.218.124.118 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC) THis article is not about him, and this is not the place to discuss this that would be at Vladimir Putin. Can this be closed as off topic? Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022 (3)

Please change where it says Amnesty International to link to the Amnesty International wiki page. Rzzor (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. lol1VNIO (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Problem with the 'prelude' section

At the moment, the 'prelude' section of this article is longer than the section actually describing the events in scope of this page. This makes no sense, not least of all because we have 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, most likely soon to be renamed Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It would be appreciated if we could remove most of the prelude content to the other article, if it isn't there already, and create a small 'summary' here. This will go a long way toward making the size of this article more manageable. RGloucester — ☎ 15:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The invasion parts did used to be longer before they were trimmed down, and I think they're currently out of date so may get longer. Plus, the ramifications are events within the scope of this page, too. The prelude section is not that large. I've trimmed a bit of fluff out of it, and someone with a bit more chutzpah than I could go further, but I think it's largely acceptable right now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Some chutzpah applied. More may follow, depending on the blow back. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And a little more. Let's see how it goes. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

My work here is now complete. Au revoir. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Mind taking a look at "Foreign military support to Ukraine" as well? Bit of a WP:PROSELINE issue, plus it seems like an overdetailed dump of numbers. It can probably be skimmed down to a few paragraphs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Yep, it seems to have been a dumping ground for fluff and trivia. Let me know if you think that I have cut back too far. "The US vowed not to send ground troops into Ukraine to defend the country." either didn't have a clear source or it got lost amidst a lot of additions. So I have stuck a "citation needed" on it, but I assume that that can be readily provided? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022 (2)

Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1502228138885099522/photo/1 P4p5 (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

FAQ at the top of the page:

Q3: Please update the losses claimed by Russia / Ukraine A3: This generally happens quickly after they are published, please don't make an edit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, the edit request was made 2 hours after release of data. I'm not sure I agree with FAQ #3 personally; at current rate it's just a few more edit requests daily, which we're getting anyway but not actioning. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

And wp:notnews is a policy, we do not need live updates, and in fact, I think we would be better off waiting until losses are conformed, rather than repeating each side's propaganda. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Due consideration needs to be given to the fact that this is an online encyclopaedia and people are turning to it for information on an ongoing event of signifiance. About data specifically, during the COVID-19 pandemic our statistics were often more recent than news sites, since editors used a broad range of direct sources. Things like infobox data are generally in-demand by readers, and expected to be quite up-to-date. For as long as our practice remains to provide data from both sides without confirmation, we should keep that up to date (as WP:NOTNEWS says: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage). Besides, accurate and independent confirmation may not follow until quite some time after the events end. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

And it will be done, someone will add it. But we do not need it to be (in effect) a live news feed. We can wait hours or even days with no loss of information, after all none of this may turn out to be true. If it's not (and let's face it in war both sides lie) then we are not giving anyone the best information, we are giving them factually incorrect information. Which is not what an Enclopdoda should be doing. Thus I support FAQ Q 3 and ask editors to stop making requests to add information that will inevitably be added. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this makes sense. If an ECP editor who is able to directly edit the page adds it, it's fine and a legitimate update. But if a non-ECP editor requests an update on a source, it supposedly violates WP:NOTNEWS and should not be requested? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Talks that happened in Antalya should be added to the Peace Efforts section

Foreign Ministers Sergey Lavrov and Dmytro Kuleba met for talks in Antalya, Turkey with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu as mediator in the first high-level contact between the two sides since the beginning of the invasion.[16] Ukraine had attempted to negotiate a 24-hour ceasefire to provide aid and evacuation to civilians, especially in Mariupol.[17] After two hours of talks, no agreement was made.[18] Airstrikes on the port city continued.[19]

"'No progress' as top Russia, Ukraine diplomats talk in Turkey". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2022-03-11.
"Ukraine war: No progress on ceasefire after Kyiv-Moscow talks". BBC News. 2022-03-10. Retrieved 2022-03-10.
Ellyatt, Holly (2022-03-10). "Russia-Ukraine talks fail with no progress on cease-fire, safe passage for civilians". CNBC. Retrieved 2022-03-10.
Archive, View Author; feed, Get author RSS (2022-03-10). "Ukraine-Russia peace talks fail to make progress as airstrikes continue on Mariupol". New York Post. Retrieved 2022-03-10.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FINTUR1 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian intelligence officers responsible for Ukraine are under criminal investigation

Journalist and security services investigator Alexei Soldatov reports that Sergey Beseda, the head of 5th service of the Russian Federal Security Service, and his deputy Anatoliy Bolyuh were put under house arrest for the duration of criminal investigation. They are suspected of embezzling money allotted for undercover work and subversive activities in Ukraine what caused the incorrect assessment of political situation in Ukraine and its armed forces condition and resulted in Russian blitzkrieg failure.

You know, I'm not surprised. K8M8S8 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian blitzkrieg failure? Is that not a bit premature to add here?-27.7.10.251 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really as this is the talk page, but it could not be used in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It will be useful in the future. Save it for the section "Analysis". K8M8S8 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Not premature. Probably dozens of articles have put forward evidence that the RF expected to seize Kyiv with an airborne assault in about two days, and there is a document attesting it expected to occupy most of Ukraine in fifteen days. This is the “blitzkrieg” that has certainly failed. —Michael Z. 21:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

kasparov 164.82.46.5 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Meduza says that these officers reported only an information what Putin wanted to hear, just because they were afraid he would be angry. That was the reason of wrong analysis of the situation.

It clearly illustrates the degradation of public administration in autocratic countries. K8M8S8 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

However I feel now I need to remind users of wp:soap and wp:forum. Let us not speculate, let RS do that. Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

References

War machine casualties nearly bogus

Russia claim in Ukraine war machine casualties mostly already exceed Ukraine pre war inventory including tanks and armored, combat aircraft, helicopter, drones (Ukraine only had some 50 but Russia claim already shooted more than 100 drones). 1 week ago Russia claim in Wikipedia for Ukraine loses : 7 combat aircraft, 69 aircraft in the ground (mostly civilian) but now Russia claimed all of them as combat aircraft. Ukraine didnt had combat aircraft as much as Russia claimed. Ukraine in the position of defensive so they cant uses war machine in large number including tanks, helicopter, aircraft etc. Onl invader or aggressor use war machine in large number. Please put Orxyspioenkop analyse for war machine casualties. They using real picture. Russia loses more than 1000 war marchine including 500 tanks and armored also 27 aircraft. Ukraine loses more than 300 war machine including 160 tanks and armored also 10 aircraft. 103.47.135.173 (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We go with what both sides say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

surely they also count the reserves and stored equipment of the Ukrainian army that have been occupied or destroyed, everything they take from the bases (one thing is the active units, and another are the reserves, for example, lets say Russia may have committed 1000 tanks of different types, models and upgrades levels, but has another 20000 in reserve). This means that, for example, of the real losses of the Ukraine, at least in equipment, real number are not really known, because as the Russian army advances, it occupies what is possible and little can be confirmed. I have seen at least one video of the Russian army emptying some of the Ukrainian military bases they have occupied, taking all the vehicles, weapons and ammunition that were there. It must also be taken into account what a "total loss" is, since many of the vehicles that are disabled or abandoned but not destroyed, can be recovered, repaired and reactivated by both parties, as the ukrainian army has been seen doing with some russian vehicles, you can count on the russians doing the same, it is one of the situations that are created when much of the equipment of both sides is the same or similar. Numbers closest to reality, in all points and aspects, may be known when, hopefully, everything ends and settles down, one way or another. Right now everything is estimated numbers, and/or as always, inflated and/or deflated numbers, with bias and skew, for everything and everyone. 152.206.174.214 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

MAybe, but we do not do wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please put Oryxspioenkop analyse for war machine casualties. It include list and picture of that war machine being damaged, destroyed or captured. According to picture Russia loses 600 tanks, 27 aircraft and Ukraine loses 160 tanks, 10 aircraft. I think thats more realistic. How can Russia claimed destroyed more than 100 drone, more than 150 aircraft and more than 1000 tanks if Ukraine pre war inventory not even close that number. Ukraine dont even have 100 combat aircraft in their inventory. Ukraine only defensive so they cant move their war machine in large number. Only invader/attacker can move large number of their war machine.

Censorship

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

---

It's gemrwat that you added the sectipn on russian censorship, but unless you add the section about western censorship, you're just propaganda 201.156.219.5 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of Western countries laws prohibiting the use of non-official sources of the information about the war, similar to laws promulgated by Russian Government? K8M8S8 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The simplest exmple is the removal of the 'ukraine on fire documentary' but personally the denial of US backed biolabs in ukraine is right now the most damning. Then you have the removal of channels, etc. Only a naive peraon who hasn't been paying attention for the last 60+ years would immediatley assume that the nato countries are telling 100% the truth and not taking advante/provoking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.156.219.5 (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Youtube is not a Western government. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What Ruwiki admin Q bit array damage & wandalism? 84.54.86.131 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Who removed the Stone–Russia propaganda film from what? YouTube only added a click-through warning. Denial of disinformation is not censorship either. Russian state propaganda channels featuring disinformation, like RT, have been banned, and the article already mentions this. —Michael Z. 22:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Russians blamed for genocide

Russia was blamed for genocide by the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a speach when they had bombed a child hospital. Weren't the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagazaki part of wiping out the Japanese people in order to achieve peace a genocide? --92.40.174.68 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What, if anything would you like to see changed in this article? KD0710 (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I should have had written a children's hospital? --92.40.174.68 (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022 (2)

A recent edit removed the definition of the reference CNN invasion routes, but it is still used elsewhere, in the footnote for "Supported by: Belarus", leading to an error. So I suggest changing

Russian forces were permitted to stage part of the invasion from Belarusian territory.<ref name="CNN invasion routes"/>

to

Russian forces were permitted to stage part of the invasion from Belarusian territory.<ref name="CNN invasion routes">{{cite news |last1=Lister |first1=Tim |last2=Kesa |first2=Julia |title=Ukraine says it was attacked through Russian, Belarus and Crimea borders |url=https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-23-22/h_82bf44af2f01ad57f81c0760c6cb697c |access-date=24 February 2022 |agency=[[CNN]] |date=24 February 2022 |location=[[Kyiv]] |archive-date=24 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220224071121/https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-23-22/h_82bf44af2f01ad57f81c0760c6cb697c |url-status=live }}</ref>

QuaintlyLittoral (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Already done This source, along with other material, has been removed from the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022

There are two references for the refugee count by the UN, and the second one has a technical error with archive-url and also the wrong title. So I propose to change

<ref>{{cite news |title=Refugee arrivals from Ukraine (since 24 February 2022)* |url= https://www.unhcr.org/ua/en/43027-unhcr-scales-up-for-those-displaced-by-war-in-ukraine-deploys-cash-assistance.html |access-date=12 March 2022 |publisher=[[United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]] |date=11 March 2022 }}</ref>

to

<ref>{{cite news |title=UNHCR scales up for those displaced by war in Ukraine, deploys cash assistance |url= https://www.unhcr.org/ua/en/43027-unhcr-scales-up-for-those-displaced-by-war-in-ukraine-deploys-cash-assistance.html |access-date=12 March 2022 |publisher=[[United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]] |date=11 March 2022 |archive-date=11 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220312225445/https://www.unhcr.org/ua/en/43027-unhcr-scales-up-for-those-displaced-by-war-in-ukraine-deploys-cash-assistance.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

I also made this change in the sandbox here. QuaintlyLittoral (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Thanks for pointing this out. However, the infobox was updated and that portion was removed from there. P1221 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Change Introduction

Change the introduction to "On the 24th of February 2022" from "On 24 February 2022" Andrwejo (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: @Andrwejo: "On 24 February 2022" is correct per MOS:DATE. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Article for the diplomatic problem of NATO's eastward expansion

I think that the question of whether the 1990 (I think) informal verbal assurance that NATO wouldn't expand eastward after the German unification matters or not is notable enough for an article. There's already one about this in Russian Wikipedia [1]. I'm proposing this idea in case anyone is interested in creating an article for this. Super Ψ Dro 20:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If it is it should go in the Russo-Ukrainian War, not here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: That's still too detailed. It should go in Russia–United States relations, Russia–NATO relations, Enlargement of NATO, or a child of one of those articles. VQuakr (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure it is: there’s an important book on the very subject, Sarotte (2021), Not One Inch, and numerous articles. Obviously it can be mentioned wherever Russian justifications for the aggression against Ukraine are discussed. —Michael Z. 21:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Enlargement of NATO might be a good starting point. --N8 23:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be mentioned here but don't think it deserves whole article. HelenHIL (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Map delay

Is there any reason that the map on the page is very delayed? I often see towns and cities being shown only captured on both sides days after it happened. Examples: Russian capture of Konotop, Russian capture of Volnovakha now, Ukrainian counter-advances in Chernihiv oblast, the constantly changing situation in Kyiv oblast. It should be updated more often judging by the importance of the subject at hand Equip77 (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Nor is the map hosted on en.wiki. Take it up with the commons. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition, please see Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 5/FAQ, specifically Q4. Melmann 13:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Add to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Censorship and propaganda:

On 7 March, in Vietnam, Haiphong's education authority issued an official dispatch titled "orienting, propagating, monitoring and capturing public opinion on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine." Previously, Haiphong Party Committee, the Communist Party of Vietnam's highest organ in the city, issued a written request to the entire political system, media agencies, and contingents of public opinion members to participate in propaganda about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The official dispatch issued by the Municipal Party Committee consists of three points, in which it asks people to not criticise, one-sided criticise; to praise the Communist Party of Vietnam's way, and responds to comments criticising the communist party.

Source: https://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/news/vietnamnews/hai-phong-city-education-service-asked-for-centralized-propaganda-about-ukraine-situation-03102022074144.html (in Vietnamese) Fense Ling (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Why what relevance does it have? Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It is not clear what the requested text is saying or why it is relevant. Pianostar9 (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Could have a place in Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Phiarc (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Re-phrasing (also adding to) the original requested text (the news article isn't seem available on RFA English):

On 7 March, Haiphong (Vietnam)'s Department of Education and Training issued an official letter titled "orienting, propagating, monitoring and capturing public opinions on the Russia-Ukraine crisis". This letter is said to "deal" with the fact that news about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is being spread in a "pro-Western direction", and along with anti-Communist Party of Vietnam comments on social media. Previously, Communist Party Committee of Haiphong[*], the Communist Party of Vietnam's highest organ in the city, issued a written request to the entire political system, media agencies, and polemics of the city to propaganda about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The official letter asks citizens to not criticise or one-sided criticise; to praise the Communist Party of Vietnam's way, and respond to anti-communist comments.

Adding to the above (also partially translated from the source given):

The city's Department of Education and Training also asked any educational institutions in the city to report any "violations". Mr. Tran Tien Chinh, Chief of Office of the Haiphong Department of Education and Training, confirmed. In addition, pro-Vietnamese government pages on social networks have also actively subjected to propaganda of the claims made by Russia since the beginning of the invasion.

[*] I can't find the official translation of this.

Also, not sure if this would be appropriate for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Censorship and propaganda or Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Fense Ling (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it would. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Should the "Countries' responses" have been deleted completely or restored (or maybe modified/condensed)?

The removal started here. A few other major conflicts that have a similar format are the 2021 Taliban offensive, Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen, 2011 military intervention in Libya, and maybe even the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis. In response to Beshogur, just lookup 'India Russia ally'& 'China Russia ally' for the evidence. A Morning Consult poll before the invasion confirms it as well. Maybe the heading could be changed to 'Countries close to Russia'? (Side note: yes, I also know I added a duplicate image by accident, won't happen again). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

There may be certain specific national reactions which have been uniquely notable in some way that would deserve a mention in this article. I expect Beshogur was just cleaning up in an effort to resolve the maint. tag listed on the "Reactions" section. The edit summary seems to invite exactly this question. If individual countries' reactions are restored, I recommend that the prose clearly indicate the nature of their notability, rather than stating a reaction without context. --N8 20:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Look at 2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#International_reactions, there are no single reaction, it just redirects there. Why are those 4 countries randomly chosen? Because the editor thought those 4 were Russia's allies. Thus a WP:OR in this case. Also similar to the religious heads, this is just duplicate from the reaction article. Doesn't help the article except making it larger and unreadable. Beshogur (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Germany is not a Russian ally. The point was presumably to include substantive country reactions that aren't cookie-cutter condemnations which are either a) covered elsewhere in the article; b) redundant to the map of the UN vote; c) don't add anything to the article except repeat the same thing in different words. These reactions are interesting IMO because they show:

1. The response by another UNSC permanent member, China, traditionally allied with Russia.
2. The response by Germany, a Western nation, individually, reversing its long-standing approach to defence policy.
3. India, a major world trader and a country campaigning for a spot on the UN Security Council, allegedly working to undermine Western sanctions.

On the contrary, the bulk of the Western response can (and is) best summarised collectively or in "ramifications". We don't need to write that the UK or France or US individually condemned it, it adds nothing, whereas the above do. The actions of China and India, at least, cannot accurately be described as "ramifications".

(note that I did not add this section, but I support its inclusion in some shape or form, at least of the China/India/Germany portions.). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As the editor who added Germany and China I didn't do it because I viewed them as Russia's allies, I chose them because I viewed them as countries who have a realistic impact upon the invasion, which is why I was trying to stay away from empty platitudes of foreign ministers and stick to concrete actions that they have taken that have impacted the conflict. China for instance arguably is the one who chose the invasion date; Germany's rejection of Russia and realignment of its security interests has completely reshaped European foreign policy, and energy policy. I didn't add Kazakhstan but I didn't delete it either because I thought it was worth mentioning the reaction of another former Soviet Republic to the invasion, and their relationship with Russia, particularly in Central Asia. I did originally have a good deal more about China, detailing how their response to the war has changed, and was adding China's potential economic lifelines but it got cut by another editor. I also originally listed France because of Macron's efforts both to continue creating a EU wide defense based in Europe not Washington, and to keep dialogue open to Putin to allow for diplomatic solutions but it got cut as well. But once again the idea being countries that have had concrete impacts upon the situation in Ukraine. Sorry, I'm very tired, so I'm not sure if this response was rambling. There is an argument that this is analysis, and I suppose that WP:OR could be said. There's alot to be said about France for instance but it quickly becomes WP:Synth which is why France stayed light. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There appears to not be much consensus. I did not add any countries to the section, but I think some countries not aligned with NATO should be included. Or else the only reactions shown will just be from Western-allied countries, which goes against WP:GLOBAL (and WP:GLOBAL has been made an official supplement to policy on the Swedish Wikipedia). For me I wouldn't mind if the heading is changed to 'Countries close to Russia' (geographically CN, IN, & KZ are close) or 'Non-Western Countries'/'Countries not in NATO'. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Still don't get the importance of those five "individual countries" there. Look at the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh article, there was no exception, and all were moved to the separate article. Those five are not special and have no place there. Beshogur (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There are probably a litany of different ways to present the same information. For instance, the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict you say doesn't have a reactions section, but Russia is mentioned 4 times in the lede and about 150 times in the article and Turkey is also mentioned 4 times in the lede and about 100 times in the article so I think it's just different ways to display the same information yes there isn't a "reactions section" but the information is still there. We could decentralize the information like the Nagorno-Karabakh article does and speak about China under all the sections where it's pertinent such as Economic Repercussions and the like. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Alcibiades on the pertinence of information presented. A page split for this section is also another option. If the information is not closely related to the already existing main sections of this article then it may be better to have a separate page for that information. Otherwise, the pertinent information should go into the pertinent sections of the already existing main sections of this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The more that I look at it the more I agree with Beshogur: the section should be deleted. Honestly China and India have done next to nothing so why bother mentioning them? Germany has but it gets talked about under NATO and EU, then beyond that the section seems to be a magnet for filling up with Foreign Minister of X country said Y which is bloat and is covered in its own dedicated reactions page. The "Russian Allies" idea fails because the only allies that are supporting Russia are Belarus and Syria, Belarus is already discussed at length and at some point the article will probably mention Syrian mercenaries. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Beshogur and Alcibiades. Pull out any pertinent sentences with cites and place it into the pertinent section in the article. Then either split the section off into a new article or delete it. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Traditionally, Russia's political allies include China, India, Vietnam, Serbia, Armenia, & numerous Central Asian countries. Just because they don't explicitly support Russia's invasion like Belarus & Syria does not mean their reactions are the same as NATO countries. Even being neutral in the conflict can be noteworthy if you look at the criticism from some Western commentators towards India's stance. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you stating that you would prefer to split that section off as a new article rather than deleting it? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Section already has been split off as a new article here: Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Normally the section split would mean that a short summary would be retained in the main article with a link to the split page. Suggest that whoever did the split to go ahead and summarize that section concisely, and then remove the redundant part which already appears in the split article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hm, the thing is the India & Kazakhstan sections are already quite concise compared to their sections in the new article. The China section here also doesn't exactly match the one on the new article either. I'm fine with Germany's part being moved up & added to the NATO section since it seems to fit there better (if one wants to keep it). The other 3 countries should be kept I think (esp China & India as they are major players & the most populous countries). Maybe someone can trim down the China section if they are concerned about length. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I keep trying to whittle down the China section and it keeps getting reverted which is quite frustrating. Alcibiades979 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild From your trims to this article yesterday to control the size of this article. It looks like there was an article split for the Responses section on this article, however, it has not been edited and kept up to date. It seems like merging the information which has accumulated here in the Responses section to the newly split Responses article (separate article now) would make sense and save alot of space. Maybe keep one or two sentences in the section on China and India as a short summary. Could you see if you can do a further trim of this article by moving much of Responses material here in this article to the split article for "Responses" which has already been created? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Urgent interim measures carried out by European Court of Human Rights (Censorship in Russia)

Novaya Gazeta and its editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov, Dozhd and its CEO Natalya Sindeyeva filed an application against Russia (№11884/22) with the European Court of Human Rights. On 3 March 2022, Dmitry Muratov requested urgent interim measures, namely, to indicate to the Russian Government not to interfere with lawful activity of Russian mass media, including Novaya Gazeta, covering the armed conflict on the territory of Ukraine, in particular, to refrain from blocking information items and materials containing opinions different from the official point of view of the Russian authorities; and to abstain from full blocking and termination of the activity of Russian mass media, including Novaya Gazeta. On 8 March 2022, the European Court of Human Rights indicated to the Government of Russia to abstain until further notice from actions and decisions aimed at full blocking and termination of the activities of Novaya Gazeta, and from other actions that in the current circumstances could deprive Novaya Gazeta of the enjoyment of its rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. K8M8S8 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Urgent interim measures carried out by European Court of Human Rights (humanitarian aspect)

On 28 February 2022 the European Court of Human Rights received a request from the Ukrainian Government to indicate urgent interim measures to the Government of the Russian Federation, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court2, in relation to "massive human rights violations being committed by the Russian troops in the course of the military aggression against the sovereign territory of Ukraine". On 1 March 2022, the European Court of Human Rights has decided to indicate to the Government of Russia to refrain from military attacks against civilians and civilian objects, including residential premises, emergency vehicles and other specially protected civilian objects such as schools and hospitals, and to ensure immediately the safety of the medical establishments, personnel and emergency vehicles within the territory under attack or siege by Russian troops. On 4 March 2022, the European Court of Human Rights additionally moreover decided to indicate to the Government of Russia, they should ensure unimpeded access of the civilian population to safe evacuation routes, healthcare, food and other essential supplies, rapid and unconstrained passage of humanitarian aid and movement of humanitarian workers. K8M8S8 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

References

List of commanders, territorial changes

@Cinderella157: claims those commanders shouldn't be listed according to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, however I can not see anything about that. Similar to other wars, commanders should be listed. So I propose that commanders listed here on Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should be included to the infobox. @EkoGraf: I see you're editing here as well, what do you think? You're experienced from Syrian conflict articles. Beshogur (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella was correct in their expression of which commanders should be included in the infobox. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE guides us on how to populate the infobox. If particular commanders are to populate the infobox, their entries should be supported by the prose in the body of the article (and not just a passing mention). Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Obviously some of them are mentioned in the main article like Shoigu, or breakaway states' leaders. This argument is not valid. Secondly, others are mentioned at order of battle article, which makes them notable as well. For last see infobox template about conflicts, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose doesn't tell that it's explicitly about conflicts, otherwise, none conflict should mention commanders more than one.

commander1/commander2/commander3 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Ranks and position titles should be omitted.Beshogur (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverted as this was discussed here before being implemented. As of time of writing, none of the Russian or Ukrainian commanders (except the Presidents) are mentioned in the prose of this article. Shoygu receives a single mention in an image caption, so your statement that obviously some of them are mentioned in the main article like Shoigu is false. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you link me the previous discussion? is false well, open it and do a quick ctrl+f. Beshogur (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 7#Commanders though I recall this was discussed multiple times - try the archive search at the top of the talk page. Phiarc (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this even a consensus? I see 3 users. Beshogur (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Doing a search for "Shoigu" using ctrl+f returns one hit to a caption for an image. There is no mention of him in the prose of this article. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you even read the infobox template about conflicts? Are you sure that WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE should be implemented here? It doesn't even make mention of conflicts. If that was right, we should place only single leader for every conflict or battle. Beshogur (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Besides obviously the belligerent's presidents, top military commanders should also be listed, like the Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff. EkoGraf (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the documentation for Template:Infobox military conflict. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is the guideline that represents the broad community consensus about infoboxes in general. The template documentation does not over-ride WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. If anything, it is the other way around. The two bits of advice are not incompatible either. The key point to take from WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is that we don't write the article in the infobox. Material in the infobox should be supported by the body of the article and the infobox should not be so bloated as to defeat its purpose of being an at-a-glance summary. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Territorial changes

I'm going to piggyback on this thread to ask about the "territorial changes" item of the infobox. On the template page it says: "any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict". Does this mean it should be filled in only after the conflict has concluded and a result is established? Or is it meant to be a updated on the go? Phiarc (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Not every parameter in the infobox has to be used and the documentation makes this clear. How the infobox is populated (and how much detail) should not be at odds with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An intricate list of territorial changes would be at odds with this. At present, we have a map in the infobox showing territorial changes and under "status", we have a link to an article that provides detail on territorial changes. These more than adequately deal with the matter of territorial changes, while being consistent whith the primary purpose of the infobox: to provide an at-a-glance summary. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove: The following text keeps getting moved in and out of the territory parameter either being deleted or placed under the "status" heading:

*Russia occupies Kherson, one of the 22 regional capitals of Ukraine. [removed ref and note in original]

I have removed it (07:18, 12 March 2022) with the edit summary: Redundent inforation. Map shows territorial changes and there is link to control of cities. It has been reinstated with this edit summary: obviously not "Redundent inforation". there's territory section on the infobox template for a purpose. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict. I was not specifically aware that this had been moved in and out of either the territory or status sections a couple of times already. The infobox documentation would state this:

territory – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.

I would state that this should not be in the infobox for the following reasons:

• Territory is an optional parameter. It doesn't have to be populated.
• This entry is misleading since it would suggest to readers that this is the only territorial change that has occurred and/or the most significant change. There have been significant Russian advances on several fronts.
• Expanding this section to be "more complete" would be overly lengthy. The infobox documentation specifically warns against that. It would also be contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, since a lengthy description could not satisfy being an "at-a-glance" summary. Such detailed information would also need to be detailed elsewhere in the body of the article in order to be considered a summary of the article's content.
• Per my edit summary, the information is redundant. since an image in the infobox shows the territorial changes and the status section has a link to control of cities.
• Territorial changes are in a state of flux and if anything, it should be dealt with under "status", where the present population of the territory parameter is not too problematic (not easily summarised and ongoing).

For the preceding reasons, I believe we should remove the present text under territorial changes and refrain from its use for the present. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Splitting human and equipment losses?

I find the infobox to start being overcrowded with reported men killed by multiple factions and particularly when the extensive detailing of equipment type losses are shown. I suggest using horizontal lines (particularly for the US who isn't even a participating faction) and to have a different section for Human casualties and Equipment losses. P4p5 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is overwhelming. I personally feel equipment losses should be removed given the extent of the war. Also, let’s not bog down the casualty toll with so many sources. I suggest a range or a neutral party as the source. KD0710 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Consolidate casualty details and refs into {{efn}} and just show min-max range? Fine with removing equipment losses given that notable exceptions (if any?) can be added in prose as appropriate. --N8 00:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we should keep the equipment losses somewhere on the page for 3 reasons:

• We don't have specific numbers for the individual battles list.
• The amount of equipment lost give a decent indicator of the scale of the fighting and forces committed. Something human casualties doesn't always translate.
• The volume, pace and technological level of those losses hasn't been matched by any other conflict since the Gulf War. And if we consider both sides losing a lot of equipment quickly, this is unprecedented since the end of the Korean War. P4p5 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that’s what is preferable. Giving a range is much more readable than what is there now, yet still encompasses all the sides presently reporting casualties. Also, at this point naming all non-human loses is superfluous information. --KD0710 (talk)

Ukraine lacks of a 'supported by' list in the 'Belligerents' section

NATO, Australia, Turkey, Japan, and South Corea have supplied military systems to Ukraine according to Wikipedia map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Countries_supplying_weapons_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg/1920px-Countries_supplying_weapons_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg.png

See Q2. KD0710 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. NATO, Australia, Japan and South Korea should be added in the Belligerents section under the heading support. These nations have not only supplied weapons to Ukraine but also sanctioned Russia. Sng Pal (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

See #Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ruwiki user arrested for editing the article in Russian

Today Belarusian political police GUBOPiK arrested user of Russian Wikipedia from Minsk who was working on the article about the invasion accusing him of the "spread of anti-Russian materials" [2] [3]. Should we mention this unprecedented case or is it necessary to wait for additional details? — Homoatrox (talk). 12:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Depends on whether "Mark Bernstein" is actually a Wiki editor, has been arrested, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.16.144 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No, why is this relevant to the war? Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is this relevant to the war??? Um, hmmmm, let me think... No, complete coincidence. Nothing to see here. EEng 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the war, as it has no impact on it, our understanding of it, or it's progress. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to give your imagination freer rein. If his arrest has anything to do with ruwiki's covereage of the war, then it's certainly relevant. EEng 06:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not say his arrest was not, I said I do not see why it is relevaslt to an article about the war (and not say its social impacts). Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it should. Super Ψ Dro 14:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we make separate article? For example, "List of persecuted Wikipedians" or something else? K8M8S8 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No. We do not need a new article for every minor news story. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems more closely related to topics like Russian–Ukrainian information war, Censorship in Belarus, etc. even perhaps Belarus–Russia relations. Interesting story but tangential to the topic of invasion. --N8 22:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@KUrban (WMF): This issue is already public - see above. Any public comments from WMF that could count as WP:RS? Boud (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe there is a comment on Wiki-l from the the WMF. KUrban (WMF) (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The Verge links to this account which says an indefinite global block was applied "До выяснения обстоятельств" ("until we know what's going on"). I assume it's to reduce the probability of him being tortured and made to edit under duress. Boud (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The sources link Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian)'s arrest with his editing of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine related Wikipedia pages, so it seems relevant. Boud (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Who made an article? WP:BLP1E exists for a reason. BSMRD (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Boud created it with total disregard for notability and BLP. And now we have to have a week long protracted discussion via AfD on what to do with it. FFS. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Known for over a decade as a major Wikipedia editor; international coverage from the US and Belarus; multiple independent sources. Boud (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. Furthermore WP:BLP1E: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. The three conditions being 1) single event (check), 2) otherwise a low profile individual (check), 3) the event is not significant (check,this routine in Belarussia and Russia). Being in the news for five minutes does not constitute notability. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

At least add it as a trivia knowledge. 2001:4BB8:2CC:5842:3DF5:D716:55F:5383 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Syria as Belligerent on Russian side

Russia is recruiting Syrian troops and sending them to Russia to fight the war. Also, the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has backed the Russian invasion. Then Syria should be added to the Belligerent list along with Belarus under the heading support. Can this edit be made? Citations: Putin approves foreign volunteers Russia recruiting Syrians Syria backs Putin's invasion Bashar al-Assad supports Russian invasion

Sng Pal (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't write the article in the infobox (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This is not mentioned in the body of the article. Please write the article first. Then the infobox can reflect and summarise the body of the article. This must also be a specific action by the state of Syria. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As the article says, "volunteers", these are not official Syrian troops. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Braindrain

Can someone include - in the economic impact section - the potential brain-drain the war & sanctions are causing for Russia? Some reliable sources about this topic: BBC [4], WSJ [5], FT [6] Bommbass (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please be more specific and change above to "no" Chidgk1 (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox belligerents

Shouldn't we add the countries that support Ukraine to the Infobox? Martianmister (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

See FAQ Q2. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

So, on this note, the RfC specifically suggests reopening it with a more narrowly focused question. Could we mock up a full example of what the infobox would look like with the "Supported By" field included (but not in the belligerents section, as consensus is against that), and then open a new RfC with that specific proposal? I feel like it's time to try again. Fieari (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The closer would assume that the infobox has the feature to support such a distinction. I don't believe it does. Furthermore, there is the consideration of the infobox size wrt WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox should be an at-a-glance summary and therefore not excessively long. One should note that mobile devices do not support drop-downs. The infobox is reported herein to already be about 8 screens long on a mobile device. That is already way too long without adding more intricate detail that would make it even longer. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Bigger....longer the info box is the more readers will not read the article statsMoxy- 02:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

time magazine article talking about hate towards Russians

https://time.com/6156582/ukraine-anti-russian-hate/ Persesus (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a scattering of these articles, and maybe the issue should be discussed somewhere, but I don't see the sources showing this is prevalent enough for it to be included in this article. It seems to be mostly localised phenomena. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We have the opposite view as well that could be mentioned.... that is... Sympathy for the Russian citizens... like our fellow Wikipedia editor that got arrested [7].Moxy- 05:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment, perhaps? What is the link about? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

About balance Wikipedia:Controversial articles.Moxy- 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

6 peace efforts (section

should be 1 (first — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.30.38 (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's one, but there are some peace talks that are continuations of others. But... I do believe that each talk should be listed separately. KD0710 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Western front"

Is it really accurate to describe the recent air and long-range missile attacks on Western Ukraine as a "Western front"? There's no one on the ground there and similar attacks began on the first day of the invasion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not a front yet. There were several cruise missiles attack from Russian ships in Black and Azov seas. But this is a notable escalation. I would suggest just to change the title to something like "Cruise missile attacks close to Lviv". My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Somebody has already changed the section heading to "Missile attacks in Western Ukraine". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. According to Ben Hodges, that attack was not so significant, and "the Russians are about ten days away from what is called the culminating point, when they just no longer have the ammunition nor the manpower to keep up their assault" [8].My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox asymmetry (reserves)

In the infobox Ukraine has reserves, Russia has not (it sould be 2,000,000) --Sinucep (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia’s reserves aren’t actively participating in the invasion, thus not included. Only active participants are included, including Russia’s military. KD0710 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, difference with Ukraine's reserves is that there was general mobilisation, whereas IIRC Putin said there would be no conscription or calling up of Russian reservists to fight in Ukraine. So the former are technically participants, or potential participants, in the military conflict, whereas the latter are not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

To tell the truth, Putin lies, as always. Conscripts were used in combat actions in Ukraine, some of them were killed, wounded or captured. And this information was confirmed by Russian Ministry of Defense on 10 March 2022.

In addition, some of Russian military units involved in combat actions manned by voluntary reservists (Russian military human reserve - part-time military service).

Moreover, on 18 February 2022, Putin signed the decree on call-up for military training among persons who are demobbed from active duty service but are not in voluntary reserve service; quantity of persons who are subject of this decree is classified; this mandatory "military training" can last for 2 months. On the use of this persons for combat actions, I have no information. K8M8S8 (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Denied

Is it forbidden to stand on the Russian side and take part of the wiki talk? --92.40.174.68 (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If verifiable information supports the Russian position, it should be included in the discussion. EngineeringEditor (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

NO, but we do expect reliable sources. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The article should mention NATO support for Ukraine in the infobox.

Due to NATO or NATO countries giving Ukraine many weapon donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.23.35 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Link_to_closed_and_archived_RfC:_Should_the_individual_arms_supplying_countries_be_added_to_the_infobox? Phiarc (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The invasion began on 2-22-2022

The date on your wiki page is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:7236:0:0:0:3 (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Putin authorized the invasion on the 22nd, but it did not begin until 2-24-22 ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to cite a newspaper article or other source that supports what you're saying. See the "References" at the bottom of the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.rt.com/russia/552015-italian-flights-ukraine-weapons-aid/ 164.82.46.5 (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please present a reliable source. RT is not reliable as a state-run outlet. See WP:RSP for more detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, that source doesn't say that the war began on 22 February... P1221 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I was going off of the dates given in the prelude section of the article ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox wrong on civilian deaths in Mariupol

The reference isn't specific, and 20,000 people haven't been killed; 20,000 have been evacuated. 73.188.85.234 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox reports "2,300–2,857 civilians killed", not 20,000... P1221 (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 (4)

Please replace the "Wenclass Square" ref in the section 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Outside Russia (after "In Prague, about 80,000 people protested in Wenceslas Square") with <ref>{{cite news |last=Muller |first=Robert |title=Czech PM recalls 1968 Soviet invasion at Prague anti-war protests |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-czech-protests-idAFL8N2V20Z3 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220301/https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-czech-protests-idAFL8N2V20Z3 |archive-date=1 March 2022 |website=[[Reuters]] |date=27 February 2022 |access-date=28 February 2022}}</ref>

The ref is not defined, but was defined as it can be seen at Special:Diff/1075828656#cite ref-Wenclass Square 578-1. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done P1221 (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor of Russian Wikipedia pages detained

"Prominent editor of Russian Wikipedia pages detained in Belarus," Yahoo.

"Authorities in Belarus have arrested and detained ... one of the top editors of Russian Wikipedia.... Bernstein was reportedly accused of violating the "fake news" law Russia passed in early March by editing the Wikipedia article about the invasion of Ukraine. Under the new law, anybody found guilty of what the country deems as false information about the Ukraine invasion — remember, the Kremlin calls it a "special military operation" — could be imprisoned for up to 15 years." --2603:7000:2143:8500:19EE:D8B5:8A85:4329 (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been tagged. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Foreign casualties

"Excluding the Russian soldiers, at least 23 people from eight countries besides Ukraine died because of the war" - This phrase needed to be updated. There are at least 25 people who died because of war (not 23) from ten countries (not eight)

Also, there are some sources about a belarusian volunteer fighting for Ukraine, Aliaksej Skoblia, who was killed in battle near Kyiv yesterday: https://twitter.com/franakviacorka/status/1503134196763668481 or https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1503151077897785350 Cristi767 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Equipment Losses should be listed as clearly as possible

Potentially a different section detailing what types of losses differentiating between ground, naval, and air equipment. Russia has been losing a significant amount of equipment to "farmers" since near the start of the invasion and should be mentioned since civilians capturing large amounts of tracked armor is highly unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:51C1:8325:A86C:B3F6 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 (4)

Change Zalensky to Zelenskyy 77.228.42.0 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Renat 21:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Causalities

The following collapsed discussion has been moved to #Dealing with casualties in infobox to centralise discussion. Please continue discussion there. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended content
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
What happened to the Ukraine report of 12,000 Russian causalities in the infobox? It was showing up a few days ago and now it’s not showing up. Looked through the edit history form the last four days and no where does it show when it has been changed, but I know for sure two days ago I saw the Ukrainian report of number of Russian causalities. BigRed606 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC) It was removed from the info box to reduce the size. It was agreed upon earlier today. Each side has the self reported casualties and a third party which is the US at this time. KD0710 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) The infobox has been moved to its own separate template Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox which given the frenetic editing of the article is probably for the best. You can re-add the estimates there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC) As KD0710 said, after a discussion today it was agreed so to cut back on the size of the infobox, we only leave self-reported fatalities or numbers claimed by a third-party source. All Ukrainian claims of Russian losses and vice-versa are talked about in the main body of the article in the casualties section (where you can update the figures), and we left a link in the infobox to that section so readers can see the other claimed casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Why not report WP:reliable sources’ estimates instead of self-reported? Russian casualties are estimated to be 5,000–6,000 by independent experts. The Russian state report is inaccurate and outdated. —Michael Z. 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC) At the moment its been agreed we include both (self-reported and 3rd party RS) in the infobox. If we remove Russian self-reported figures we would need to remove the Ukrainian as well. Agree Russian figure is highly outdated but its the only thing we have at the moment. Hoping they give an updated figure soon. It took the Ukrainians more than two weeks to give an update. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC) @KD0710, @EkoGraf, Was there also an earlier discussion about this? If the only agreement so far is from today's discussion (#Infobox too big) I think it's fair to say that discussion is still open for additional comments (partly because I added one). --N8 02:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) @KD0710, @N8wilson There was a discussion and consensus to that effect back in 2014 when the War in Donbass started, when it was agreed upon to include in that conflict's infobox and the casualties article's table only self-reported and 3rd party figures, while moving belligerent claims of enemies dead to the casualties section text due to potential propaganda inflation and unreliability. So I think that represents a nice model on which we can build upon in this article as well. I also saw your comments in the above discussion and you can take my reply here to be the same there as well. In essence I agree Russian and Ukrainian self-admitted casualty figures also run the possibility of being de-flated and their inclusion in the infobox should be up for debate, although I am not entirely sure... undecided. EkoGraf (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 (2)

The number of fatalities listed for "UAF, NGU, and volunteer forces" is listed as between "5,000 - 6,000" however the source cited (291) specifically says that the fatalities for this group are between "2,000 - 4,000." The number currently quoted is for the Russian Armed Forces, not Ukrainian. It was misquoted from this article. 104.243.50.43 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Somebody already updated the value as requested. Thank you for pointing this out. P1221 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Equipment

Please change it back to the estimated losses for each piece kf equipment, i.e. 80 helicopters 350 tanks etc. It's much less informative to just say 2700 pieces of equipment 67.60.116.128 (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary of an article which is also a summary. The source gives details. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, you can also refer to the body of the article. If the breakdowns aren't in the body then someone could add them there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Compare Russian TOC to English TOC on Inter-Wiki

Is there anything useful is comparing the differences between the approaches taken by the Russian version of this same article? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

TOC (paraphrase of the Russian main section titles only)

1. Terminology: "Special military operation"

2. Pre-history

3. The speech of the Russian president

4. Relative size of strength for invasion (3 subsections)

5. Military actions (2 subsections)

6. Nonviolent Ukrainian opposition

7. Negotiations

8. Casualties and other losses (3 subsections)

9. Accusations of war crimes

10. Situation in Ukraine (3 subsections)

11. Actions of Ukrainian leadership (4 subsections)

12. Actions of Russian leadership (5 subsections)

13. Foreign military aid

14. Effects on Russian infra-structure (4 subsections)

15. Reaction within Russia (4 subsections)

16. Reactions in general and globally (6 subsections)

17. Effect on Global Markets

The 2 article versions are roughly the same size at about 350Kb, though the TOC outlines look different. Can the current English version be enhanced in any way? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

NO as they have different rules (and I suspect now are subject to different laws). Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

NPOV in the lead section? Putin "falsely" accused Ukraine of being dominated by Nazis

In the highly visible lead section one used to read: "The president of Russia, Vladimir Putin ... accused Ukraine of being dominated by Neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority". @Hemiauchenia added "falsely" and explained: "The allegation is false, which should be expressed in Wikivoice". I reverted and gave my reason: "I agree, the allegation is false, but here we don't take a stance, do we? WP:NPOV". But Hemiauchenia thinks differently and reverted, and here we are. Any views on this? Should we take a stance in the lead section, "Putin is lying", or should we rather stick to WP:IMPARTIAL and prefer nonjudgmental language? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If believe the Nazi claim is adequately refuted in the “Russian accusations and demands” subsection. Plus the same sentence in the lead also includes Putin’s claims about Ukraine's statehood, which again is dealt with in the subsection. So I think WP:IMPARTIAL means we need to leave as is. Otherwise we would also need to say something about Ukraine’s statehood. Ilenart626 (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian government’s association with far right parties and neo-Nazi groups as the Azov Battalion must be concidered here hence they are serving as National Guard of Ukraine. They took recruits from many other countries, Sweden included with a famous member Mikael Skillt portraited in BBC NEWS 16'th of July 2014 and in other media from Sweden. Ukraine has monuments of Ukrainian nationalists that was collaborating with the Nazis from the WWII, one was Stepan Bandera, leader of (OUN) and mentioned by the Forward newspaper. “Ukraine has several dozen monuments and scores of street names glorifying this Nazi collaborator, enough to require two separate Wikipedia pages,” wrote this Jewish newspaper. Memebers of (OUN) served as local Ukrainian militia for the SS and German army. So, Ukraine has a history from being nationalist, far right and Nazi until this day with the Svoboda party, recently with members in Ukraine's Parliament. --92.40.174.68 (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As in this context the characterization used by Russia is that Ukraine's government is dominated or controlled by Nazis, citing the Svoboda party, with its 1 single seat out of 450 in the parliament, and which AFAIK no RS says has ever described as even close to being representative of the whole the country or the government, seems like it would have issues with WP:DUE.

Shall we also mention all the statues in Russia of people who had a hand in the Holodomor? That, at least, would give direct historical context to the relationship between the two states and the present invasion. Intralexical (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that the “Russian accusations and demands” subsection already contains the details below. Also in most recent Ukrainian parliamentary elections in 2019, a coalition of ultranationalist right-wing parties failed to win even a single seat in the Rada, so overall the Ukraine government cannot be called pro Nazi Ilenart626 (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

While Ukraine has a far-right fringe, including the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and Right Sector, analysts have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence of far-right groups within Ukraine; there is no widespread support for the ideology in the government, military, or electorate. Ilenart626 (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

See no reason why this article should be a battleground for a Russian propaganda slur. Azov has its own article, they are even neo-nazi in a meaningful sense (especially relating to the war) and the overall far-right inclusion among the total armed forces / volunteers involved is trivial. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 04:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried to give as neutral info I could with somewhat reliable sources as background. Even the neutral BBC seams to support the Ukrainians in their broadcastings, I can't see anything else. Almost all neutral media that are said to be so take the Ukrainian stand and show full spite for Putin. They are trying to keep to the facts, but inbetween there's allways colors of support for Ukraine, EU, NATO etc. Western values and interests are the main dominating influence in media and within NATO. --92.40.174.68 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If I were a pro-Russian reader, I would stop reading the article after a few lines – that "falsely accused" would make it clear to me that this is a piece of Western propaganda. If we want the reader to be informed about Russia's case for war (which doesn't mean embrace it) we should convey their reasons in a meaningful way instead of mocking and trivialising them. Obviously the current Ukrainian government is not a fascist dictatorship. According to Time magazine, when Putin said "demilitarize and denazify", what he meant is that there are extreme right-wing elements in Ukraine that can conceivably be described as neo-Nazi.The sources we are currently relying upon in the article (NBC and ABC) don't support the statement that Putin accused "Ukraine of being dominated by Neo-Nazis" and "Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism". Either we find a verbatim source, or that statement is a trivial misrepresentation. Apparently Putin said "Ukrainian society was faced with the rise of far-right nationalism, which rapidly developed into aggressive Russophobia and neo-Nazism" and mentioned "Neanderthal and aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism which have been elevated in Ukraine to the rank of national policy"; he said "we are fighting neo-Nazis" and said "the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine". This is clearly war rhetoric and it is not simply "false": what he is selling to the Russian people is that one of the goals of the invasion is to fight neo-Nazism, the de-nazification of Ukraine, and in my opinion that's what our article should say, instead of labelling as "false" some supposedly factual statement by Putin on the nature of the Ukrainian government. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of far-right movements in Russia: Russian Imperial Movement, Russian National Unity, Duginism, Eurasianism, Pamyat, proponents of Great Russia, etc. There are plenty in democratic countries too. The question is: is the country as a whole is dominated or ruled by "neo-Nazi"? In Ukraine, the answer is unequivocal no. As a side note, today's Russia pretty much matching most of the definitions of fascism and, at this point, could be legitimately called a fascist country. However, that is a whole separate topic. Mindaur (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If a country is being invaded by a supposedly "far more" powerful enemy, being picky abouy who is allowed to help you isn't gonna help much. Sure, the Azov's are nazis and disgusting but Ukraine needs all the help they can get. Ocemccool (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

In context "falsely" is clearly a loaded, emotive term, that should be removed. The reader can make up their own mind on the truth or falsity of the accusation based on evidence already presented in the article HieronymousCrowley (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

How is a statement of sheer FACT a "loaded, emotive term"? It is practically insane to suggest so. Impartially doesn't mean sacrificing fact and accuracy just to make someone's criminal junk sound less criminal so they don't throw a tantrum. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

One battalion and 4% of the vote a nazi dominated nation does not make, the claims has been shown to be false. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that Putin's accusation should be seen as a fringe theory considering the number of strong arguments against his point of view (for those who are not convinced by the provided links: 300 scholars wrote an open letter flatly denying this accusation), so the use of the word "false" seems relevant. — Homoatrox (talk). 12:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous WP:RSes stating and explaining that it's a completely baseless statement. Wikipedia is supposed to provide a summary in the lead based on them. Otherwise, it's not only WP:FRINGE; it would be echoing a blatant propaganda. Mindaur (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Some more sources [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]]. These either say the claim they are rin by NAzis, or that this is about "de-naszification" are false. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

These are mostly editorials which report legitimate convincing but subjective views of various people and associations. I think that the use of "false" undermines the whole article, which should rather strive to deliver a neutral and objective point of view. By speaking of neo-nazism and denazification, clearly Putin is not making a descriptive statement which could be either true or false; he is stirring up emotions and indicating a policy objective - he is delivering "propaganda", if you want - which is what any head of state would do in order to justify a war. Either we take a stance on the war and claim that he is lying, as some propose, or we keep our NPOV and provide reliable information on the debates surrounding the war (Slatersteven's sources could be used to that end). --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Moslty does not mean Soley, so yes RS has said this, so unless this is disputed by RS there is no dispute. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Shall we have another, yes let's [[13]], want any more? Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Gitz6666: Responding to the points you make in the above discussion, there's a difference between telling readers what to think (bad) and reporting facts (good). If there was genuine disagreement among reliable sources over the validity of Putin's claim, then "false" would be inappropriate. For comparison, see COVID-19 lab leak theory, where's there's disagreement among scholars. In this case, there isn't disagreement. There are no sources that I'm aware of which describe Putin's neo-Nazi claim as accurate or truthful; it's universally described as false, grossly misleading and factually incorrect. If you know of sources which directly say otherwise, please link them. As such sources don't appear to exist, and there's an avalanche of sourcing saying Putin's claim is lie, we have a duty to convey this to readers per our policy on neutrality, which says "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." Our article body provides additional sourcing and a full explanation of why the claim is universally considered false – our lead only summarises what is said in the article, and our guidelines give us greater latitude to make assertions about prevailing knowledge/thought in the lead compared to the article body, without needing qualification. If this puts off a pro-Russian reader, that's unfortunate, but Wikipedia is not censored: the consideration for the reader is accessibility, we should not seek to persuade readers by gently tiptoeing around their worldview/ignorance, especially if this compromises a factual summary. Jr8825 • Talk 13:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Always a good time to plug Larry Sanger's essay[14] on this debate. — Czello 13:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have little sympathy for Larry's views on Wikipedia's anti-conservative conspiracy, but I doubt even he would argue that we should qualify – or avoid "debunking" – Putin's baseless, fascistic talking point regarding Ukraine being a neo-Nazi state. This is an area where the entire spectrum of factual, academic thought (including both US liberals & conservatives) appears to be in agreement. (Unlike, for example, the validity of Putin's concerns about NATO, where there appears to be genuine disagreement.) Jr8825 • Talk 18:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"falsely" is a fact established by reliable sources. It is not a point of view. So it does not violate NPOV. To omit it from the lead just to have a pro Russian read our article would be clickbait. Tradedia^talk 01:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What is clickbait is the use of the term "falsely". To native English speakers the word "claimed" already implies "falsely", so the use of both words together is a tautology. Of COURSE the claim itself is false, everybody knows that. There is no need to spell it out HieronymousCrowley (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, scrub my last remarks, I still think that there is no need to over-egg the pudding with the term "falsely", but I also see that the actual text says "falsely accused" not "falsely claimed", so... mea culpa HieronymousCrowley (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I find this idea of being "pro-Russian" problematic. I am pro-Russia, one of my favourite authors is Lermontov; I've gone through all the works of Leskov, Bulgakov, Bely, Dostoyevsky, Gogol etc. I listen to Russian music, so by any reasonable metric I like Russia. That said I of course support Ukraine, and have donated money to Ukraine, because I'm not brain dead. There's this temptation to treat the entire thing as if it were a 2D US Political spectrum but it is not. There is the truth and there is kremlin propaganda. Kremlin propaganda and lies need to be documented as such, and when Reliable Sources state that Putin has lied it needs to be stated. It seems to me WP:NPOV in the extreme to put kiddy gloves on when treating lies that are being used to bomb Ukraine because of a desire not to offend the viewers of Russian Times and Sputnik. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Did those reliable sources establish anything else? Maybe that Putin is a bad guy? If it's backed by reliable sources like CNN and White house, we are not in position to oppose such statements on wikipedia 195.136.76.5 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me briefly restate my point, which is twofold. 1) We are not reporting Putin's statement in an entirely accurate way. In his 24 February address on Ukraine he didn't say that "Ukraine [is] dominated by neo-Nazis", as one reads in the article, but rather said that "the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine", "we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine", and "Your fathers, grandfathers ... did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine". These statements have a (quite flimsy IMHO) empirical basis as there are indeed fascists on the ground in Ukraine. 2) These are not statement of fact, which could be either true or false, but rather declarations of intent, policy objectives and expressive statements, aimed at stirring up aggressive sentiments. To label them as "false" is to misunderstand them. Which is what in a time of war everybody does: "you are fascists and we are going to wipe you out!", "You liar!", this is the kind of "conversation" we are trying to assess in terms of true/false. Now, @Jr8825and @Slatersteven asked me for a reliable source, and I have found one - it's Vox, a perennial source. "Russia’s president says he wants the “de-Nazification” of Ukraine. That actually means regime change"; "with this seemingly absurd rhetoric, Putin is laying the propaganda groundwork for the overthrow of Ukraine’s government." My point exactly. True/false don't apply here, unless we just want to take a stance ("You liar!"), which I think is what many would like us to do. Putin is stating that Russia's objective are not only strategic and preventive (national defence) but also political (regime change). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 (3)

The lede of the article states that Putin has "falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by Neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority," citing an NBC fact-checking article.[15] However, another NBC article published 9 days later appears to directly contradict that.[16] The phrasing in the lede is weasel-y (the word "domination" is vague and implies many things) and unhelpful, so could we either qualify Putin's false claims ("falsely accused the Ukrainian government of being dominated...") or remove the word falsely altogether? The word "accused" already makes it clear that this is Putin's own claim and not a fact. 2601:196:4900:15CD:54AE:72E9:E528:F116 (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

See talk above about this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

mercenaries

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

---

kadyrovite and wagner troops should be listed and linked on the russian side 216.193.170.144 (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

They are Russian citizens and therefore covered by Russia being listed. E.g. the Afghanistan or Iraq wars don't list every subcontracted PMC, either. Phiarc (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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

pics

where to find fotos after the antonov factory in kyiv destroyed ? --92.218.124.118 (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's unclear what changes you want made to this article. This talk page isn't for discussion about the event or subject, and such comments may be deleted per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. And, as seeing as you don't have extended confirmation, which requires at least 500 edits and a 30 day-old account, it seems like for the time being you can't edit this article. You are, of course, welcome to create an account. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 14:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Do not like the edit summary, because is totally unnecessary. and here is a subject many people is reading about to direction the help for a link --92.218.124.118 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to CAREFULLY think about what you are told, as you are courting a topic-ban if you continue.50.111.16.144 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All they've asked for is a link to some photos of a factory. Who issues TBANs for that? IP (.118), you can check Wikimedia Commons if they have the images you are interested in. Otherwise, Wikipedia doesn't have any and you'll have to search elsewhere. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It might be seen as a violation of wp:forum, but I am unsure other English is quite good enough to not think they might have just badly worded something. As to IP 50, yo do not seem to have a lot of edits under your belt, so it might be best if you refrain from issuing warnings. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

First lines - checking the wording

With over three million Ukrainians fleeing the country, the invasion has also caused the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II. Better replacing it with ... in Europe since then. so as not to repeat the same words from the previous sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.41.129.19 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I read this last night and felt the same way. I’ve edited it as suggested. Thanks for your contribution. KD0710 (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022

The infobox says "2,741 vehicles and other military equipment".

The source does not say that. So… IMO that's WP:SYNTH/WP:OR.

I think it should be changed back to reporting each category of equipment separately, as the source does.

That would also make it consistent with how the figures according to Russia are presented.

There is no need to condense so much. The section has a "Show"/"Hide" toggle anyway.

The source does not claim to exhaustively list every category of "military equipment". Using the categories that it does report as a total is therefore unsubstantiated.

And "vehicles and other military equipment" is such a broad category that it's virtually meaningless… That could refer to anything from a parking lot full of bicycles to thousands of aircraft carriers with hundreds of thousands of stealth aircraft. Intralexical (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is intended to be a summary, not a detailed list. More detail could be provided elsewhere. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Melmann 07:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

NATO, EU, Australia, Turkey, Japan, and South Corea not included in the top-right section of Belligerents - Ukraine - Supported by

All of them have supplied military systems to Ukraine according to Wikipedia map: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Countries_supplying_military_equipment_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg [Unsigned 00:20, 16 March 2022 ExoQuest (talk | contribs)]

See:#Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

wikipedia please stopped spread Russia propaganda

Wikipeda you dont try to be neutral but you go with humanity. You must side with Ukraine. Because if you neutral by accidently you spread Russia propaganda. You spread Russia lies by writed Russia destroyed more than 3700 Ukraine wachine and Ukraine only destroyed 2700 Russia war machine. Ukraine didnt have the number of aircraft, drones, tanks etc in pre war inventory that Russia claimed destroyed. Ukraine didnt have 160 combat aircrafts, 100 drones, more than 1000 tanks/armoured vehicle. Ukraine only in defensive position and they dont have ability to using war machine in large number. Instead the number Ukraine claimed destroyed from Russia war machine mostly were true. Russia did have a large quantity of war machine in pre war inventory. Russia in attacking position so they always used a large number of war machine. Wikipedia you accidently created article that described Russia as the winner. You support Russia aggresion and the act of killing innocent peoples. So please include Orxyspioenkop analyse for war machine casuaties in this article. It include list and complete with picture. Russia loses more than 1300 war machine (600 tanks/armored, 400 jeep/trucks, 30 aircraft) and Ukraine loses only 300 war machine (200 tanks/armored, 70 jeep/trucks, 10 aircraft). Please stop support killing civilian in Ukraine. 103.47.135.149 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is not supporting either side, and attempts to give as neutral view of the situation. It does not support killing civilians in Ukraine, or anywhere for that matter.--- EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We do not, we take a neutral stance and give both sides version. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf what do you think about this? How about only citing independent loss estimates in the infobox and relegating the numbers reported by either conflict party to the casualties article and its transclusion? The data from Oryx is probably not WP:RS (being essentially a personal blog or self-published), though it is the largest publicly available list of claimed losses with some sourcing I know of. Phiarc (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that articles citing Oryx would be ideal, at least for counting losses of Russian vehicles. I'm pretty sure that this was already discussed somewhere else on this talk page--- EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify- I think that news articles that use Oryx's data would work well as Wikipedia citations ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, isn't that just "RS-laundering"? (Assuming Oryx is not citable, why would the same information repeated by e.g. the NYT become citable? - Russian or Ukrainian numbers don't become reliable by being repeated by a media outlet, either.) Phiarc (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of this article. It cites different sources for casualty figures, as well as some vehicle loss claims. It cites Oryx's numbers without taking them as gospel, using them alongside other estimates. ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phiarc In regards to casualty figures, I was always for including self-admitted or 3rd party cited figures, while delegating the belligerents' claims of their enemies losses from the infobox to the main body of the article due to the high possibility of propaganda inflation. This is due to considering that self-admitted casualty figures present a kind of confirmed minimum of casualties. However, if Russia does not give an update of its losses anytime soon, we might as well include in the infobox only figures cited to a 3rd party, since it seems the US gives an estimate for both sides every week or so, while leaving a link to the other estimates in the casualties section. Lets see in a few days how things develop. As for figures on vehicle losses, this in my opinion should definitely be cited only to a 3rd party source in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand the issue with using Oryx, if it's good enough for the Economist for instance, why not us? We can also cite it in the article with a superscript ie: according to Oryx. I agree with OP as well about the current lay out. Most sources I see show far greater equipment losses for the Russians than for the Ukrainians but the lede at the moment gives the impression that the Ukrainians have taken more equipment losses, which is misleading. I understand that people can scroll down, but the lede is supposed to show a condensed version of data and as it currently stands that condensed data is inaccurate according to most sources. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying Oryx is a bad source (I'm of the opposite opinion). What I'm saying is that if I (or someone else) were to add Oryx I'd assume it would be reverted due to WP:RSSELF. So I'd want to establish some form of consensus that Oryx is RS before adding it, or finding a "non-RS-laundered" source like EngineeringEditor did. I think that article could just be cited as is, but I'm refraining from content edits in this area for now because I am way out of my depth here (I usually fix missing spaces after commas and stuff like that). Phiarc (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm way out of my depth too, but the short discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_322#Oryx_blog makes some interesting points which might be of use to other editors. Storchy (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As stated below, even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the russian army or ukrainian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is russian or ukrainian. there is too much similar equipment on both sides. If it is equipment used the same in both armies, it is not possible to be sure unless some serial number or conclusive identification is shown (no, an external drawing of a letter Z, V, whatever, is not a conclusive identification, anyone can paint it on a disabled/destroyed ukrainian vehicle, or similarly yellow stripes on a russian tank to pass for Ukrainian). There is equipment that the Russian army has "lost" and destroyed/disabled ukrainian equipment that it recovers in its advance, and also what it is taking out (vehicles/weapons/munition) of the Ukrainian military bases that it has occupied, and this is equipment that cannot be confirmed in quantity or type. even that is what the site says (the commenters even find duplicate images). and this is similar with all other numbers and estimates 152.207.223.188 (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the part that this article completely paints Russia as winning the conflict because it completely fails to draw attention to first hand evidence of extreme Russian losses and gives undue prominence to figures that have no such evidence or are outright Russian state lies. This article simply fails to give an accurate sense of the war thus far to the casual reader if not most readers and thus is failing as an article. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually no. Every equipment had series number, unit number and even nation flag. It could also be traced by its location. If its in location that previously being held by Ukraine so the equipments belong to Ukraine and so the otherwise. Also Ukraine didnt have Aircraft Sukhoi 30, Sukhoi 34, Helicopter Ka 57 or Mil 24, T-90 tanks, SAM units Buk, Pantsir etc. It easily to recognized. It think Orxyspioenkop its a research for war machine casualties that closer the truth than just state propaganda. Because it include the picture of the war machine itself. For example Russia claimed destroyed more than 100 Ukraine MLRS. The fact is Ukraine dont even have 100 MLRS in the first place. Even US only had 50 MLRS. Ukraine wouldnt use large quantity of MLRS because it can kill their own civilian. They not that stupid. Russia in other had hunderds of MLRS. And had experienced to used it in large quantity (Katyusha in WW II). Because they didnt care about civilian. Ukraine claimed destroyed 60 Russian MLRS. According to Oryxspioenkop there was 30 picture of Russian MLRS being destroyed or captured by Ukraine but only 2 Ukraine MLRS picture being destroyed or captured by Russian. Mostly Ukraine claimed destroyed Russian war equipment 30-50 percent had picture in Oryxspioenkop. But from Russian claimed destroyed Ukraine war equipment only had 10-20 percent of picture in Oryxspioenkop. Russian claimed had destroyed more than 1200 Ukraine tanks and armored vehicle but only had picture less than 200 in Orxyspioenkop. Ukraine claimed had destroyed more than 1800 Russian tanks and armored vehicles it did had more than 600 picture of Russian tanks/armored in Orxyspioenkop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.47.135.149 (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine does have (or should we say, had?) Mi-24 helicopters and Buk systems (original models, maybe a few upgraded to M1). hell, even a ukrainian Buk missile from the kyiv air defense hit a city building (it can be recognized in the video of the event), perhaps because of its old or defective systems or being without maintenance. MLSR, according to wikipedia, as of 2016 Ukraine had about 185 BM-21 and 70 BM-27. Of course, the question is how many were in existence (active and reserve) at the beginning of hostilities. and of course there are fewer images of the Ukrainian losses, either destroyed or captured, much remains later in areas controlled by the Russian army, and of what they capture they do not put photos on social networks (although I have seen at least one video of as in an occupied Ukrainian military base, they load and take all the equipment, weapons and ammunition that was there, and you will not see photos or inventory accounting of this, but rest assured that they add up). in addition, what they recover later and that is not destroyed (a lot of equipment is seen abandoned or just disabled). For this reason, only irrecoverable losses, say destroyed equipment, can be safely counted as real losses, for either side. That is why the numbers are variable in time, sometimes they subtract and sometimes they add up, but the real is not known, perhaps only at the end, after all, it is said by both parties, or some research in this regard. meanwhile, all numbers are estimated, manipulated or pure disinformation. therefore, even with the biases they have, the numbers estimated by the US are the most "balanced" 152.207.223.82 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes but most of them non operational from Soviet era. By the time war begins not more than 100 Ukraine MLRS still operational. But if you take a look at Oryxspioenkop you will know that most of Russian claimed were bogus and totally lied. Only 300 pictures of Ukraine war machine loses vs Russian claimed Ukraine loses close to 4 thousands war machines thats not even 10 percent. Instead there were more than 1200 pictures of Russian war machine loses vs Ukraine claimed 2700 Russian war machine loses. Thats nearly 50 percent. I think the real reason wiki dont want to using Oryxspioenkop because its clearly showing Russian losing the war. I curious how many Russian supporters in here. You are supporting killing peoples. If you hate Ukraine because you hate US, Western, NATO or even Jewish just remember it was Ukraine peoples they killed not US or other western countries. If you Russian really have a guts they should pick countries with theyre own sized. Why also Wiki didnt showed 3 Russia generals killed in Ukraine? I bet if its Ukraine general were killed they will show it in infobox. Please stop ideology of facism and stay with humanity. It was Russian killed Ukraine childrens not the otherwise. Dont support a country just because you like theyre ideology but look at humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.47.135.149 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Destruction of Russian tanks by Ukrainian troops in Mariupol (4).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The removed Russians Casualties per UA MoD were the most accurate ones based on actual Evidence

The following collapsed discussion has been moved to #Dealing with casualties in infobox to centralise discussion. Please continue discussion there. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended content
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
All the casualty figures are wrong and the one that we have the best evidence for being most accurate for Russian losses are the Ukrainian MoD ones that were removed. Per https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html and the safe assumption we don't have a photo of every destroyed Russian piece of equipment in Ukraine, maybe 1 of every 2 at best, that means Ukrainian MoD's claims for Russian vehicles destroyed is reasonably accurate as corroborated by photo evidence. Thus their projected Russian deaths or casualties, well over 13,000 by now, is very credible and one to believe is most accurate on first hand evidence. All the other figures have no evidence to support them by comparison. Furthermore, almost all Ukrainian MoD claims in other regards have been proven correct at least 80% of the time if not a healthy bit more. Russian claims are obviously bogus and citing anything from Russian state sources these days has to be a farce. That isn't even bias; it is just blatant fact. And the US claims are based on who knows what; but certainly not a first hand perspective and thus an inferior source to cite. This article stands as a farce while it literally ignores the reported casualty figures that clearly have the most weight of evidence behind them. That the most accurate Ukrainian MoD figures aren't anywhere even on the page that I can see is doubly dubious. Ignoring figures backed by vast photo evidence to paste blatant state Russian lies. A Farce of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.72.97 (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC) The figures haven't been removed, they are in the article's casualties section, as per talk page discussions, so to cut down on the infobox size. At the moment, self-admitted fatality figures and figures provided by 3rd party sources (like the US) are presented in the infobox. As for citing Russian claims, if we are already citing one belligerent's claims (Ukraine) we are obligated to do the same for the other side as well as per Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and presenting all sides POV. EkoGraf (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the Russian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is Russian. If it is equipment used in both armies equally, it is not possible to be sure unless some serial number or conclusive identification is shown (no, an external drawing of a letter Z, V, whatever, is not a conclusive identification, anyone can paint it on a disabled/destroyed ukrainian vehicle, or similarly yellow stripes on a russian tank to pass for Ukrainian). There is equipment that the Russian army has "lost" that it recovers in its advance, the destroyed/disabled ukrainian equipment, and also what it is taking out of the Ukrainian military bases that it has occupied, and this is equipment that cannot be confirmed in quantity or type. 152.207.223.188 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC) There is a discussion regarding the equipment losses up above that you can join. EkoGraf (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC) "Even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the Russian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is Russian." So much wrong with this comment. For one, the equipment they use is not that similar as they have been making modifications and changes independently for 32 years now. Ukraine has its own variants and paint scheme that makes its tanks and other vehicles, even when destroyed, readily identifiable and differentiable from the Russian ones. Russia also has a much larger variety of vehicles than Ukraine and generally much newer ones Ukraine does not have acces to. Tanks for example Ukraine's most numerous tank is the T-64, while Russia does not even operate the T-64 anymore really, and the only model they really share in numbers is the T-72 but after 32 years of independent modernization and modification are different variants that can be differentiated. Also, even when destroyed the paint is often left somewhere, which usually can identify who it belongs to. If not that, the Russian dead bodies, scattered Russians MREs, or big Z, O, and V letters are a good hint. Also who is posting the picture or video; a lot of it is visibly from Ukranian fighters when you trace them to their twitter origin. Finally, the simple fact is Russia has a lot more combat and other vehicles and is on the offensive, while Ukraine has comparatively few and is mostly defending. The ones moving around in large convoys of armored combat vehicles is vastly and disproportionally the Russians. Again, the Ukrainian MoD track record of mostly verifiable accurate claims to date through the war bolsters their credibility as a point of fact. There is simply no grounds to doubt Oryx's count/index of destroyed Russian vehicles in Ukraine. Again, it would be crazy to think we had a photo on the internet of every destroyed Russian vehicle in the war. At the very best 1 photo for every 1.5 vehicles, and even that would be rather unlikely as somewhere closer to 2 is more likely with a potential of even 3 vehicles for every 1 photo we have. And a ratio of about 2 vehicles to 1 photo would mean that Ukrainians MoD claims for Russian vehicles destroyed is more or less right on the money per Oryx's visual index. And again by extension this, and the Ukranian MoD generally good track record for accuracy thus far, means their claims of 13,000+ Russian dead/casualties, whichever it was, is extremely credible. And that fact should be reflect better in this article. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC) I see no valid reason for the Ukrainian-sourced casualties to be censored from the article. Its mentioned above that they are in the casualty section, but I just checked and if it is, it's hidden. I can understand not cluttering the infobox with every vehicle claimed, but the total KIA should be included, especially if Russia's #s are. As it stands at the time of writing this, they are claiming around 12k and upper bound from US officials is 8k. It's relevant. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 04:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Its in the very first paragraph of the section, bellow the table, and the latest claim of 13,500 losses is stated. EkoGraf (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC) The info box should have both the Russian and Ukrainian estimates, not the US ones. After all it's just Russia and Ukraine doing the fighting. Burying the Ukrainian estimate in the body of the text whilst showing an outdated US estimate just hides it from a casual reader of this article. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 09:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC) "Its in the very first paragraph of the section, bellow the table, and the latest claim of 13,500 losses is stated" So it is stated somewhere almost no one would ever look; I literally had to alt-F '13,500' to find it. Not not in the info box where it should be even though it is the best figure given by any source actually supported by an index of photo evidence. As the most credible number it belongs in the info box. If not that in the table in the casualties section. Not buried in a paragraph 3 pages down the article squished between two tables neither of which it is on. This article simply paints a false view of the actual numbers by refusing to readily provide the accurate numbers while unduly giving prominence to the most bogus ridiculous numbers being given by Russia. By all means, report the Russian given figures somewhere, while making them clear to be Russian state figures, but the info box and article overall should not compromise accuracy for unreasonable neutrality. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Mmm... yes. If I were looking for information on casualties, I'd never think to check the section entitled 'Casualties'. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC) I don't have to go digging into paragraphs in the casualties section to get the actual most accurate and real casualty figures for any war wiki article EXCEPT this one. Every other such article you can use the info box for the best figures. Not here apparently. Indeed, in other war wiki articles you would read the casualties section if you wanted more info on the best figures that are given in the info box in addition to other figures that are generally less accepted. Here it is backwards, you get the worse figures in the info box while you have to go on reading 3 pages down between 2 tables to realize the actual most accurate figures are placed in some obscure spot the majority of people will not see it when they casually scroll the article. Even looking for it I didn't see it since it wasn't in the Info Box or Tables. And I was not the only one as other people have said themselves. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Comment There is a more central discussion regarding the size of the infobox at #Infobox too big and on the particulars of reporting casualties at #Dealing with casualties in infobox. It is unlikely that consensus will be achieved while there are multiple parallel discussions. I would suggest that it would be more productive to comment at the above discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Listing killed commanders?

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.

---

Other wiki pages present the list of commanders that have been killed during conflicts. Although some are missing confirmation by the losing side yet, I think it's worth it to start documenting those casualties.

• Maj. Gen. Andrei Sukhovetsky, Deputy commander of the 41st Combined Arms Army: Associated Press claims having Russian official on record
• Maj. Gen. Vitaly Gerasimov, Chief of staff, 41st Combined Arms Army: Ukraine News, The Guardian, citing Ukraine's intelligence agency
• Maj. Gen. Andrei Kolesnikov, 29th Combined Arms Army: Official Ukrainian report

P4p5 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree, they are sourceable as senior commanders. Wikilinked them: Andrey Sukhovetsky, Vitaly Gerasimov, Andrei Kolesnikov (general). We should also add current commanders for both Russia and Ukraine; who are they? Bommbass (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. They are important commanders in charge of large forces having significant outcomes on the battlefield. They can be just mentioned in the infobox. Sng Pal (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t believe they should be included on this page. Include them in the campaign in which they were killed. Those commanders’ deaths have relatively little impact in the overall invasion and this page is already too long. KD0710 (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

They should just be mentioned in the infobox. That doesn't really make the article much longer. Bommbass (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It does on mobile. Last I checked the infobox was eight screenfulls to scroll by on my phone. Phiarc (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

They were killed in this campaign, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. `°° P4p5 (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Death of gen. Vitaly Gerasimov is reported to have stalled the Kharkiv offensive, described as the deadliest battle of the invasion. When army chiefs are deployed so near within the hot spots, I would argue that’s because they’re a crucial factor of the army’s effectiveness and therefore also deserve attention in this article. Eplerud (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I totally disagree about adding them to the infobox. That is an overall summary and some mid-senior generals wouldn’t really be appropriate. KD0710 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Are they really only as unimportant as you say though? Seen the major coverage on their deaths, and the wording used in trustworthy news media ("top general", "major blow", etc.), they seem senior commanders? Bommbass (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The United States has lost 1 general in combat since the end of WW2. A general dying in combat, even a 1-star general, is a big deal. That's one of the reasons why it is listed in many other similar articles: Iraq War , Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Iran–PJAK conflict, Houthi insurgency in Yemen, Operation Astute, Mexican drug war, Somali Civil War (2009–present) (that's not an exhaustive list). Some of them include commanders that aren't top level at all. And to put things in perspective, is a "mid-senior" general commanding 10,000 troops less relevant than some warlord commanding a few thousand men at best. I'm not saying we should list them all, but those killed in combat is quite a bit more important than most of the information on the page.

P4p5 (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

the main page of World War II does not detail any Generals killed. Likewise this page should not list any either, it is already too long. They should be detailed in the relevant battle articles Ilenart626 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Not the main page no, but pages about months-long campaigns do: Eastern Front (World War II), Western Front (World War II), Philippines campaign (1944–1945), North African campaign, World War II in Yugoslavia, Anglo-Iraqi War. The question is if we consider this article a campaign in a bigger war and I would argue it is due to how the article is framing it by being part of the Russo-Ukrainian War. P4p5 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The separate WW2 articles for the invasion of Poland, the Eastern front, North African campaign do show a detailed list of the commanders involved and KIAs. The «main page» for this conflict following this logic would be the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian war article, but the above mentioned theatres of WW2 are more similar in scale than WW2 as a whole. Eplerud (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course, because WWII is too big to cover in an infobox. I could show 99 other articles having 5x larger infobox than this. That's a bad example. Beshogur (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• It is not that these casualties shouldn't be mentioned somewhere - but where. They need to be written into the body of this article or another article. They certainly cannot just be dumped into the infobox under the casualties section. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is meant to be an at-a-glance summary and not a repository for miscellaneous information. The casualty section is already too bloated to be an at-a-glance summary as it is. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Not under the casualties section, but under the commanders section. They were senior commanders, so they belong to the commanders section? Bommbass (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Not there either for much the same reasons. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Per Phiarc, the infobox is already too long. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

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

---

Change the spelling of Odessa to Odesa throughout to match the use of other Ukrainian spellings for cities that are in Ukraine. 146.198.64.213 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on Odessa is that is should be spelled as such. There would be a need for an RfC to change that on that page which has already failed multiple times. If you disagree, that should be handled on the city’s talk page and not here. KD0710 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Closing on basis of "requires consensus" per KD0710 above. Refer to Talk:Odessa. --N8 13:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This is all generally fair, but the IP raises a decent point about consistency in the article. We are using Ukrainian spelling (or thereabouts, e.g. Irpin instead of the correct Irpin') everywhere else. We write Kharkiv, Lviv, Kyiv, Chernihiv, Donbas rather than Kharkov, Lvov, Kiev, Chernigov, Donbass and so on. In that respect, Odessa sticks out as odd. It isn't necessary to rename our article for that matter, as Odesa is a valid redirect. You only need a consensus here to use that spelling here. The consensus at Talk:Odessa is irrelevant for our purposes. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There's should indeed be consistency, but on the article name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Picky point: those aren't Ukrainian spellings, but romanisations using one of the rules available. It looks like "Odessa" with "ss" is a German-based rule, presumably to maintain /s/ rather than the /ts/ which would result from a single "s". Bazza (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes, Ukrainian uses the Cyrillic alphabet just like Russian and Serbian. The point was that, for example, we write Kharkiv from Хаpkiв (Ukrainian), instead of Kharkov from Хapьkoв (Russian). I, uh, don't know why we'd be using German transliteration instead of British to be honest, and the article on Odessa suggests that the Russian spelling is Одecca (missing diacritics), so am not entirely sure that the German system is the reason for this spelling. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes the Russian spelling is Одecca and the Ukrainian Одeca but in English has it ever been spelled other than Odessa? I don't think so. And whereas the other examples like Kharkiv are reasonable transliterations of the original, in English the double S seems to more accurately represent the pronunciation. I believe Odesa wouldn't work so well. FrankP (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's better to know than to think. Type in 'Odesa' on Google News and you will receive millions of English language hits spanning sources like The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Rolling Stone (quite literally, the first three sources that pop up). As to pronunciation, English does not distinguish between single and double s. Passed and past have the same phonetic quality. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: That's not true. Vase and vast. We should use what reliable sources say. You've given three, here's five more well-known organisations, also found in Google (which can't seem to make its own mind up, using both in the same snippet), all with "ss": [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. It is, as you say, better to know than to think, and I've always known it spelled "Odessa" in English. Bazza (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Bazza 7 - You are not demonstrating a difference between singular and double s as neither vase nor vast have two s's. English does not distinguish between a lone and a double s. Btw, you might have chosen 'dogs' as your example as 'vase' is pronounced both as 'vais' and 'vaz'. Addendum: Dogs was the first word that came to mind with voicing across dialects. Enterprise or something like it might have been better. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I realised that afterwards but, as it's not my main point, let it go. But it shows (as does your comment about "vase") show that trying to use English pronunciation as a logical reasoning behind a spelling is not reliable. Bazza (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

And I knew if I waited long enough, I would remember "fuse" and "fuss". And "his" and "hiss". Bazza (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

(Edit-conflict) Fair. But, pronunciation was not my argument behind using a specific spelling. My argument was and is that we use a transliterated Ukrainian spelling everywhere else (that I've noticed). As others disagree with changing the spelling, so be it. (Re second comment) - Ok, fair examples. I must amend my previous statements to read: English pronunciation may or may not distinguish between singular and double s (passed/past (no distinction) ; his/hiss (voiced distinction). Mr rnddude (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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

just take it

is this already here ? https://onemileatatime.com/news/putin-russian-airlines-steal-foreign-aircraft/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=One%20Mile%20at%20a%20Time&utm_content=Putin%20Allows%20Russian%20Airlines%20To%20Steal%20Foreign%20Aircraft&fbclid=IwAR3t95xpZ9K3EPwOn_fHIJPEkveC-VhD1HMTE8RF7P6DYtPMqVobrdifhKs --92.218.124.118 (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It would likely be more appropriate for Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. KD0710 (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

for me is the same, you write somewhere in this wiki... --92.218.124.118 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Separatist republic demonyms

What are the demonyms for the separatist republics? Are there even demonyms? Donetsk/Luhansk, Donetskian/Luhanskian, DPR/LPR? I've seen Donetsian used for the DPR, but there isn't an equivalent for the LPR. Curbon7 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Donetsian would be someone from the Donets River region. Demonyms aren’t used for these because they are relatively obscure, lack legitimacy, and don’t have defined boundaries. The people who run them identify as Russians and Ukrainians. There may be a regional identity for the Donbas but that would include DLNR people and their adversaries (until the big invasion, the DLNR occupied about a third of the Donbas). —Michael Z. 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, it’s important to differentiate residents of the city of Donetsk and its de jure province, the Donetsk oblast, from people under the Russian proxy rule imposed by the illegal Donetsk People’s Republic (Likewise Luhansk, Luhansk oblast, and the Luhansk People’s Republic).  —Michael Z. 16:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The government of Russia doesn't say Donetsk People's Republic is illegal. --92.40.174.68 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Number of DNR and LNR soldiers

Are the Numbers for DNR and LNR soldiers not a way to small? They have conscription now (https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/02/27/stay-hidden-or-get-drafted) and have a population of approximately 3.7 Mio. So, if only ten percent of the males would be forced in the Army that would be about 180000 men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4BB8:268:EEAE:D7C5:12AA:5020:CCA8 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please find a RS that you believe has updated info. KD0710 (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Russias mercenaries from Syria and Libya

According to the "Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine" Russia has approved the recruitment of 16,000 Middle East mercenaries to fight in the Ukraine. Source date is from the 13. march.
Today the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported, that "Russian officers" had approved the recuitment of 22,000 Syrians and another 18,000 Syrians are being checked by Wagner Group. So in total 40,000 from syria alone might be drafted. Anyway, at the moment, is is rather unclear how many mercs there are fighting for russia, thats why I wouldnt mention those syrians in the infobox. ----LennBr (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think someone should add all three of these countries as belligerents since those volunteers hail from those three countries. --66.234.79.226 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as there are also volunteers from various other countries fighting on the Ukrainian side. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Minor edit suggestion for article lead

Hello, I see in the lead that the last sentence of paragraph 3 reads "In response, Zelenskyy...". As this is the first instance of Volodymyr Zelenskyy being mentioned in the article, surely it should introduce him reading something along the lines of "In response, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy..."? (the same as Putin's first mention in paragraph 2, including a wikilink to President of Ukraine. I'd do it myself but obviously can't. GeorgmentO (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@GeorgmentO:  Done – I didn't link President of Ukraine to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE as it's not a crucial link, but I recognise there's an inconsistency with the Russian presidency (which is linked), so don't object if another editor wants to add it. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 00:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguous statement of a battle outcome.

In the "Eastern Front" section the statement "On the morning of 25 February, Russian Armed Forces advanced from DPR territory in the east towards Mariupol and encountered Ukrainian forces near the village of Pavlopil, where they were defeated." didn't clarify which side prevailed in that specific battle. The Eastern Ukraine offensive main article indicates a Ukrainian victory against the Russian land forces from the DPR, so if you have editing privileges please revise the sentence to indicate a Ukrainian victory in that specific battle to remove the ambiguity. Many thanks. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Done P1221 (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (2)

In "Russian Accusations and Demands" section, where it says "influence of far-right groups within Ukraine", link to Far-right politics in Ukraine for additional context.

While that article needs cleaning up it's relevant to what is discussed in this article, i.e. the question of the influence of the far right in Ukraine. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Melmann 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's good to link to an article even if it needs cleaning up; once it's linked to, people will go to it, and some of them might clean it up! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

biological weapons

The article currently states:

"Chinese diplomats, government agencies, and state-controlled media in China have used the war as an opportunity to deploy anti-American propaganda, and amplified conspiracy theories created by Russia such as the false claims of US biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine."

The absence of US biological weapons in Ukraine is stated as fact. However, it isn't really since there is no independent confirmation of the truth of this absence. So, instead, it is rather simply an assertion by the US and Ukraine governments, which has the contrary assertion by the Russia government. Therefore, the article is biased towards the US-Ukraine perspective and opposed to the Russia perspective. I suggest you write an unbiased article instead of what is currently here.

There are some reasons to be suspicious of the US–Ukraine assertions:

(1) Reuters reported that World Health Organization recommended that Ukraine destroy "destroy high-threat pathogens housed in the country's public health laboratories to prevent "any potential spills" that would spread disease among the population..." and that "Ukraine has public health laboratories researching how to mitigate the threats of dangerous diseases affecting both animals and humans including, most recently, COVID-19. Its labs have received support from the United States, the European Union and the WHO." (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-who-says-it-advised-ukraine-destroy-pathogens-health-labs-prevent-2022-03-11/) Obviously, this does not mean that what referred to here by the WHO are actually biological weapons. But, it could plausibly be weapons. The public has no way to know at this time.

(2) Victoria Nuland in answering questions from Congress said that there was an effort to "prevent materials from Ukraine’s biological research facilities from falling into Russian hands." Now, whether these materials are biological weapons or something else is unknown to the public, but they could plausibly be weapons. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-10/u-s-hits-china-for-pushing-russia-s-preposterous-lab-theory)

(3) The US government has a history of secretly testing biological warfare techniques on its own US population in earlier decades. So, it may be reasonable for some folks to suspect US assertions about this a priori.

At the very least, you need to use words like allegedly false, etc. in this article when we have no way knowing which country is making false statements. – ishwar  (speak) 22:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about claimes by China, please see COVID-19_misinformation#Accusations_by_China, etc. It is intentional disinformation per multiple RS, and it should be described as such on WP pages. Speaking about the publications in Reuters and others, they only say that Ukraine conducted biological research with pathogens, nothing more. That is done in every country, nothing special. To the contrary, UN said there was no any info about WMD in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We base everything on what reliable sources say. There have been no reliable sources that have found any evidence that any biochemical weapons exist in Ukraine and a vast majority affirm that they don’t. If you have anything to the contrary, please post. KD0710 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The RS cited says it is disinformation and a conspiracy theory. I'm not too keen on giving apparent credence–by casting doubt–to (what RS describe as) Russian disinformation. Your analysis above is OR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not an analysis nor original research (it's not research at all). If one aims for Wikipedia to be impartial, the article merely needs to state (a) Russia–China allegations of biological weapons, (b) US–Ukraine denial of said allegations, (c) US-Ukraine counter-allegation of Russia–China disinformation concerning previously stated weapon allegation, (d) no evidence of anything. Everything else including the truth of any of these allegations is simply unknown at present.

As it reads now, the article is claiming that Russia–China are making false statements. But, we do not know if they are false. All we know is that the concerned parties are making denials. (I guess we also know that the sources are aligned with US/Ukraine.)

It's good to use reliable sources. I'm in complete agreement with that. However, the source(s) yall are relying upon itself has a source, which in fact are the parties accused of having weapons. If that's ok with yall, fine. Then, leave it as is. However, I do point out inherent bias in doing so. – ishwar  (speak) 02:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Your claim that pathogens housed in Ukraine's laboratories could plausibly be weapons is a majestic leap in OR. Pious Brother (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Therefore, the article is biased towards the US-Ukraine perspective and opposed to the Russia perspective. I suggest you write an unbiased article instead of what is currently here." this is a misunderstanding that crops up from time to time in articles around this. WP:NPOV does not mean that you take opposing viewpoints and present the midpoint (which would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR depending on how you do it), or that opposing viewpoints must be given equal weight and credence simply because they are opposing (WP:BALANCE). Phiarc (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I will invoke wp:blp, we cannot imply someone has done something until it is proven they have. So until independent investigation shows Ukiriane has been deploying WMD (of any kind) we have to make it clear such a claim lacks any credible evidence. So we can either say "woth out any credible evidence" or just they they do not have them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not controversial to state that the claim that there are US biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine is false. The claim has been thoroughly debunked, and therefore there is no need for any vagueness here. BeŻet (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's take a second to contemplate Russia's accusation. Russia accused the United States of creating weapon labs in Ukraine, directly on the border with Russia to make a coronavirus type disease that will target a specific race. Why would the US ever open bio weapons labs in such a preposterous location you might ask? Well, the Russians answered this as well, it's because the US was planning to send the virus in to Russia on infected bats. Jajaja, after we've all had a nice chuckle on what has to be one of the most bizarre accusations to have ever been articulated not only in the UN but in the entire city of New York, I think we can agree that this accusation is in many ways the definition of WP:FRINGE. We have the New York Times which straight up calls it non-sense, that's more than good enough for me. To comply with the edit you've requested of saying that it's possible we'd need at least The New Yorker and the New England Journal of Medicine corroborating it, because otherwise the accusation is comically absurd. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not take a false balance position halfway between the truth and a lie. Reliable sources say these are propaganda allegations based on no evidence, dredged up from propaganda repeated multiple times over the last eight years. —Michael Z. 22:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Here’s an example of a reliable source on this:

• Donie O'Sullivan, “Analysis: Russia and QAnon have the same false conspiracy theory about Ukraine,” CNN, March 10, 2022.

 —Michael Z. 17:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw this discussion yesterday and then I saw pundits promoting this conspiracy theory on my Twitter feed this morning [22] [23], so I created Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory. CutePeach (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest saying something like "baseless", "unfounded" or "without any credible evidence", or using words directly from a source. If sources say they're propaganda allegations based on no evidence, as someone says above, then Wikipedia should convey that, not exaggerate it as if we could know it's false. We need to be precise with our wording. If sources actually say it's false (maybe they've visited every lab in the country, etc.?) then it may be OK to say it's false, but if there are more reliable sources saying things like lacking credible evidence, we should go with that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Racism and xenophobia against refugees at the train and borders needs to be included in the refugee session

In late February, it was reported that in the previous days, the Ukrainian State Border Guard Service at the border posts near Medyka and Shehyni had not allowed non-Ukrainians (many of them foreign students in the country) to cross the border into neighboring nations. [1,2] claiming that priority was being given to citizens to cross the first citizens. Ukraine's foreign minister said that there were no restrictions on the departure of foreign nationals and that the border force was instructed to foreigners who allowed all citizens to leave foreigners. According to Ukraine's Sandhu, Aid's general secretary, students fighting to fight the Khas border were protected from violence and "their crosses with verbal supporters to try to fight the violence". [3] Similar discrimination was reported by Africans who tried to leave.[4,5]

1 «Per le persone che non sono bianche è più difficile fuggire dall'Ucraina» [For people who are not white it is more difficult to escape from Ukraine]. Il Post (em italiano). 3 de março de 2022. Consultado em 3 de março de 2022
2 «Nigeria urges respect towards Africans at Ukrainian border – News». Al Jazeera. 28 de fevereiro de 2022. Consultado em 28 de fevereiro de 2022. Arquivado do original em 1 de março de 2022
3 Waldie, Paul; York, Geoffrey (27 de fevereiro de 2022). «Africans and Asians fleeing Ukraine subjected to racial discrimination by border guards». The Globe and Mail. Consultado em 28 de fevereiro de 2022. Arquivado do original em 1 de março de 2022
4 Russia Attacks Ukraine Capital. NDTV 24x7. 12 de março de 2021. Consultado em 2 de março de 2022. Arquivado do original em 1 de março de 2022 – via YouTube
5 «Concerns mount as black people report racism while fleeing Ukraine». The Independent. 1 de março de 2022. Consultado em 2 de março de 2022  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:5BA8:80A8:DDBF:813:BD37:1BEB (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 

Hi, this portion is covered here: Ukrainian_refugee_crisis#Alleged_racism. P1221 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is for the invasion. The treatment of refugees should be included on that page and not this. KD0710 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think racism deserves a brief mention in this article. This article has a four-paragraph subsection on refugees, and racism is a significant fraction of the refugee article. I think there's room in this article for at least a short sentence such as "There are allegations, disputed by some, of racism in the treatment of refugees." which summarizes three paragraphs in the refugee article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

“Significant fraction”? Determined by an online word counter, the entire “Alleged racism” section is slightly less than 1% of the article. —Michael Z. 20:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that small, though less than I thought. I was looking at the table of contents where it's quite prominent -- 2 of 9 subsections. Online word counters can be deceiving, counting symbols like square brackets and stuff as significant numbers of words and ending up with way more words than the actual number of words in the article. I looked through the refugee article and counted the equivalent of 45 paragraphs, counting very small paragraphs as half a paragraph each. The racism part is 3 substantial paragraphs, making it about one-fifteenth of the article, or maybe more. By another method: the whole refugee article has about 12 screenfuls of text on my screen, and the racism part is nearly 1 screenful, making it nearly one-twelfth. I count 9 sentences in the refugee part of this article, several of them about double the short sentence I proposed, so I think it's proportional. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The "Alleged racial discrimination" section of the refugee article is a lot more than 1%. It's more like 15%, between one-sixth and one-seventh. I counted lines of text in the whole article, counting partial lines as 0 if less than a half or 1 if more than half. I got 182 lines for the whole article. (Others may get different counts depending on display font size etc.) For the discrimination section I got 28 lines (in 6 paragraphs, 2 subsections). That's actually an underestimate for the discrimination section because the lines weren't shortened by images. Based on that I estimated about 3300 words in the whole article, 500 words in the discrimination section. So I think there's definitely room in this article for a sentence about discrimination such as the one I proposed above. What do others think? (By the way, this talk page section got accidentally archived, then was restored.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

Hello! I have updated the Battle of Kyiv map to make it accurate to today. I would like to change the caption "Military control around Kyiv on 5 March 2022" to "Military control around Kyiv on 18 March 2022" Js26x (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of template {{current}}

Hello. I would like to propose removal of the template {{current}}, as its usage within this article appears to be against the guidelines set by the template itself.
Here are the main guidelines, transcluded from Template:Current/doc, for, your convenience:

• Every article on Wikipedia has a general disclaimer that the article contents may not be accurate.
• As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used on those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day (for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news).
• It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.
• This and closely related templates are generally expected to appear on an article for less than a day, sometimes longer.
• If you would like an article on a significant current event to be noticed, please see Wikipedia:How the Current events page works and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates.

Check main (article) namespace links

In my estimation, the usage on this page does not meet the point 3 and 4. While point 2 provides for some leeway, we are three weeks away from the moment this news broke. If there is some major change in the news, such as, hopefully, a peace accord, the template may be reinstated, but right now, it is no longer relevant for usage on this page. I have already removed it previously, but the template was reinstated, so I'm bringing it here to complete the WP:BRD cycle. Thanks. Melmann 07:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Support - Based on your points, I tend to agree with you. My only concern is that major changes can happen in a relatively short amount of time, but perhaps we reinstate the tag should we have that issue in the future. KD0710 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the page meets point 3, because the recent news articles represent new developments in the conflict, such as NBC and The New York Times. Is there prior precedent for keeping the current template during ongoing conflicts? ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

A non-exhaustive tour of many major conflicts listed at List of ongoing armed conflicts yields none that have the template, including ones that have recently seen major developments or escalations such as Tigray War, Panjshir conflict, or Islamic State–Taliban conflict. In my experience, it is rare for Template:Current to survive much longer than 24 to 48 hours, so this article is already very much an outlier. My understanding is that Template:Current is generally used when we expect a huge surge of page visits, such as breaking news, but we haven't quite gotten our ducks in the row yet with the coverage lacking pretty fundamental parts. The article as it is now, while it can obviously be better, is fair coverage of the topic as we understand it right now.
In any case, if there was a major turn in the conflict, such as Kyiv falling or peace accords being signed, I would most certainly support reinstating the template. Melmann 16:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the template has fulfilled its purpose, based on my past experience of how long {{current}} tends to be present on articles. Also noting the last 50 edits atm go back over 12 hours. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Melmann: thanks for raising this here per BRD. It was me who initially reverted the removal two days ago, as I felt a discussion would be better first. I think the template still has some limited utility (per point 2, as you point out), but on the whole I think your analysis is fair and I don't object to removing the tag. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 19:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Since we have consensus, I'm removing the template. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 16:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Invasion and resistance

The map in the section is only showing the situation until 4/03/22! It should be updated until today, the 17-th of March! Russian troops are already in the suburbs of Kiev! Vladimir Skokan1 (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

1) See the FAQ; 2) The map is not hosted on en.wiki, take up your concerns with commons.wiki. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The news total casualties from UK DAILY MAIL PLEASE ADDED TO SOMEONE WHO READ ON WIKIPEDIA WITH THIS BATTLE..........

Russia has seen up to 28,000 troops killed, wounded or captured in Ukraine - around a fifth of its force - US says, as invasion 'stalls on all fronts' but shelling of cities continues. LINK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10622681/Ukraine-war-Russia-lost-fifth-pre-invasion-force.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by NguyenLuuDatHuynh2008 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:DAILYMAIL. The community deprecated that source because of misinformation and disinformation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

190.4.185.161 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

On 24 February 2022, Russia began a military invasion of Ukraine,[33] in a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict that began in 2014. It is the largest military conflict in Europe since World War II.[34][35][36] With over 3.1 million Ukrainians fleeing the country, the invasion has also caused the largest refugee crisis in Europe since then.[37][38][39]

Following the Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity in February 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, and Russian-backed separatists seized part of south-east Ukraine, starting the war in Donbas.[40][41] In 2021, Russia began a large military build-up along its border with Ukraine. The president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, espoused Russian irredentist views,[42] questioned Ukraine's right to statehood,[43][44] and falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority, in spite of President Zelenskyy being Jewish and a native Russian speaker.[45] Putin also said NATO had threatened Russia's security by expanding eastward – a claim disputed by NATO[46] – and demanded Ukraine be barred from ever joining the alliance.[47] The United States and others accused Russia of planning to attack or invade Ukraine, which Russian officials repeatedly denied as late as 23 February 2022.[51]

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Vehicle Markings

Regarding the V, O, Z, and Z inside ☐ markings painted onto Russian Federation equipment. Vehicles marked with the letters below have been seen in:

V = North-west Kyiv Region. Deployed from Mazyr region, Belarus.

O = Chernihiv Region. Crossed border at Senkivka, Northern Ukraine.

Z inside ☐ = Kharkiv / Sumy Region. Deployed from Belgorod region, Russia.

Z = South-East Region such as Kherson, Mykolaiv, Mariupol. Deployed from Crimea / Rostovr regions, Russia.

Border footage of 24 Feb confirms vehicles crossing from Crimea had a plain Z painted on them, vehicles leaving from Belgorod had a Z inside ☐, and vehicles crossing from Belarus had white and black O markings on them.

Russian Federations with Z inside Box painted on them departing Belgorod heading for Kharkiv, Feb 2022. CNN footage.

Russian Federation vehicles with white and black O seen at Senkivka Crossing, Ukraine, Feb 2022. CNN footage.

Russian Federation vehicles seen crossing into Ukraine from Crimea, Feb 2022. NBC News footage.

-- Post by someone or other.

• The above is useless WP:OR. EEng 06:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Whoever asked for infobox deletion

Go touch some grass please,you can't delete an infobox for no freaking reason 105.100.66.225 (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Less and less biased articles and sources of informations.

Wiki is losing neutrality and objective approach by subjective editing and selecting information sources. 89.164.14.247 (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraina claimed already 3.300 war machine but not uet edited

Ukriane claimed of Russia war machines loses already 3.300s but not yet edit. Including 2 thousands Russian tanks/armored, more than 800 other vehicles, nearly 200 aircraft. You can go to Ukraine Defence Social Media or Kyiv Independent twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.47.135.149 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Another general Killed

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

---

There are reports that a fourth Russian general was killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a separate article for dead generals - List of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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

Independent Source for Equipment Losses

I know that there's been a back and forth about the reliability of using Russian/Ukrainian Ministries of Defense for numbers of losses, and because of this a preference for independent 3rd party sources. On account of this I'd like to recommend Oryx. It has detailed and confirmed listings of equipment losses on both sides see here. The website is trusted and used by Reliable Sources such as The Economist see here and as such gives us an excellent 3rd party source for equipment losses for both sides. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that there is already extensive discussion about Oryx in the talk page section above, "Infobox too big", (or in one or more subsections of that section). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian military numbers

The source for the Ukrainian military numbers (paramilitary, reserve etc.) is from the book "The Military Balance 2021" (pp.208-209). Looking for Russian statistics on the same book (pp 190-191) we see that Russia has approximately 554,000 Paramilitary and 2,000,000 in Reserves.

Since the current statistics for Russia seem to be based on U.S. intelligence, I think two approachable options could be followed:

- Exclude Ukrainian paramilitary/reserve numbers, OR

- Include Russian paramilitary/reserve numbers according to The Military Balance 2021

I prefer the second option because Ukrainian paramilitary/reserves shouldn't be excluded. Meanwhile, the Russian paramilitary and reserve forces should be mentioned. Darer101 (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is as far as we can tell all of Ukraine'ss military are directly involved, but not all of Russia's (yet). Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Ukrainian military is fully committed to this conflict, with all reservists have been called into active duty. To my knowledge, the Russian military probably hasn't mobilized all of their paramilitary/reserve forces to this conflict. ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. We include reservists for Ukraine because those reserves are committed. We likewise DON'T include Russia's reserves, because their reserves are NOT committed. Fieari (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox too big

Phiarc reports that the infobox, when viewed on a mobile device is about eight screens long! It is partly due to excessive detail. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE this should be an at-a-glance summary of a summary article. We don't write the article in the infobox - WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Dropdowns might look good on a PC but they don't work on mobiles. As Moxy observes, our readers just aren't going to read the article if they can't get past the infobox. We need to be more ruthless in trimming content in the infobox to the most important. Just because the infobox has a parameter doesn't mean we have to use them. The infobox documentation says many parameters are optional. What might have be done in other articles does not necessarily represent best practice unless these are our best quality articles. Even then, we must consider the specifics and circumstances and the comparability of events before comparing how our best articles might set a benchmark of best practice in this case. Our duty is to our readers.

Some thoughts:

• Images We don't need a montage of six images. For a long time, we only had the map.
• Dynamic map It tells us alot but the legend symbols could be shrunk or omitted since it is pretty self-evident and has its own integrated legend.
• Status Of course it is ongoing. The open date tells us that. Russian Ground Forces enter Ukraine from Russia, Crimea, and Belarus. Duh, it's an invasion. It's all superfluous. Some significant links could be integrated into the caption of the map.
• Territorial changes Redundant - the map shows us that.
• Strengths We don't have to give a breakdown of the Ukrainian forces in detail. This breakdown could be given in a note, which I believe is mobile compatible. Notes could also be used in other instances.
• Casualties and losses

• This probably takes the most space.
• We have a section in the article for this. Report summarised info from that section into the infobox and link to that section for details. Report a range or an average.
• We are reporting three different sources in the infobox. Ukraine and Russian sources aren't independent. We could report just the independent source while linking to the section for more detail.
• Donetsk PR: We don't need to report this in the infobox. Do away with the flag icons. Report total losses on either side. Use a note if necessary to give detail.
• Material losses

• These significantly add to length in mobile devices since the lists don't collapse.
• These aren't all that significant such that they need to be listed in a summary of a summary. If anything, use a link.

• Civilian casualties/refugees

• Don't individually report multiple sources. See above and dealing with military casualties.
• Reduce superfluous text (eg OHCHR estimates that the real figures are considerably higher - the source is given as a ref it doesn't need to be repeated; use a note if necessary).
• Foreign civilian casualties: Tragic but not so significant in the totality of civilian casualties. We don't have to report everything in an infobox.

These may be hard decisions but decisions that need to be made for the benefit of our readers. These are my observations on how the issue might be addressed but there needs to be a consensus on how to progress this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I concur with your observations. Especially for "Casualties and losses", I think it is better to write the detailed information in sections of this article (or different article if becoming too long) and just put a link in the infobox, like "See Section..." P1221 (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

STRONGLY AGREE - The length of this info box is gigantic and contains entirely too much information. My biggest problem is that there are entirely too many lines for casualties (make it a range, with detailed info in the article) and the material losses. This is a war and material losses are not generally what is most notable about the event, therefore don't belong in this info box. If you want to add those losses to individual battles info boxes (as long as they are relevant) fine. KD0710 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Strongly agree - we need to stop with this ridiculous idea of writing articles in infoboxes. It's a readability issue due to how they function on mobiles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed some of the most obvious issues. With regards to materiel losses, we should do what many RS do and just report the total figure (X aircraft, tanks and ...), and leave full detail for the actual article. We don't need entire rows dedicated to each of "1 An-26, 3 Su-27, 1 MiG-29, 1 patrol vessel, 1 frigate (scuttled to prevent capture)". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. The easiest thing to do would be to kick all the detailed casualty figures either into a footnote, or into the "Casualties" section. There could be a simple overview in the infobox, and an internal link for details. This would trim things down considerably. The more controversial option is to go back to just a map in the infobox - all of those images take up a lot of room. I'd argue that 6 is too many anyway even if we want to keep some - give the images room to breath, they'll be too small to read with so many, so set a hard cap of 3 or 4 if kept at all. SnowFire (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think images we can live with, but maybe we should drop the captions (or make text size smaller) on mobiles only, and let people click the image if they want more info. Mobile and desktop design is not meant to be parallel. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The images are OK, though on mobile they expand into a long series of still-small images, one per row, for some reason. On Iraq war it stays as a collage, which would be preferable here as well. Though I would advise against emulating the other aspects of the Iraq war infobox, on my phone that's seventeen screens - going to be tired from scrolling before even getting to the article! In the infobox here the caption gets expanded in a weird way on mobile; each item is suddenly its own paragraph with top and bottom margins. Phiarc (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Technical note: the reason the Iraq war montage stays together is because it's all one image (File:Iraq War montage.png), whereas this article uses the template {{multiple images}} and is made up of multiple individual images. Levivich 15:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there an alternative template that retains the layout on mobile? Baking things into files hampers editing, and there will surely be a lot of editing on this for some time to come... Phiarc (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. The mobile layout was discussed/changed a few years ago at Template talk:Multiple image/Archive 2##mobile (stop using inline styles), I lack the technical skills to know if there's a better or different way to do it. WP:COLLAGETIPS mentions {{Image array}}; not sure if that template renders any differently on mobile. Levivich 16:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Image array renders as an HTML table and can't support the "masonry" style layout we're using here. I went ahead and made the collage into a single image, which is arguably a bad solution because you can click on an image and get to the large version and commons page directly, but fixes the bad layout on mobile which is where most of the readers are. For some reason it appeared OK at first but lost transparency after reloading. Very strange. Hence reverted. Phiarc (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

With the current set of changes (as far as I can tell: replaced breakdown of civilian casualties with a link, totalized equipment losses, removed obvious list of in "Status", removed "Territorial changes", removed wagner group) the infobox length has decreased by about 20-25 % Phiarc (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What do people think about turning infobox casualties into a range (i.e. 498-12,000+ killed) and then collapsing who is giving each end of the range into a footnote? BSMRD (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This should happen. It takes into consideration all reports and gives an overview. KD0710 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Done at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_infobox&diff=1077116453&oldid=1077114202 I'm not sure about efn though - might as well move this into the casualties section and use a proper link. This has the added advantage that there is just one place for a detailed breakdown of losses. Phiarc (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to merge all data from the detailed casualty breakdowns in the infobox in the main casualty article which is transcluded into this article as well. Now we've got the claimed ranges in the infobox with the relatively prominent link directly below to "casualties and humanitarian impact". The equipment loses were condensed in the meantime as well. We're now down to five screens on my phone from over eight initially. If we get the image collage sorted out I think it's a manageable size and it is also readable now, so it actually serves WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE now. Phiarc (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this would be helpful - we'd end up with massive ranges which are effectively WP:SYNTH, as no individual source would support the entire range. Jr8825 • Talk 18:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Jr8825. EkoGraf (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Funny how some "strongly agree" claiming this infobox is too big. Perhaps you haven't seen Syrian civil war infobox. With this, infobox barely tells anything. Also as claimed by ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) I do not see any consensus here. Maybe just delete the pictures on the infobox, instead we could add more useful information that are unneeded according certain users. This isn't about aestethics, it's about providing information. Removing half of the infobox doesn't help anything. Beshogur (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Beshogur, moving the claims/figures and sources/references to efn has made them invisible to the readers, leaving unsourced claimed figures which are un-attributed in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

One solution to partially cut down, at least in regards to casualty figures, is to follow a consensus that was established years ago at the start of the war in 2014 to include only figures on self-admitted losses or figures on losses reported by a third party in the infobox and casualty tables, so to avoid potentially presenting propaganda claims as fact. Consensus was also not to exclude propaganda claims entirely, but to present them in the main body of the article. Thus, the Ukrainian and Russian claims of the their enemies casualties can be presented in the main text. This would cut down the info in the infobox a bit, we could also still leave a link towards a casualty section so readers could read the potential propaganda claims by the belligerents. EkoGraf (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that so we can put it in the FAQ (Q3) - "Please update the losses claimed by Russia / Ukraine"? Phiarc (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phiarc: I just finished updating both Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox and the casualties section, leaving a link in the infobox towards the casualties section so people can see the other claims made by the belligerents regarding their enemies losses. I also added a note (visible only to editors) to update the claims made by Russia and Ukraine [24]. You can change it if you think it needs additional adjustment and can use the link for the Q3. EkoGraf (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What about just moving all casualty data entirely out of IB into prose with a link indicating "disputed", "differing reports", "estimates vary", etc.? ...at least until RSs agree after some fog of war has cleared. I don't see why we should trust either side for accuracy - even in their own numbers - during an active conflict so closely linked with misinformation and propaganda. Even some allegedly neutral third party sources (particularly state sources) would have reason to allow for inaccuracies until the conflict resolves. WP:V is clear that when reliable sources disagree the article stays neutral using attribution. If we can't be accurate, attribute claims succinctly, or maintain npov in such a small space, we shouldn't gamble on which one source to use as a summary; we should point readers to where they can get proper context. After all, the best true summary of the prose is arguably "disputed". --N8 01:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Valid point. I think obviously, something there is preferable, but can we trust the sources to be accurate? I’m not sure. I think we can count out Ukraine’s data as well as Russia’s. Perhaps the U.S. or U.K. might be the best option at this point if any numbers are included KD0710 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Beshogur on a couple points; viewed on my mobile, the Syrian civil war infobox is ridiculously wide, taking up about ¾ width of the page, leaving the lead to be sandwiched to the far left, with only one or two words per line! As for length, it's about a 1.5 screens long. Also agree that on this page, the infobox, while at normal width and less than a screen in length, could still stand to lose a few of images. (imo) - wolf 17:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that your example is not a best practice. It's longer than any campaign in World War II. It is pretty obvious that it goes past summarizing key features of the page's subject. KD0710 (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because another article also has issues doesn't mean we should let them pertrude into even more articles. We can't fix all the issues with every article on this talk page. But I agree that a lot of 'modern' conflicts have infobox (and general article) issues, particularly with regards to excessive details, and I raised this at the MILHIST project. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phiarc: I'm using a smartphone to view this article and the infobox fits on one screen with room to spare, no scrolling required. Perhaps there has been extensive cuts made, can you link to a diff where the infobox was "eight screens long"? And I'm also curious; what mobile device you're viewing this on? Thanks - wolf 17:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm using an iPhone SE (1st generation) (which is one of the smaller smartphones one might be using in 2022). Here's how the current revision looks, which is still trimmed down in various places: File:Russian invasion infobox size iPhone SE.png. Checking on my other phone, a much bigger iPhone SE (2nd generation), it's still 5.5 screens, though now the images stay in their layout, which saves a lot of space. (Using the desktop version on mobile, yes, it only takes on screen - but that's because the page is zoomed so far out that you can't read anything) Phiarc (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

wolf, I think you’re still using the desktop version of Wikipedia, even though you’re on a smartphone. I also usually use desktop view when I’m reading WP on mobile, and the infobox size is the same for me as it is for you. If you scroll down to the bottom of the article page, there should be a button called “mobile view” that will switch you over to the actual mobile site, and you should be able to see. Hope that helps HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: you are partly right, but in this case mostly wrong. I read WP in mobile view, (which is the preset for me), and only switch to desktop when I'm editing. As I was editing this talk page, I was in desktop mode when I looked at the infobox, so it was the size I stated. But even now, after checking it in mobile view, the infobox is only about 3 screen lengths, which is about the same size as the Normandy landings infobox (as an example). (And fyi, I'm using a Galaxy S10+, which I thought was getting old until Phiarc mentioned that they were rocking a 1st gen iPhone SE). - wolf 22:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I would think it is fair to say that there is a rough consensus that the infobox is too long and it should be reduced. Predictably, there is some disagreement on how this might best be achieved in particular instances. Most notably, there is the matter of casualties. We need to thrash out some of the specifics. I see that a discussion has started at #Causalities. It would be good if we could keep related discussions centralised rather than having multiple parallel discussions. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with casualties in infobox

Note: the initial part of this section has been moved from #Causalities for continuity. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the Ukraine report of 12,000 Russian causalities in the infobox? It was showing up a few days ago and now it’s not showing up. Looked through the edit history form the last four days and no where does it show when it has been changed, but I know for sure two days ago I saw the Ukrainian report of number of Russian causalities. BigRed606 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It was removed from the info box to reduce the size. It was agreed upon earlier today. Each side has the self reported casualties and a third party which is the US at this time. KD0710 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox has been moved to its own separate template Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox which given the frenetic editing of the article is probably for the best. You can re-add the estimates there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As KD0710 said, after a discussion today it was agreed so to cut back on the size of the infobox, we only leave self-reported fatalities or numbers claimed by a third-party source. All Ukrainian claims of Russian losses and vice-versa are talked about in the main body of the article in the casualties section (where you can update the figures), and we left a link in the infobox to that section so readers can see the other claimed casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Why not report WP:reliable sources’ estimates instead of self-reported? Russian casualties are estimated to be 5,000–6,000 by independent experts. The Russian state report is inaccurate and outdated. —Michael Z. 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

At the moment its been agreed we include both (self-reported and 3rd party RS) in the infobox. If we remove Russian self-reported figures we would need to remove the Ukrainian as well. Agree Russian figure is highly outdated but its the only thing we have at the moment. Hoping they give an updated figure soon. It took the Ukrainians more than two weeks to give an update. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@KD0710, @EkoGraf, Was there also an earlier discussion about this? If the only agreement so far is from today's discussion (#Infobox too big) I think it's fair to say that discussion is still open for additional comments (partly because I added one). --N8 02:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@KD0710, @N8wilson There was a discussion and consensus to that effect back in 2014 when the War in Donbass started, when it was agreed upon to include in that conflict's infobox and the casualties article's table only self-reported and 3rd party figures, while moving belligerent claims of enemies dead to the casualties section text due to potential propaganda inflation and unreliability. So I think that represents a nice model on which we can build upon in this article as well. I also saw your comments in the above discussion and you can take my reply here to be the same there as well. In essence I agree Russian and Ukrainian self-admitted casualty figures also run the possibility of being de-flated and their inclusion in the infobox should be up for debate, although I am not entirely sure... undecided. EkoGraf (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure how most people use the wikipedia pages but I personally first dart to the casualties section of the infobox, and then the map, and then read other relevant data. I think the casualties section should be kept as: 1 - self reported 2 - enemy reported and 3 - third party RS (like UK or US) and they should all be visible. That's just my two cents. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary of discusion

• The body of the article has been edited to include info from the infobox.
• There appears to be a rough consensus to reduce the size of this section but some uncertainty on how best to do this.
• There is an acknowledgement that belligerent sources are likely to both overreport opponents casualties and underreport their own.
• There is some complaint that info placed in a note is not readily seen.
• There is an assertion that reporting a range not supported by a single reference is WP:SYNTH. {note: this is incorrect. This is quite permissible as would be simple addition or subtraction per WP:CALC).
• It was noted that massive ranges are unhelpful.
• Some reference is made to how the issue has been dealt with at Russo-Ukrainian War.

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Although I think it might be best to leave casualty data exclusively in prose until we have source agreement, I would add that along with WP:CALC, "SYNTH is not numerical summarization" also seems to allow enough flexibility to use an inclusive range (lowest min - highest max) with citations if it reaches consensus. --N8 08:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments We have an article section for casualties. The infobox should summarise that section - not duplicate it. Some options I can see are:

1. We could note that reports vary and link to the article section. If it is too hard to come up with a simple summary, this is a reasonable option IMHO. (per N8wilson above?)
2. We could state the extreme ranges, and link to the article section. It is intrinsically clear that the reports vary because of the extremely wide range.
3. We have two partisan sources which are questionable and a third source. We could report the US source on the basis that it is "more" independent than the two partisan sources; note that the results vary; and, link to the article section.
4. We could report own losses and the independent source as separate entries per the Russo-Ukrainian War. This still leaves a fairly large section and IMHO not the best solution.
5. We could report "greater than X" where X is the lowest figure; note that the results vary; and, link to the article section. It is a conservative approach but not substantially better than relying upon the independent source.

I would tend to options 1 or 3, largely because they are most consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion copied from #The removed Russians Casualties per UA MoD were the most accurate ones based on actual Evidence

All the casualty figures are wrong and the one that we have the best evidence for being most accurate for Russian losses are the Ukrainian MoD ones that were removed.

Per https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html and the safe assumption we don't have a photo of every destroyed Russian piece of equipment in Ukraine, maybe 1 of every 2 at best, that means Ukrainian MoD's claims for Russian vehicles destroyed is reasonably accurate as corroborated by photo evidence. Thus their projected Russian deaths or casualties, well over 13,000 by now, is very credible and one to believe is most accurate on first hand evidence. All the other figures have no evidence to support them by comparison. Furthermore, almost all Ukrainian MoD claims in other regards have been proven correct at least 80% of the time if not a healthy bit more.

Russian claims are obviously bogus and citing anything from Russian state sources these days has to be a farce. That isn't even bias; it is just blatant fact. And the US claims are based on who knows what; but certainly not a first hand perspective and thus an inferior source to cite. This article stands as a farce while it literally ignores the reported casualty figures that clearly have the most weight of evidence behind them.

That the most accurate Ukrainian MoD figures aren't anywhere even on the page that I can see is doubly dubious. Ignoring figures backed by vast photo evidence to paste blatant state Russian lies. A Farce of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.72.97 (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The figures haven't been removed, they are in the article's casualties section, as per talk page discussions, so to cut down on the infobox size. At the moment, self-admitted fatality figures and figures provided by 3rd party sources (like the US) are presented in the infobox. As for citing Russian claims, if we are already citing one belligerent's claims (Ukraine) we are obligated to do the same for the other side as well as per Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and presenting all sides POV. EkoGraf (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the Russian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is Russian. If it is equipment used in both armies equally, it is not possible to be sure unless some serial number or conclusive identification is shown (no, an external drawing of a letter Z, V, whatever, is not a conclusive identification, anyone can paint it on a disabled/destroyed ukrainian vehicle, or similarly yellow stripes on a russian tank to pass for Ukrainian). There is equipment that the Russian army has "lost" that it recovers in its advance, the destroyed/disabled ukrainian equipment, and also what it is taking out of the Ukrainian military bases that it has occupied, and this is equipment that cannot be confirmed in quantity or type. 152.207.223.188 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding the equipment losses up above that you can join. EkoGraf (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the Russian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is Russian."

So much wrong with this comment. For one, the equipment they use is not that similar as they have been making modifications and changes independently for 32 years now. Ukraine has its own variants and paint scheme that makes its tanks and other vehicles, even when destroyed, readily identifiable and differentiable from the Russian ones. Russia also has a much larger variety of vehicles than Ukraine and generally much newer ones Ukraine does not have acces to. Tanks for example Ukraine's most numerous tank is the T-64, while Russia does not even operate the T-64 anymore really, and the only model they really share in numbers is the T-72 but after 32 years of independent modernization and modification are different variants that can be differentiated.

Also, even when destroyed the paint is often left somewhere, which usually can identify who it belongs to. If not that, the Russian dead bodies, scattered Russians MREs, or big Z, O, and V letters are a good hint. Also who is posting the picture or video; a lot of it is visibly from Ukranian fighters when you trace them to their twitter origin.

Finally, the simple fact is Russia has a lot more combat and other vehicles and is on the offensive, while Ukraine has comparatively few and is mostly defending. The ones moving around in large convoys of armored combat vehicles is vastly and disproportionally the Russians.

Again, the Ukrainian MoD track record of mostly verifiable accurate claims to date through the war bolsters their credibility as a point of fact. There is simply no grounds to doubt Oryx's count/index of destroyed Russian vehicles in Ukraine. Again, it would be crazy to think we had a photo on the internet of every destroyed Russian vehicle in the war. At the very best 1 photo for every 1.5 vehicles, and even that would be rather unlikely as somewhere closer to 2 is more likely with a potential of even 3 vehicles for every 1 photo we have. And a ratio of about 2 vehicles to 1 photo would mean that Ukrainians MoD claims for Russian vehicles destroyed is more or less right on the money per Oryx's visual index. And again by extension this, and the Ukranian MoD generally good track record for accuracy thus far, means their claims of 13,000+ Russian dead/casualties, whichever it was, is extremely credible. And that fact should be reflect better in this article. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

even that is what the site says (but the commenters even find duplicate images). and this is similar with all other numbers and estimates. yes, tanks are easier to tell apart, as well as some types of light vehicles and transports/freighters, and if there are casualties form one of the involved sides associated with it, more can be believable. but how do you differentiate, for example, a BMP-1/2, BTR, BRDM, with little or no modification just for an exterior photo (some of its major modifications are internal)? How can you confirm or count the equipment and weapons that the Russian army captures or recovers in its advance? neither they nor anyone is publishing photos and serial numbers. Again, drawings and marks made a posteriori (not from the factory or officers of a combat unit) cannot be taken as reliable evidence, since anyone can do it. The numbers closest to reality may be known at the end, whatever it may be, when the dust settles, in some investigation on the subject. For now, all the numbers in all cases are estimates, manipulated information or pure disinformation. such as the cases of friendly fire, missfire, accidents, false flags, and so on that have been seen, which may only be known in detail later. right now I prefer to go with the US estimates, even despite the bias they surely have. 152.207.223.3 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is nonexistent. First you can cast all the poorly reasoned doubt on Oryx's visual index you like, but that still does not change that it is the best source we have as it is the only one providing first hand evidence from a neutral source being worked on by at least 2 people with experience doing this going back to the Syrian Civil war. Not their first rodeo. "but how do you differentiate, for example, a BMP-1/2", many different ways, probably well over 60% of the destroyed vehicles still have paint or other give away markings that make them Russian, or will have other vehicles less destroyed from the same post of images showing it was part of Russian convoy, also the nature of the destroyed vehicle often tells you what it was destroyed by, like a Javelin or NLAW. Other has discarded Russian MRE, combat gear/clothing, or bodies. Hell, roughly 1/3rd of more of vehicles are obviously Russian since they are intact and were abandoned. And again, after 32 years of independent modification most of these can readily be told apart and Ukraine has a variety of its own unique BTR models while Russia has developed many of its own variants over the last 32 years. In reality the vehicles which they even really 'share' that could be confused for one over the other is fraction of the total vehicles on Oryx's visual index. Indeed even scrolling down the list and paying attention to the flags you'd notice over 50% of the list has a RUSSIAN flag and not a soviet flag because that model/variant did not exist during Soviet times. Your entire argument either shows a lack of understanding and careful examination of Oryx's visual index or just lack of understanding on the topic in general. I will again say no issue you have with the visual index is a substitute for not having a better first hand source of evidence you can cite in an argument regarding which casualty figures are most accurate. The visual index supports the Ukranian MoD figures for vehicles destroyed; by extension of that and their strong track record of other credible claims thus far their figure of over 13,500 Russians dead is most accurate and should be reflected in the Info box or in the actual table instead of buried like footnote while blatant Russian state lies are 3 times more prominently featured in the article. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I see no valid reason for the Ukrainian-sourced casualties to be censored from the article. Its mentioned above that they are in the casualty section, but I just checked and if it is, it's hidden. I can understand not cluttering the infobox with every vehicle claimed, but the total KIA should be included, especially if Russia's #s are. As it stands at the time of writing this, they are claiming around 12k and upper bound from US officials is 8k. It's relevant. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 04:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Its in the very first paragraph of the section, bellow the table, and the latest claim of 13,500 losses is stated. EkoGraf (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's buried in the paragraph, 4th sentence in, and omitted from the table above, on top of being removed from the infobox. It's a really bad look if this is by design. Like its been said, its in a place very few people would look. It took me multiple tries to even find it by glancing. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 02:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The info box should have both the Russian and Ukrainian estimates, not the US ones. After all it's just Russia and Ukraine doing the fighting. Burying the Ukrainian estimate in the body of the text whilst showing an outdated US estimate just hides it from a casual reader of this article. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 09:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As a 3rd party the US estimate is actually considered a more reliable source than a claim made by one of the belligerents, especially of their enemies losses. Also, the US makes fairly regular updates (every week or so), while Ukraine actually made no updates to Russian casualties for eight days, nor their own for more than two weeks. In addition, RS have been provided where it has been analyzed that both Russian and Ukrainian claims are not considered reliable. In any case, we have provided a link in the infobox, per talk page discussions, towards the other casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Because the US is a 3rd party its estimates are completely inferior to an actual first hand visual index of Russian losses like https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html. That visual index best supports the Ukrainians figures. This is just fact from the best neutral source we have with the most direct firsthand evidence. Nothing from the US or any other source can be considered more informed than a first hand visual index of Russian losses since you literally have no idea to what extent they have access to information, their methodology, or the resources they are even allocating to the task. Meanwhile, you can't really argue with photographs and videos that are verified to be new and in Ukraine. It is ridiculous that the article effectively hides the most accurate figures supported by first hand evidence and gives such prominence to clearly false figures that have no support of their own. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Its in the very first paragraph of the section, bellow the table, and the latest claim of 13,500 losses is stated"

So it is stated somewhere almost no one would ever look; I literally had to alt-F '13,500' to find it. Not not in the info box where it should be even though it is the best figure given by any source actually supported by an index of photo evidence. As the most credible number it belongs in the info box. If not that in the table in the casualties section. Not buried in a paragraph 3 pages down the article squished between two tables neither of which it is on. This article simply paints a false view of the actual numbers by refusing to readily provide the accurate numbers while unduly giving prominence to the most bogus ridiculous numbers being given by Russia. By all means, report the Russian given figures somewhere, while making them clear to be Russian state figures, but the info box and article overall should not compromise accuracy for unreasonable neutrality. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Mmm... yes. If I were looking for information on casualties, I'd never think to check the section entitled 'Casualties'. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have to go digging into paragraphs in the casualties section to get the actual most accurate and real casualty figures for any war wiki article EXCEPT this one. Every other such article you can use the info box for the best figures. Not here apparently.

Indeed, in other war wiki articles you would read the casualties section if you wanted more info on the best figures that are given in the info box in addition to other figures that are generally less accepted. Here it is backwards, you get the worse figures in the info box while you have to go on reading 3 pages down between 2 tables to realize the actual most accurate figures are placed in some obscure spot the majority of people will not see it when they casually scroll the article. Even looking for it I didn't see it since it wasn't in the Info Box or Tables. And I was not the only one as other people have said themselves. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

End of discussion copied from #The removed Russians Casualties per UA MoD were the most accurate ones based on actual Evidence. Please continue.

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

I agree reporting multiple sources bloats the info box while obscuring the facts. Report the most accurate estimate for each side, and list the rationale and sources in the casualty section if people want more info. As it stands the info box has some of the worst/most inaccurate sources while being bloated and confusing with different casualty sources often saying radically different things. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

RS have been provided where it has been analyzed that both Russian and Ukrainian claims (as belligerents) are not considered reliable. And there is an ongoing discussion to potentially cite only 3rd party RS estimates in the infobox, while expanding on the belligerents' claims in the casualties section. We have also provided a link in the infobox, per talk page discussions, towards the other casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The assertion that Ukrainian sources are the "most accurate" for either their own or Russian losses and the basis for making this assertion is wandering deep into WP:OR. WP:RS specifically deals with independence of sources. Neither belligerent sources are independent. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is a summary an not everything. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The only real assertion is that Oryx's visual index, a neutral source with experience in what they do going back years, is the best first hand source of what the real scale of the losses are. Any other source is merely words with zero methodology, reasoning, or facts of any kind regards who it is from. As far as I can see that is an irrefutable fact. The photographic evidence is going to win vs tweets by some US gov channel from the other side of the planet from the conflict with no evidence or info of any kind for its basis. It just so happens Oryx's visual index best supports the Ukrainian MoD's claims for Russian casualties unless somehow people think the website has managed to get OVER 1 photo of every 1.6 Russian vehicles destroyed. Also, taking note of the fact Ukrainian official MoD claims have a strong track record of being relatively accurate thus far in the war does make them a reliable source on the topic as a simple fact without bias being a factor. It is basic inductive reasoning at this point. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It is basic inductive reasoning at this point. = WP:OR But, the current Oryx figure is 1380 v Ukraine (2741) - nearly twice. The US figure of 7,000+ v Ukraine 13,500 (killed as of 7 March per table in article) has the same order of difference (ie about two times). Guess that just blew that argument out of the water. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting in a warzone with operational security measures for people in the military, and where civilians don't go outside very often and are being evacuated from high intensity conflict zones, that we would have a photo of every destroyed vehicle in the conflict in real time? Because that is what you would basically have to be suggesting to say that the Ukrainians MoD figures are not the ones best supported by the Oryx visual index. Keeping in mind almost all the photos are up close of people walking up to destroyed vehicles only after fighting has well died down in that location and that many areas of Ukraine are experiencing internet blackouts so cannot upload such media. Even the lowest ratio I can feasibly imagine, that of about 1 photo for every 1.5 vehicles destroyed, would yield a figure of 2,130 vehicles as of Orxy's most recent figure of 1420 vehicles, IE even with the lowest realistic ratio 1.5 to 1 ratio Oryx still would support the Ukrainian MoD claims being 77.71% accurate which would clearly be superior to any other figure provided by any source on the page. Never mind a more realistic ratio of 2 to 1 would basically mean Ukrainian MoD claims are effectively right on the money. The ratio could well be 3 to 1 or more and certainly that is vastly more likely than it being below 1.5 to 1. I seriously cannot fathom how you or anyone can think anything was remotely 'blown out of the water' by any stretch of the imagination. You basically have to submit a rational argument for why it is reasonable to believe we have MORE THAN 1 photo for every 1.5 Russian vehicles destroyed which given all the reasons listed above it is extremely unlikely either you nor anyone will ever be able to do persuasively. Really the damaging outlandish aspect to any argument you or anyone makes against the accuracy of the Ukranians numbers relative to Oryx's visual index is that WE DO NOT need some crazy high ratio of photos to actual destroyed vehicles to prove them correct, and indeed the Ukrainian claims could actually be low by the standards of actual lost equipment relative to real time internet photos of said lost equipment in any other conflict thus far in the digital age. People are simply not paying proper import the scale of destruction of Russian forces we are seeing in photographic evidence which even without years of aggregation of older conflicts is surpassing the catalogue of photographic evidence of virtually every other conflict I can think of in terms of destroyed vehicles and equipment sans maybe WWII and we are only in the 3rd week. Take for example Oryx's visual documentation of ISIS tanks in 2014; we know ISIS had about 109 tanks at one point or another. Oryx's only managed to visually index 35, less than 1 in 3, or about 32.11%. I'm in fact being CONSERVATIVE when I suggest the ratio is to 2 to 1 in Ukraine. Even by that CONSERVATIVE estimate the Ukrainian figures are clearly the most accurate. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could ever debate otherwise, much less ever think they could blow anything here 'out of the water' in any convincing manner whatsoever. The figures in this article must change to lend proper weight to the most accurate figures and less prominently feature some of the most offensively bogus numbers that instead somehow get to sit in the info box to misinform every casual reader of the article. To the benefit of the Russian state I might add as it helps to obscure the true cost of the war from Russians readers. 172.91.72.97 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary of TLDNR discussion moved here (the discussion has continued since it was initially moved): The gist of the main proponent is that the Ukrainian figures are the most accurate for human casualties. Their rational is based on an asserted correlation for equipment losses between Ukrainian reports and reports in an Oryx article. They would assert that the Ukrainian equipment loss figures (for both sides) are "accurate" and therefore, that the Ukrainian figures for human casualties (both sides) are the most accurate. Much of the discussion has digressed to a discussion of equipment losses with a main opponent questioning the "accuracy" of the Oryx source. One editor notes that a third-party source is considered more reliable. One would only use belligerent sources. There is a reference to "burying" information in the article and another that would support Ukrainian claims of Russian casualties be in the infobox (with a reference to censorship). One observes they would go to the "casualties" section. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Source: came across this article: Why is it so hard to get accurate death tolls in the Russia-Ukraine war? that starts: Despite the world’s attention being focused on Russia’s catastrophic invasion of Ukraine, key information still remains unclear⁠—in particular, the numbers of people who have been killed. I am not a subscriber so I can't see more but I would guess that the thesis of the article is Fog of war. If anybody has fuller access, they might give some more detail. It is probably relevent to this discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why barely even mentioned : I get that some people here mistrust or want to hide the UA official claims but at this point they're close to completely removed. Not just in the infobox but also here : 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties_and_humanitarian_impact , it's barely glimpsed over as if to borderline hide it . Meanwhile there's claims of some old 'consensus' to keep them out yet I haven't seen a proper vote on the matter. If self-reporting is completely off the tables then I suggest we also remove it from the following articles :

2016_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict

Kargil_War

Eritrean–Ethiopian War

Tigray War

etc etc .

Why am I sounding disingenuous ? Because it seems deliberately hidden .It's one thing to not post a single side's numbers but it's a completely different thing to borderline completely removed that side's claim , especially when there's already the precedent of self-claims to be available in the infobox. Romdwolf (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason why the numbers where removed from the table was because the person who added them (i.e. me) was unaware of the local consensus of the casualties article, which is where that table came from (it was not part of this article, just included). EkoGraf copied the table into this article and hence was able to add the UA numbers back in as of a few hours ago. Phiarc (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with images

Summary

• Various WP:P&G touch on the use of images generally and specifically in an infobox/lead.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: The infobox is also often the location of the most significant, even only, image in an article.
• Wikipedia:Image use policy: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Also: The lead image in an infobox should not impinge on the default size of the infobox. - though this mainly deals with width.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. And: It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.

• For the initial life of the article, the map was the sole image until a collage was added. (I don't recall any specific discussion re this though there have been some minor changes to the overall collage.)
• In mobile devices, the collage presents as individual images that "stack" and significantly add to the infobox length. Some experiments have been made to change this but without success.
• Examples where the images don't stack, it is because the image is actually a single image file, rather than a collection of image files.
• It has been observed that the map is a more important image than the collage (ie it should be retained over use of the collage).
• Comments would generally reduce the number of images (or their captions) - even down to a single image.

Even though the WP:P&G wasn't raised through the preceding discussion, I thought it appropriate to add. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

About images... Never been a fan of the collage approach because we end up with lots of small images instead of one image that is clearly visible. Kind of like collages in city articles.... mini images are useless on a phone... that now represent 70% of our viewership....they also cause a scrolling nightmare losing us readers. Here's a similar discussion COVID-19 info box images RfC.Moxy- 03:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Moxy, I'm also not a fan of the collage. Go with the map only. - wolf 17:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment With reference to the images in the collage, none of the images meet with P&G on images generally and in the infobox specifically. At best, they tell us we have arrived at a page about a war but not which one. Compare this with the image at Normandy landing, which one could describe as iconic. I doubt we could find an image rising to this level. The collage is therefore largely aesthetic. It is also problematic for mobile users per above. Even on a PC, it takes about one-third of a screen for no particularly useful purpose. I could live with an image that was one row of the collage, taking the same height it does presently and constructed as a single file so that it doesn't stack when displayed on mobile devices. I don't disagree with Moxy and Thewolfchild WRT size and ability to see detail but I don't know if it matters that much if there purpose is purely aesthetic. I would support no photo images because of the size they add without any significant value (per P&G). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Removed collage based on rough consensus here and in main thread. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think leaving just the map is fine. If we need an "iconic" image though, the strongest candidate I can put forth for now is something from c:Category:2022 Russian Invasion Z-shaped markings on military vehicles. AFAIK these markings on military vehicles are uniquely associated with this topic. --N8 11:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

N8wilson, I appreciate your comment but let's see where this goes before we start preempting which images we use. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, not preempting; just good faith discussion. If indeed we want to see where this goes I think it's productive to explore the possibility that an iconic image might be available to improve the article - a la Normandy landing as you pointed out above. --N8 12:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

N8wilson, as I said, "I appreciate your comment". but it is almost WP:BEANS. Hope that makes sense. :) Cinderella157 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

minsk 2 agreement any insights?

any insights on the minsk 2 agreement 92.28.21.114 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're looking for general thoughts, the place to ask is the reference desk. Regarding this article, it might be helpful to note that Minsk II was seen as generally unfavourable to Ukraine, and neither side upheld it. The problem is space constraints in our already compact and information-dense background section. Currently the two Minsk agreements are lumped together for simplicity, which works reasonably well. Jr8825 • Talk 20:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Casualty section of article and table

At present, the casualty section of the article tabulates some of the casualty figures using particular sources, while additional information is provided in prose. It would be better balance (IMHO) if the prose material was incorporated into the table but I'm not great with tables. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What information in the prose do you wish incorporated into the table? How would you like it to appear? Fieari (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically all of the information in the paragraph immediately following the table could be tabulated. If it helps, the start date in all cases is 24 Feb, so it could be placed in the column heading instead of being repeated in each cell. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to the belligerent's claims of their enemies losses, the table is part of the casualties article, which is written based on a compromise solution reached between editors at the start of the war back in 2014, where it was agreed that only 3rd party sourced and self-admitted casualty figures would be included in the infobox of the war's article and the casualties table, while belligerent claims of their enemies losses would be mentioned in prose due to the high possibility of propaganda. EkoGraf (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

EkoGraf, we are not talking about the infobox here but the table at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Casualties. It makes no sense for some of the casualty figures to be reported in the table and some figures to be reported in prose. I don't know if I am a fan of the table being linked from Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. If anything, it should be the other way around. As that article would state at Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, This is the main article for the 2022 invasion - and for the reporting of casualties. A local consensus elsewhere might guide us but does not bind us. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157, and I was referring to both the 2014-present war's infobox and the tables of the 2014-present war's casualties article to which the 2014 editor consensus is applied. I did not say that consensus also applies to the 2022-invasion article (a guideline as you say maybe). As for the 2022-present invasion infobox and tables, there is a rough consensus regarding the infobox for it to be cut down, with claims of enemy losses already being moved to the casualties section and some editors currently advocating that self-admitted losses be also delegated to the casualties section, leaving only 3rd party (US) figures in the infobox, with a link to see other estimates in the casualties section. As for the table, I did not link the table from the 2014-present casualties article to the main invasion article here, that was someone else. If you want to create a table specifically for the main invasion article's casualty section, including all of the various claims, I have no objection IF other editors also agree. EkoGraf (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I think I understood your previous well enough. If my brevity was construed as censure, there was no such intention. I certainly did not think that you had linked the table. As you note, this table and the infobox are separate issues. However, as I am reading the above comments above (the infobox discussion), cross-reporting by belligerents in the article body should not be obscured but having some of it in the table and some in prose firstly, doesn't make a lot of sense and, secondly, tends to obscure what is in text where all of it could be summarised most effectively in the table. I would read that there is already a rough consensus to amend the table as I have indicated (above discussion). Indeed, I thought that it had happened but instead, it was added as prose. I now understand why as the table is linked so the addition isn't so straight forward (no criticism intended). The first step is to either reverse the link (per my previous) or sever the link - but I would think the former best unless there is push-back from the other article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157, considering the casualties article falls under the 2014 discussion consensus as the general article for the 2014-present war, I would suggest to sever the link in the invasion article and make a table specifically for the casualties section of the invasion article, including all of the various claims, if all the other editors agree. EkoGraf (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I would suggest WP:BRD for a reversal of the link and severing if there is then push-back. As you say, the old consensus for the 2014 article is for the infobox, not the article body and there is already a rough consensus here. Let's see if we get other comments here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157, the 2014 consensus was for both the 2014-present war infobox and the tables in the casualties article which was created in response to the start of the 2014-present war, with the belligerent's claims of their enemies losses being delegated to the article text and expanded on in prose. I will create a new table for this invasion article here to include all claims. EkoGraf (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. EkoGraf (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

Outdated information Shekishek (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please specify a SPECIFIC change you would like made, and provide references as appropriate. Fieari (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

NATO should be added as supporters of Ukraine

See /FAQ, Q2.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Supported by NATO[a][1] European Union[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.217.225 (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (3)

You should change the map and include Mariupol in the south since it has been captured. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-60774819

• That source doesn't say Mariupol was captured. It says Russian troops have reached the city center and are still fighting. That is very different than captured. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army

(UPA) is nationalists. It's "Ukraina for Ukrainians" they say about themselves. Are they ultranationalists or just nationalists? I mean if they are welcoming to other people from other countries with other color and not racistic? (OUN) is mentioned in their history, but seam to not be anything alike them. --92.40.174.72 (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any such comment may be removed or refactored. If you request a edit to the article, please make your request clear and concise, preferably with reliable sources. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 15:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC) —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 15:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"Propaganda"

LMAO why don't you guys have a section of Ukrainian/NATO propaganda? This article is so completely one-sided. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:85EE:CAC9:C115:A8A9 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Provide some RS talking about it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

While doing that, please see WP:SOURCE. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 15:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you please shorten and de-clutter your signature ? Pixius talk 16:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There needs to be mention of Ukrainian propaganda for sure. Outright lies like the garrison of Snake Island dying to the last man, and the Ghost of Kiev would be a start.174.0.48.147 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

As for "reliable sources", well that's the conundrum isn't it. Countries at war tell lies as a matter of course. It's their job. This opinion piece at the National Review tells us Ukraine is doing as good a job as anyone at waging a propaganda war. https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/ukraines-historic-propaganda-war/ Obviously, there will be no "reliable source" about Ukrainian efforts because the war is still going and the western media is actively supporting the Ukrainian side. It would be wise to remove claims of Russian propaganda or at least concede that both sides are doing it, because the article as constituted implies that everything Russia says is a lie but everything Ukraine says is supported by fact, which often isn't the case.174.0.48.147 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You need a reliable source for that. We can't just add things without evidence. Sans9k (Talk) 17:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCE are fighting each other on this article. As the English-speaking community is mostly Western and WP:RSP is tailored accordingly, the article inevitably leans toward the Ukrainian/Wester viewpoint and is overall nicely aligned with en.Wikipedia's reference geopolitical block. On the other side, NPOV would require from us to be as detached, balanced and unbiased as possible, which in case of a war is almost impossible. References to WP:RSP run the risk of avoiding that commitment of ours towards neutrality. One wonders if a different approach would be possible - a way of coupling WP:NPOV with WP:SOURCE and deliver an account which is rich of contents, reliable and yet different from what anyone reads in the morning paper. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason why we are limited to Anglophone sources. It is true that most editors of English Wikipedia speak primarily English but if there is an independent reliable source in Russian speaking about Ukrainian propaganda, then yes, we can most certainly include it.

I suspect the OP of this discussion deems anything that isn't in line with Russian state media as propaganda, but if a good faith Russian speaker wished to put together prose sourced from independent reliable sources in Russian language, there would be no reason why such prose would not be accepted. Melmann 07:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "indepenendent" sources? Stop pretending that Wikipedia supports independent sources when virtually all of your "reliable sources" are Western corporate/state media, which everyone (incuding Americans themselves) know are generally American deep state propaganda. You're no better than the Russians. I think this is a systemic problem with Wikipedia as a whole rather than isolated to this article, where your definition of "reliability" is basically equivalent to "what Western elites think". But for this particular article Wikipedia's decision to be one-sided is frankly just dangerous. It is a disservice to the Ukrainians for this site to ignore things like the Ghost of Kiev/Snake Island propaganda. Ukrainians deserve the truth.2001:569:57B2:4D00:E033:E427:5656:B63 (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place to complain about longstanding core Wikipedia Policies. This page is only for discussing improvements to this article based on existing policy. If you want to recommend changes to policy there are other places to do that but if all you want to do is rant about them, then contributing to Wikipedia probably isn't for you. Cakelot1 (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It's really cute when Wikipedia editors link to their policy pages so fervently when an outsider comes in to discuss their ludicrously written articles (which, mind you, are so egregiously written that the founder of the site Larry Sander himself was forced to speak up). Here's a crazy thought: why don't you consider thinking for yourself for a change instead of Bible-thumping your "policies"? This is evidently too much for Wikipedians to bear. Your project is on a decline, and everyone knows it. Openly and shamelessly promulgating the war propaganda of NATO and Ukraine, without even a half-assed attempt at pseudo-neutrality like you sometimes try, is really just cementing this fact. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:E033:E427:5656:B63 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I've heard of this "Larry Sander" and apparently he's a complete crackpot. EEng 23:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of your views on Wikipedia's policies, this is not the place to be discussing them. Kotobdev 19:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Has anybody else noticed that as the war has progressed, that the number of broadcasts that President Zelenskyy has made have actually increased and been transmitted live from different venues, and that the number of broadcasts made by President Putin have actually decreased, are pre-recorded and almost always have the same background? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

NATO support not listed

NATO supports Ukrainian side with weapons, equipment and machinery. Why does Belarus appear as Russia support but NATO does not in Belligerents? On other war articles, countries supporting with armament are listed as support (like USSR did many times). Definitely one sided article. 95.169.234.196 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a thorough discussion of that available here which might help: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#RfC:_Should_the_individual_arms_supplying_countries_be_added_to_the_infobox? --N8 02:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Voznesensk

Just wrote a draft for the Battle of Voznesensk, a battle that reportedly took place north-west of Mykolaiv and was covered by The Wall Street Journal. Would appreciate if some of y'all could take a look at it and/or help polish it up a bit. Thought it was rather important because of the strategic value that the defense held, as it stopped a Russian advance in the western Ukraine and likely stopped the Russians from seizing the neighboring power plant. --LeukonTheBosporan (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I can help edit/make suggestions. So if you need some help, you can message me on my talk page, or the Draft's talk page. For example: After a quick glance at the article, make sure you use inline citations frequently, especially after any quotes or contentious material, and to ensure text—source integrity. See: WP:INTEGRITY and WP:INTEXT for more info. And I found WP:CITEBUNDLE to be extremely helpful when there is multiple citations at the end of an text (especially when you want the text to be easy to read).Also, make sure you cite your sources properly. This is explained at WP:CS. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 00:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

LeukonTheBosporan Done. EkoGraf (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this article should have a link to that article, or at least to a page that itself links to that article. Would it make sense to mention Voznesensk e.g. in the Southern Front section of this article, with a wikilink? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

typo in "Sanctions and economic ramifications" -> Airspace

Turkey invoked the "Montreux convention" and not the "Montreaux" convention.

See extract :

«Turkey invoked the Montreaux Convention on 28 February and sealed off the Bosporus to Russian warships not registered on Black Sea home bases and not returning to their ports of origin, rejecting passage of four Russian naval vessels through the Turkish Straits.[498][499]» Aabizri (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done (diff). Elli (talk | contribs) 22:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

South Africa blames NATO for provoking Russia

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/south-africas-ramaphosa-blames-nato-russias-war-ukraine-2571631

Please edit the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ09012011 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

As a top level article, that is a bit too detailed. This information might be better suited in the Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. Fieari (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@JJ09012011 Can you please be more specific about what changes you'd like to make and where? Depending on the changes, you might also consider editing or discussing your changes at these articles: Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis --N8 02:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-War Committee of Russia

I recently created a draft for the Anti-War Committee of Russia. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-War Committee of Russia

I recently created a draft for the Anti-War Committee of Russia. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

UKRAINE GETTING SUPPORT FROM US, EU. WHY IS IT NOT MENTIONED?

UKRAINE IS NOT ALONE FIGHTING THE WAR, COUNTRIES LIKE USA AND EU SUPPORTS THE WAR AND IS SUPPLYING WITH LETHAL WEAPONS, IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED THAT USA AND EU IS SUPPORTING UKRAINE IN THE WAR. 103.101.213.28 (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned here: List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War which is also linked from the section "Foreign military involvement" in this article but if you're wondering specifically about the infobox, that was discussed previously in Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. --N8_wilson 05:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned also in this article here: "Reactions" > "International organisations" > "European Union". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (4)

Update the internally displaced people in the infobox from 1.85 million to 6.48 million. Source here.Matthewberns (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I second that there are now numerous RS stating the internally displaced people are over 6M (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian refugees in other EU States ...

You should add other EU States which Are receiving Ukrajina refugees. For example Czech republic has receiver more than 270 000 ukrainians (mostly children And womans). Italy And France Also received some , ... Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:9193:A92E:B7:7317:D7C3:5E8A (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is already quite large, so there's a separate article for that at Ukrainian refugee crisis, which is linked from here at 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Refugees. Storchy (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

However, the way it's worded in this article could easily be interpreted as meaning the countries listed (in the middle of the last paragraph of the refugees section) are the only ones with refugees, which is incorrect. To improve this, I suggest changing "in specific nations" to "in some specific nations", or some other way to make clear that there are also other countries involved. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Animated map updated but description not

The animated map has been updated to march 20, however the text beneath it says: "Animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 4 March". It should change from 'Animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 4 March' to 'Animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 20 March' This text should probably be updated every time the animated map is updated.

[link to the map ]

If I did anything wrong in this request, or there is anything I can do better, I appreciate critique since I am quite new to the world of wikipedia edits.

Speederzzz (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 12:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (5) info box commanders

Woefully amateur info box listing the commanders as only Putin and Zelenskyy.

Add these under Zelenskyy.

Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskyi. He's head of the Ukrainian Army.

Serhiy Shaptala. He's Chief of Staff for the armed forces.

Charliestalnaker (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

We're all amateurs here, right? This was discussed previously here. Consensus was for just Putin and Zelenskyy. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus is that the article must reflect who is listed in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Energy sources

I got this about Russian energy sources https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russias-energy-clout-doesnt-just-come-from-oil-and-gas-its-also-a-key-nuclear-supplier-2832494 Almost forgot about nukes https://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/598825-us-thinks-russia-would-lean-into-nuclear-threat-as-invasion-drags Persesus (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Got this from NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/world/europe/ukraine-russia-nuclear-war.html Persesus (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons are not "energy sources" per se. 50.111.16.144 (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

4 chinese students killed

can someone edit the casuality list to include 4 chinese students killed, i dont have ability to. here is the source: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4461836 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YipB (talk • contribs) 14:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I looked this up, and I found an article that states that this did not actually happen. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3169315/ukraine-crisis-no-chinese-students-killed-kharkiv-clashes I'm not sure what the truth is here, so I think it should not be added, at least yet. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Indian student claimed to be killed in the same attack was actually killed while attempting to buy food. https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2022/03/01/friend-naveen-shekharappa-indian-student-killed-ukraine-recalls-ordeal.html Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Allegedly, anyway. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh no Persesus (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Update on the students

https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3169315/ukraine-crisis-no-chinese-students-killed-kharkiv-clashes Persesus (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/evacuation-03042022100422.html/ampRFA Persesus (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

War of aggression

This entire section has become a hot mess of WP:OR and WP:FORUM, and is obviously not going to lead to any content developments. If there's actually a content issue that needs discussing, starting again from scratch in a new section with a tightly focused question is more likely to be productive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There'll be inevitably be a discussion on this, so I figured I might as well start it. Sandstein added the wording, with sourcing, and I subsequently qualified it with "internationally considered", as Russia claims (counter-factually, to my understanding) that it isn't a war of aggression. There are a few questions which follow from this. Should "war of aggression" be stated in wikivoice without qualification or attribution (i.e. is there no serious dispute about this among reliable source that it is a war of aggression)? Do countries' official stances/positions on this matter (for example, if China echoes its ally Russia and says there were legitimate defensive reasons, can we safely ignore these statements)? Is this a legal accusation (in which case, is additional caution needed)? What have the UN's courts already said (if I recall correctly, one has already ordered Russia to withdraw)? Thoughts welcome. Jr8825 • Talk 21:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, it is a legal accusation, as the article we are relying upon and verbatim quoting (by a former US ambassador on "Council on Foreign Relations") makes clear: "Russia's invasion of Ukraine constitutes the crime of aggression under international law". And yes, the fact that Russia, China, perhaps India, South Africa and sectors of Western public opinion think that Nato's policy of enlargement has much contributed to the crisis – that is also relevant. While there is a substantial international consensus that this war is contrary to international law (and we could write on this, in a self-standing section or article, based on solid scholarly sources which are already available), we should avoid expressions like "war of aggression", "false accusations", etc., which only convey that we are fully aligned with the Western view: what about Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, were they preventive or aggressive wars? Echoing the value judgments of the Western media as if they were the Perennially reliable source of Truth is a way of endangering the collaborative potential of a transnational project such as this. And it is useless: not conducive to peace nor to critical understanding of others' viewpoints (that is, knowledge). We should rather think about how could we combine our commitment to WP:RS and to WP:NPOV under the present circumstances. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Preventive war occurs in connection with a real threat. A hypothetical threat isn't grounds for the use of force. Enlargement of the NATO is a hypothetical threat because the admission of new members does not necessarily mean that territory of these new members will be used for an imminent attack on Russia (Baltic States have been members of NATO since 2004 but the territory of these states is not still used for the placement of group of forces capable of threaten the existence of Russian statehood). Thus, there was no real threat in this case, and therefore Russia didn't have a legal ground for the use of forces against Ukraine. The conclusion is simple - it's war of aggression. The discussion about Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya isn't relevant, otherwise let's talk about First Soviet-Finnish War and other wars of conquest fought by Russia for the last 300 years. K8M8S8 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC) @Jr8825, thanks for starting the discussion. I did not qualify the characterization as a war of aggression because my impression is that it is an assessment universally shared by scholars of international law, and indeed now also the International Court of Justice. The opinions of those with a vested interest - such as the parties to the conflict and their allies - isn't what we base our articles on, nor is the political opinion of various countries and politicians, although it might be noted in a more detailed section about the legality of the war. We base our articles on the consensus of reliable scholarly sources, and I'm not aware of any who is of the view that this is not a war of aggression. Sandstein 07:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC) This is not a place for some resurrected Cold War propaganda machine. This is an encyclopedia. Russia got support for actions from numerous countries, minority of countries imposed sanctions also. If it is claimed that it is aggressive war counter opinions should be noted at least. Or qualifications especially "legal" to be removed all together especially considering to it is the lead section.109.93.126.5 (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Serbia is one of the very few countries "supporting" Russia, it's traditional ally. The vast weight of evidence shows this article to be very fair and well-documented.50.111.16.144 (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC) The paragraph 2 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 of 2 March 2022 states: "Deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in violation of Article 2 (4) of the Charter". What more sources do you need? Yes, United Nations General Assembly resolutions are not binding, but it does not have a significance in the context of the article. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a court. The fact of condemnation by the vast majority of world community, which considers it an agression, is enough. K8M8S8 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC) @K8M8S8. That source doesn't do the job and it shows the problem with the "war of aggression" label: it creates misunderstanding, which we should avoid. International law distinguishes between "act of aggression" and "war (or crime) of aggression". Acts of aggression are defined in a 1974 resolution of the General Assembly, this one, which according to the ICJ has now become customary international law. Based on that definition there is no doubt that the invasion of Ukraine is an act of aggression - honestly, I don't think that anybody could reasonably deny this. Plus, nobody to my knowledge has yet argued that the invasion of Ukraine is lawful under of UN Charter. So, provided that is is an unlawful act of aggression, the tricky question is: does it qualify as a "war of aggression", which is a war crime defined in Art. 8 bis ICC Rome Statute? By speaking of "war of aggression" we are implicitly answering "yes". And indeed many scholars, commentators and politicians are claiming that it amounts to a crime of aggression (see the sources we quote in the article Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). But the question is not as straightforward as the previous ones (act of aggression / lawful or unlawful) because a crime of aggression is "an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations" (art. 8 bis ICC Rome Statute). The Russian government can provide several arguments that probably we could not quote because they are not published on our reliable sources: aggressions to pro-Russian activists and members of the Russian minority, Ukranian language policy as incipient genocide, failed implementation of the Minsk Agreements, threatening eastward expansion of Nato requiring decisive preventive action, etc. The issue here is legal (and political), not factual. So, as per WP:NPOV and WP:CHRYSTAL, a few references to mainly Western newspapers and blogs do not justify en:Wikipedia anticipating the outcome of a possibly controversial judgement by the ICC, a judgement which perhaps it will take years to deliver. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC) @Gitz6666: International law distinguishes between "act of aggression" and "war (or crime) of aggression". Acts of aggression are defined in a 1974 resolution of the General Assembly – the 1974 resolution you linked doesn't make that distinction, which I suspect is WP:OR (and by that 1974 UN definition, this invasion is clearly an act of aggression). Editors at Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine have already done the work for us and gathered a mountain of sources stating unambiguously that it's a war of aggression (also, see this sourced section which, if correctly verified, contradicts your assertion that the crime and act of aggression are different things). Also, the sourcing calling it such is much stronger than "claims" in "a few references to mainly Western newspapers and blogs", they appear to me to be factual statements in a range of international and scholarly sources. If we can't treat Russia's claims as serious because RS don't, this indicates our answer: we follow what the sources say. Jr8825 • Talk 10:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC) If RS say it is a war of aggression so do we. I am unsure any one disagrees with this except the Russians. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC) No WP:OR here, @Jr8825, you can find plenty of RS on the notion of "crime of aggression", starting from here and here. While there is no doubt that the invasion is an act of aggression, in order for it to qualify as a "war of aggression" (that is, a crime under the ICC Statute) it needs to be "by its character, gravity and scale ... a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations". "War of aggression" is a legal concept, not an empirical one, and if we want to be neutral and objective we should only report that "according to experts (quote) the invasion constitutes a war of aggression". However, "Internationally considered a war of aggression" (as one now reads in the article) is WP:POV, is WP:CHRYSTAL, and it is also likely to be false. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC) "According to experts, the invasion constitutes a war of aggression" would be fine by me. Jr8825 • Talk 11:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC) I now realize what you mean. The topic is titled "War of aggression" but you say that not each war of aggression is a crime of aggression. Ok. I think it's clear that 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the war of aggression. As for crime of aggression, let me provide my views on this matter: 1. According to the articles 353 and 354 of the Criminal Code of Russia, the planning, preparation, outbreak of war of aggression, waging such war and calls for such war are most serious crimes with no statute of limitations. There are no exceptions. Any war of aggression is the crime under Russian law. Of course, Vladimir Putin will not be punished by Russian authorities, because 2020 amendments to the Constitution of Russia gave him absolute lifelong immunity from prosecution even in the case of impeachment. However, it doesn't change the fact of the commission of the crime. 2. According to the article 8bis of the Rome Statute, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the crime of war, without a doubt. Just see paragraph 2 of the article. Furthermore, we need to consider the stated objectives of the invasion, namely, "demilitarization" and "denazification" of Ukraine, together with Putin's article titled "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians". It is absolutely clear that Putin denies the right of Ukrainians to be self-sufficient nation, the right of Ukraine to pursue an independent policy and protect its own interests. The features of initial plan of the operation indicate that Putin aims to take whole Ukraine under his control. When the war had just begun Russian officials stated that Russia would prosecute Ukrainian senior officials for "their crimes". Thus, unlike the Annexation of Crimea and War in Donbas (which are illegal too), this invasion is not simple border conflict or territorial dispute; the true purpose of this invasion is the liquidation of the real Ukrainian statehood. Putin wants to make Ukraine his puppet state and Ukrainians his slaves. It doesn't just violate the paragraph 4 of the article 2 of the UN Charter, it goes against the fundamental principles of international law. So, of course, it's crime of aggression. 3. As for Putin's narrative about "enlargement of NATO, neonazi, etc.", I must say that: 1) this narrative is false and manipulative; 2) anyway, this narrative isn't legal grounds for the use of forces against sovereign state in the absence of United Nations Security Council resolution, and the invasion can’t be qualified as self-defense because there was no real threat (and we can talk about real military threat only, not hypothetical) to Russian security. 4. The problem is that Russia signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but withdrawn its signature in 2016, and, of course, will not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. But universal jurisdiction has not been canceled. Conclusion: this war of aggression is the crime of aggression but Vladimir Putin would be punished for that crime only in the case of the fall of his regime or in the case of Russia’s military defeat and unconditional capitulation. And the article Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine already contains aforementioned logic speculations in some manner. K8M8S8 (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC) I think this falls under don't be so open minded your brain falls out. It's not super difficult to look and see whose tanks are on which side of the border. The original research bit here is trying to play internet lawyer with the UN. We're not writing a legal document. We're writing an encyclopedia at about the secondary to undergraduate level. It's not really required to hedge our bets on whether something was like...a "defensive bombing of a hospital" as if the hospital is about to launch it's dreaded navy and air force. No, we don't need diatribes about the evil western media. No, we don't need to square the cosmic ledger because what about Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan. One country attacked another one. Them tanks right there on that other side of the border doesn't require any fortune telling. It's not rocket surgery. GMGtalk 11:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC) References Agreed, but one country attacked another WITHOUT PROVOCATION, to tweak your comment a bit. 50.111.16.144 (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Either way, we try to write the way people speak, that's accessible to the largest audience possible, especially those who speak English as a second language, because we're the largest project and we're writing in the lingua franca. It ain't a defensive war if you're the one rolling divisions across the border. Therefore, in the common way that common people speak, it's an aggressive war. GMGtalk 12:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC) @GreenMeansGo If we are using "war of aggression" in the common way that common people speak, then you argument about "whataboutism" is not convincing: Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan (and Syria, Libya, etc.) were not "defensive" in common parlance as NATO was rolling its divisions across the border (Iraq, Afghanistan), or at least enforcing no flight zones, bombing foreign territory and pursuing regime change, and yet en.Wikipedia didn't label these military interventions "aggressive wars" but rather provided reliable information on the issue of their contested legitimacy. Departing from that fair way of doing things looks WP:NNPOV to me. If, on the other side, we use "war of aggression" in the technical legal meaning, we have plenty of RS stating that the ICC has no jurisdiction over Russia for that crime. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC) If there's a problem with those articles then you should go and fix those articles. There is no shortage of sources calling this aggressive. No, I won't google it for you. I cannot possibly express how much I don't care about some nit picky argument that Russia withdrew it's participation in the ICC in 2016, and so there's some ethereal philosophical sense in which we can't call aggression aggression. It's perfectly fine that we call a spade a spade. Maybe to employ a personal Appalachism that no one will get, to use the good sense God gave a goose. GMGtalk 13:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Actually those articles are perfect as they are. They are based on the assumption that good sense (and good heart) are more or less equally spread across humanity, so that we don't need to do all the thinking and judging for the others: we can provide reliable information on the relevant facts and leave it to them to form their own view as to who is right and who is wrong. There will always be somebody who thinks they see things more clearly than you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC) I'm gonna need you to come down from the philosophical clouds and get over yonder on the ground where folks are bombing hospitals, schools, and apartments. Lemme know when you touch down. GMGtalk 13:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't know you were now editing under such duress. Stay safe Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC) I'm using figurative language. Perhaps I should be more literal. No, I do not presume that the people blowing up a preschool are working with a "good heart". This isn't a children's book where everyone comes out okay and learns a moral. It's the part where a kid gets their face blown off and bleeds out through what used to be their mouth. I'm not sure what part of that leaves room for everyone involved acting in good faith. GMGtalk 15:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Same with the sentiment of stay safe Persesus (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Consensus of reliable sources is that the war is Russian aggression. The same was overwhelmingly affirmed in the UN - only 5 countries voted no against the designation. The above distinction between an "act of aggression" and a "war of aggression" seems both spurious and irrelevant to the matter at hand. The "what about" [list of NATO wars here] is also not relevant. This is the talk page for the article "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" - wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not within this talk page's scope. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)