This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFE/RL: "many Kyrgyz citizens -- in Russia as migrant workers -- have voluntarily joined the Russian military as contractors in return for money or fast-tracked Russian citizenship." https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-russia-invasion-ukraine-fighting/31795637.html
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.
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. (minor edit) Error in the lead: "in an internationally condemned an act of aggression". The "an" before " act of aggression" needs to be removed.
2. Additionally, I think the lead should say the persons, groups, or states who consider this an act of aggression. According to the sources given, this would be the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations, who should be attributed in-text (In My Opinion).
Thanks -- QueenofBithynia ( talk) 12:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Available here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 9#Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox - DownTownRich ( talk) 15:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC:)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there any reliable data what heavy equipment is available to both sides? While there is considerable open source intelligence about confirmed equipment losses, it is obscure e.g. how many tanks participate in the invasion. I think the article would gain from that. -- Rebentisch ( talk) 14:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
From the official Twitter account of the Security Service of Ukraine, translated: https://twitter.com/ServiceSsu/status/1509983294334582793
"The SBU did not provide the media with any official information that cyber-attacks from China were allegedly carried out on the eve of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our military and other resources. The SBU has nothing to do with the findings of The Times. The Security Service of Ukraine does not currently have such data and no investigation is underway."
Chokoladesu ( talk) 12:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I wrote this in my editsum, but whilst the RS does use the word "falsely accused" and the factual basis of the term is relatively well-established, the problem is that the term "falsely accused" is more partisan and accusatory than, for instance, "accused without basis". See WP:PARTISAN -
reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.
The truth is that the language used seems, at least from a semantical standpoint, to be potentially problematic. Augend ( drop a line) 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion it goes against WP guidelines on balancing our language and keeping it neutral.What kind of WP guidelines are you talking about? Renat 10:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
However, using a finger-pointing term like "falsely" to hammer home the point here is both redundant and unencyclopaedic.Why do you think so? And what is your policy based argument? Renat 10:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment It is one thing to be quoting a source (directly or indirectly using non-neutral terms, it is quite another to be writing in non-neutral terms in WP's voice. The lead is a summary of the body. We might state that the allegations are false in the summary if this represents the consensus of opinion in good quality, independent reliable sources. Even then, we should (probably) not be saying this in a WP voice. The body of the text should be showing us that there is such a consensus to show that the allegation can be considered false. We are putting the "falsely accused" in a WP voice before the cart ... analysts have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence ...
. Of the two news sources cited to support this, one doesn't appear to be referring to the opinion of anybody particularly and the second refers to a representatives of an American expatriate Ukranian organisation, an American Jewish organisation and a former American ambassador to Russia. I think that the description of "analysts" is being a little free with the truth. Now, I'm not saying that the allegations are true but it does appear to me that we are probably being a little free with what should be said in a WP voice and
WP:NPOV.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 03:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
we...describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.The proper context of these accusations is that they're false, which you don't dispute, and it's not a NPOV violation to describe them as such. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 16:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
[t]he tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Forgive my pedantry, but the use of the term here is explicitly rejecting a point-of-view. Now- while the existing terminology "falsely accused" may be fine within the current context, the question ought to be framed more so as whether an alternate phrasing may be better. I am of the opinion that the use of a more neutral term, incorporating such language as "without evidence" or "without basis" would be more suitable. Augend ( drop a line) 16:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Vladimir Putin is not a reliable source on nazism in general, or nazism in Ukraine in particular- nobody said he is. I'm pretty sure nobody in this thread has ever claimed Putin's words have any truth value. That said, I am challenging the wording because it (a) provides, at least, the presentation of an NPOV violation & (b) may or may not be a leap of encyclopedic register. For instance, can you give me a single difference between my suggested wording and the extant wording? Why must we use the word "falsely" exactly?
We should follow the Reliable Sources- "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" - we do not, and indeed, probably should not, follow RS' semantics choices verbatim.
For instance with the Gleiwitz incident the article simply states that it was a false flag attack, not that "Germany invaded Poland because it claimed that Poland attacked a german radio tower."- yes, but the term false in that context is a false flag (a well-established term) - it alone is an incomplete clause. It would obviously be appropriate for use in that context. If you are suggesting we call Russia's invasion a false-flag, that is a separate discussion.
"Falsely somewhat implies that there is certainty that those accusations are false"– that's precisely why "false" is appropriate here. There is no reasonable doubt that Putin's accusation that Ukraine is run by Nazis committing genocide against Russian speakers is false. The sources are unanimous and express certainty. Jr8825 • Talk 13:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The claim of Nazis and genocide in Ukraine was also a fiction.[1]
Putin’s claim that Russia is invading Ukraine to denazify it is therefore absurd on its face[2]
Just as they now provided false pretexts for the invasion of Ukraine?[3]
Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism. Your statement that " stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine" is nonsense; the article says or implies nothing of the sort. Your suggestion would have us leave the statement that Ukraine is "dominated by neo-Nazism" unchallenged, only qualifying the persecution bit. "Accuse without basis" and "falsely accuse" are two (somewhat-)reasonable ways to frame this, but your suggestion is a complete non-starter. (Also, glad to see the goalposts have moved from "US" to "western"; not particularly unexpected.) Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 01:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
[your] statement that " stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine" is nonsense; the article says or implies nothing of the sort- I presume you are referring to the extant Wikipedia article? Clarification here. Augend ( drop a line) 04:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
This rhetoric is factually wrong, morally repugnant and deeply offensive ...Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication ( editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."This part of the guideline talks about materials from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/, https://www.nytimes.com/section/opinion, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/commentisfree , https://www.theage.com.au/opinion and https://www.aljazeera.com/opinion/. But in this case our content is supported by factual content, not opinion. And not only from news sources, but also from subject-matter experts. Renat 12:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author[emphasis added]. Per WP:RSPRIMARY,
All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.WP:RSPRIMARY gives more cautions. We are lacking secondary sources on this issue. "Facts" are not opinion or conclusions and subject-matter experts must be attributed. But as I said, the news sources paint these with a broad brush. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
bucket load of reliable secondary sourcesthat say the claim is "false"? Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Falsely is judgemental, it should just be "Putin accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism and invaded." Or "The pretext of invasion was that the Ukrainian government is led by neo-Nazis and needs to be de-nazified", ect. RomanPope ( talk) 00:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Funny how Wikipedia editors are all citing English-speaking, Western-propagandized news sources to call something “false”. If you do more research, using more academically acceptable sources for INTERNATIONAL POLITICS from different non-Western countries (definitely not biased news websites—BBC, The NY Times, and for God’s sake, Business Insider, seriously?) you will realize this is a DEBATABLE topic.
So yes, “falsely” is a biased word, coming from Western propaganda. Chiemvu ( talk) 17:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/8/we-have-significant-losses-and-its-a-huge-tragedy-kremlin
~~~~
), or clicking the signature icon
on the edit toolbar. --
Renat 12:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)One fifth of the total of Russian troops killed in the Ukraine were officers. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 14:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
"killing a Russian prisoners": should be "killing a Russian prisoner" (no "s"). (The edit needs to be done by someone with sufficient rights) Thank You! -- Sasha7272 ( talk) 09:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates § Russian cruiser Moskva. Venkat TL ( talk) 23:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
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.
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Club On a Sub 20 ( talk) 16:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Change "news tha" to "news that
Answered= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Club On a Sub 20 ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I think there has been enough coverage for a standalone article on the looting done during the invasion. I started a draft here: Looting during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 17:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This article page is so large it's daunting and it's continuing to grow. Reliable sources are stating to expect the second phase of the Invasion to start within two weeks now that the 'first phase' has come to a completion with Russian troops redeploying away from Kyiv. There are several sections which might be reconsidered as to the best place to keep them on Wikipedia and which sibling articles on Wikipedia might be the best place for moving them. One suggestion is to possibly split or re-allocate the "Legal implications" section with all its subsection to go fully into its sibling articles. All of the potential prosecutions will only take place after the Invasion is completed and it seems unlikely that any Military trials will take place at least until next year, and possibly later than that. For example, the "Nuremburg trials" only took place after the end of WWII, and they are treated as a separate subject. Also, its possible other editors have other suggestions for thinking about bulking down this very large article. ErnestKrause ( talk) 15:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I would be surprised if there were no significant correlation– I didn't say there's no significant correlation; I said the correlation is weak, and it is. (Significant doesn't mean strong.) Anyway, why waste time trying to reason from something irrelevant (wikisource size) when you could just talk about something relevant, or at least closer to what's relevant, which is word count? (Although, as noted elsewhere, people don't read from top to bottom anyway, so that's no all that relevant either. But at least it's better.)
apart from images ... lightweight browsers will ignore images and javascript and minimise CPU usage– Once you ignore those, you've cut bandwidth usage and cycles by 95%. People who need to do that will do that. Great! But that's not enough for you? You now want to cut the remaining 5% in half as well?
Editors are one of the groups of people who use Wikipedia– If by this you're suggesting that total source length might be a problem for someone editing: that's what section edits are for.
There's no need to wait until we hit WP:PEIS here– Yeah, actually, there is, because otherwise you're wasting time, and distorting article structure and content, in order to prevent something which (a) might not happen anyway, and (b) is easily handled when it happens.
I am already working on media for the information war article and volunteer for that section. Elinruby ( talk) 07:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This is simply a section break to allow easier commenting, as the trimming for this article moves ahead. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 00:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join Contemporary History Task Force, at WikiProject History!! |
I would like to invite any interested editors here to join the task force for Contemporary History. One of our core goals is to highlight and promote the coverage of contemporary history as its own distinct area here at Wikipedia.
We differ from a simple effort to cover current events, in that we seek to provide the editing community with resources that would allow it to provide broad and comprehensive coverage of articles on contemporary history as a broad topical field, rather than simply on individual current events as they may occur.
to that end, we have set up articles such as 2020s in political history, which allow the whole editing community to adopt a broad scope in keeping wikipedia updated with broad historical trends, topics and events, as they occur, but also as they become relevant to the field of history overall. I hope that sounds helpful and worthwhile to you. you are welcome to join us in any way, or to offer any input or ideas that you may wish. we welcome your input. thanks!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 13:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I think this needs to be included in the casualties-section. As far as I'm aware, it's the first more or less official statement by the Russian government on the casualties their military has suffered since the doubtful figures they put out on March 25. Full text in the video of the interview, short summary (from Sky): "Vladimir Putin's spokesman has admitted a "significant" loss of Russian troops since the invasion of Ukraine began, telling Sky News their deaths are a "tragedy"." Source: https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-putins-spokesman-denies-war-crimes-but-admits-significant-russian-losses-12584552. I see no reason not to include this statement. 82.176.221.176 ( talk) 09:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Буча и концентрированное зло: последний аргумент против русских - РИА Новости, 05.04.2022 (archive.org) deleted link:ria.ru
Article Archive:
Буча и концентрированное зло: последний аргумент против русских - РИА Новости, 05.04.2022 (archive.org) http://web.archive.org/web/20220407222347/https://ria.ru/20220405/rusofobiya-1781778401.html
Per Russia (5 April): 1,500 soldiers killed,
Per the DPR and LNR (5 April): 1,500 soldiers killed
More than twenty thousand people have already died in Ukraine - almost fifteen hundred of our military and about the same number of soldiers DNR and LNR, and under twenty thousand on the Ukrainian side (including about a thousand civilians). That is, this civil war, and it is a civil war, albeit in the form of a conflict between two states, is already costing us a lot of Russian blood (it is shedding on both sides). This is a real tragedy for the Russians. More than twenty thousand people have already died in Ukraine - almost one and a half thousand of our military and about the same number of soldiers of the DPR and LPR, and about twenty thousand from the Ukrainian side (including about a thousand civilians). That is, this civil war, and it is civil, albeit in the form of a conflict between two states, is already costing us a lot of Russian blood (it is she who is shed on both sides). This is a real tragedy for the Russians.
Finland and Sweden have both declared that they intend to join NATO. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 06:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
References
The very first sentence of this article begins:
And yet the article say on the Second World War begins:
Or the Korean War...
"The Korean War (see § Names) was fought between North Korea and South Korea from 1950 to 1953."
Neither of article begins:
Spot the diferrence? This article starts off with opinion before it even gets to the facts. All military conflicts are an act of agression. Hilariously bad even for amateur night at Wikipedia. 146.200.202.126 ( talk) 11:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 marking a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began following the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity. Everything else in that first paragraph may then be moved to the appropriate location and the second paragraph joined to the first. Mr rnddude ( talk) 14:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
In February and March 2014, Russia invaded and subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. This event took place in the aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity and is part of the wider Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
I started an article for the Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The Refugees section lists several countries that have accepted Russian political refugees and economic migrants ("A second refugee crisis created by the invasion and by the Russian government's crackdown has been the flight of approximately 300,000 Russian political refugees and economic migrants, the largest exodus from Russia since the October Revolution of 1917, to countries such as the Baltic states, Finland, Georgia, and Turkey"). Armenia, having accepted 43000 refugees from Russia, was listed among them but has since been removed. The referred article in this section talks mainly about Armenia as the major destination for Russian IT workers.
-- Unotheo ( talk) 02:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
As of this week, the war has appeared to enter a new phase. Based on this turn of events, i would like to recommend that we create some chronological-based structure for this article, rather than solely by region.
as per an article in the Washington Post, please see the quote below. this highlights a vast new conflict that appears to be starting in the eastern region of Ukraine. this amounts to a major new military campaign.
Russian forces bombarded several towns in eastern Ukraine on Sunday, destroying an airport and damaging several civilian targets, as the war careens toward a pivotal new phase. The shift of the war and fears of full-scale military confrontation on open terrain prompted Ukrainian officials to again call for Western alliances to step up weapons supply efforts to strengthen Ukraine’s position on the battlefield. Ukraine is preparing for a “massive attack in the east,” its ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova, warned Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Of the Russian forces, she said: “There are so many of them and they still have so much equipment. And it looks like they’re going to use all of it. So we are preparing for everything.” Military analysts have been predicting the movement of the war toward the eastern border that Ukraine shares with Russia in an area known as Donbas. The energy-rich region includes territory where pro-Russian forces have been battling the Kyiv government since 2014.
how does that sound? Please feel free to comment. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 14:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On April 14th the Russian Federation flagship, "Moskva," sank. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/14/europe/russia-navy-cruiser-moskva-fire-abandoned-intl-hnk-ml/index.html. Russia has aid that ammunition had an accidental explosion. The Ukraine forces have announced that they targeted and hit Moskva with 2 Neptune missiles and it started a fire, listed to the side and began to sink. The loss of this vessel is a huge morale boost to Ukraine and loss to Russia. This ship had bombarded Mariupol. It has surface to air (both short and ling range), naval ship to ship missiles, anti submarine armaments and other weapons. https://en.as.com/latest_news/moskva-ship-how-big-is-it-when-was-it-built-what-weapons-does-it-have-n/ AgAero89 ( talk) 21:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I made this addition after the Russian and Ukraines both reported the loss of this vessel. AgAero89 ( talk) 21:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
CNN is saying that the Pentagon now confirms that this ship was struck by two Neptune missiles. As of right now the article is still both-sidesing this.
I could of course make this change myself but I heard this rather that saw it online, and since it’s disputed, somebody should make sure other media are also saying it. I am myself somewhat behind on making changes to this article that I promised to take care of, and the resulting need to update daughter articles, so I will just be the messenger here. Elinruby ( talk) 19:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the top image should not be an up to date map, but instead one that shows Russia's maximum control over Ukrainian territory before they were pushed back before Kiev. The up to date map should be further down in the article. If Russia is pushed further and further back, the map would have less usefulless in illustrating an invasion. In a hypothetical scenario, where Russia is pushed back to the same borders as 2014, the map would have zero value in illustrating anything. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 05:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Child casualty estimates should be included in the article. Chesapeake77 ( talk) 10:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I recently created a draft for the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022. It is currently being voted on in the United States Congress. Thriley ( talk) 20:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine has warned that if Mariupol falls, a red line will have been crossed and any further negotiations will cease (ie, the war will continue indefinitely). [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 07:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I am not a linguist but someone recently pointed out that the Russian term спецоперация - currently translated to mean special operation, is Sonderbetrieb in German. Why's this a problem? Because SS Sonderbetrieben at Nazi extermination camps concentration camps slaughtered those held then used Sonderkommandos to dispose of the bodies. Given the frequency of, and numbers mentioned in reports about the horrific war crimes committed by Russian forces, could it be that the reason Putin chose the term 'special operation' (спецоперация) is because like Nazi Germany he wants to ethnically cleanse the land of Ukrainians not just conquer it? As I say, I am not a linguist but the connection, in conjunction with known warcrimes, is alarming. 人族 ( talk) 02:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moving this here for discussion: "social media users showed sympathy for Russian narratives more due to cynicism about US foreign policy rather than support for the invasion as such."
While possibly true, this is followed by zero citations. There are quite a few in front of it though Elinruby ( talk) 16:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Nod, just noting it as a change somebody might disagree with. I will restore the text if the citations that precede it support it or if somebody has another good reason why it should be there. I will need to verify those sources anyway. I have seen the kind of post this is talking about but it should be cited. Has anyone started a social media in the Ukraine invasion page? One might be warranted. For now I guess I will summarize these two paragraphs and move the highly referenced detail to Russian information war against Ukraine. This does also include Ukrainian actions, which is about to become more prominent in the pending reorganization, if anyone is concerned about that. I will now be offline for several hours Elinruby ( talk) 16:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
It’s been moved already but I am not against Donkey Hot-day’s proposal to put it in Reactions instead (or as well), if that edit is made. I came in here to close this section but since there is a new proposal I will leave it open a while longer Elinruby ( talk) 06:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
There's a newly created article Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some editors here may be interested in:
The place to discuss is Talk:Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the place to edit is directly in the article. Boud ( talk) 09:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't feel that invasion is correct term for Russia's "operation". Russia is murdering and terrorising civilians, destroying homes and infrastructure, and forcefully transporting Ukrainian citizens to Russia. There are too many incidents for this to be a case of few hot-headed individuals; this is part of their plan.
Those cities that are not under Russian control are bombed ruthlessly, targeting as many casualties and/or fear as possible. Those cities that are under Russian control are terrorised in the most despicable, cruel, and inhuman ways.
It is more and more evident that the goal of this operation is to destroy Ukraine, not to invade it. This means destroying Ukrainian culture and cities, murdering huge amount of Ukrainians, and trying to scare those who are alive to become Russians.
I agree with one thing that the Russian propaganda is spitting out: this should not be called "war". Even in war there are some rules, and there can even be something humane as a reason for war.
Alas, my English skills are not strong enough to find an accurate name for this operation. Invasion sounds too neutral, and does not convey the message that Russia is trying to commit genocide. Optimally, the term would also say that Russia is committing acts of terrorism. 130.234.128.26 ( talk) 17:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
A split proposal is ongoing on the Battle of Kherson article. Feel free to participate in the discussion here. Elijahandskip ( talk) 00:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
According to you, as though by yourselves, experts wikipedians, who do not allow others contribution, and prefer Wiki sometimes with Errors and Wrong, we understand here at home, that the WWIII following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine had indirect started. More and more Nations as USA, France, Slovenian, Slowakia, Germany etc. contributes with Vehicles to Ukraine to Combat USSR or Russia. For example, GM sent 50 Chevrolet Tahoe, Germany sent 50 Gepard Tanks, Slowenia sent 50 M-84 aka T-72 to help and received Marder Tanks of Germany. USA Ministers visited Ukraine President, given US$ 3.5 Billion money, as well as the UK Prime Minister helping with many money and Tanks. So. The World War III had began, different, passive or indirect, not so active like WWI or WWII, but it is there. -- 90.186.249.22 ( talk) 17:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
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.
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the caption of the animated map of the invasion under the heading "Invasion and Resistance" from "An animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 9 April" to "An animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 21 April". The animated map has been updated and the newest date is now 21 April.
K1401986
Talk with me 22:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not logged in at the moment, but I am assuming that in the sentence "At the start of the invasion on 24 February, the northern front was launched out of Byelorus and targeting Kyiv", the intended word is "Belarus"? I am not familiar with geography in the region but I do not believe that Byelorus is a place. Can an editor rectify please. 82.15.196.46 ( talk) 13:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
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.
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Certain city names are in their Russian forms are opposed to Ukrainian ones. Mikolaev and Odessa, for example, should be spelled Mykolaiv and Odesa respectively. Ian Lautert da Costa ( talk) 12:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The Royal Navy nuclear powered submarine HMS Audacious sailed from Gibraltar after several days in port, during which it loaded Tomahawk missiles while berthed alongside the Z Berth in the South Mole of the dockyard. The vessel was seen heading into the Mediterranean after leaving Gibraltar. The American nuclear powered submarine USS Georgia also docked at Gibraltar two days prior to the British submarine. Its destination is unknown. [1]
Five USAF F15Es and a tanker plane where pictured flying in formation over the Strait of Gibraltar at 20,000 feet on Wednesday 20/04/2022. The planes had just taken off from the USAF base at Moron, Spain and were believed to be heading to the Middle East. [2] If this last detail is correct, then Middle East could include Turkey and from Turkey to Ukraine is just a short hop across the Black Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 10:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
There are sources that Belorusian and Bulgarian troops take activity for defense/release of their citizens in Ukraine. May be suitable for Foreign military involvement section. Alex Spade ( talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey, just wanted to suggest that the casualty numbers get updated. They’re from Feb 25 I believe. I would try, but I’ve never edited an info box and I’m scared I’d mess it up. FinnSoThin ( talk) 16:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The article currently contains the following sentence:
"According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, regarding Russian military losses, Ukraine's government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims."
There is no citation, which needs fixing. If there is no citation, the statement needs to be removed. If a valid citation does indeed exist, it needs to be put into context and verified (does wikipedia have a policy on statements of individual researchers?).
PerLugdunum ( talk) 09:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The whole discussion under the casualties is problematic. The truth will come out, whether or not certain "editors" can dissemble at the moment via weasel words about unnamed "researchers" and "analysts". Yellowmellow45 ( talk) 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
In that section, the Guardian source doesn't really say what the text claims it says. At most it says that nobody really knows. Removing. Volunteer Marek 12:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I also don't think that this one guy's opinion is really WP:DUE. Especially since it really boils down to "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated to some degree" which is to be expected. Gonna replace present text with that. Volunteer Marek 12:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: you say the Guardian source doesn't say what's been written in the WP text, however the Guardian source says, and I quote, "And Ukrainian officials on Monday evening estimated that more than 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed... Analysts have warned about taking that information at face value during a war where western countries want to emphasise the toll of the war on the Russian military while the Kremlin wants to downplay its losses". Thus, I would ask that you please reinstate and rewrite the sentence (if you think it doesn't fully represent what is written). As for the opinion expressed by the researcher regarding that Ukraine is engaged in a miss-information campaign for sake of moral, as both @ Cinderella157: and @ Mr.User200: have said, I also do not see anything problematic about including it. You inserted "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated to some degree". I think it nicely rewords the "miss-information campaign" bit, thanks, but I would expand this to "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated for sake of moral" or "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths, generally accepted by Western media, are exaggerated for sake of moral" since I see no reason to omit the purpose in his view of the Ukrainian's exaggeration or his obvious critic of the Western media. But I would settle with just the purpose of the exaggeration as stated by him (without the critic of the Western media). EkoGraf ( talk) 14:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence: "The use low-yield tactical nuclear capacity was originally discussed in the decade following the end of WWII by Henry Kissinger as a tactical weapon separable from the use of other atomic weapons in warfare." Emphasis is mine, and I initially thought this fragment should read "The use of...". That does not seem to fit the rest of the sentence, and I am unsure of what the best edit might be. TJSwoboda ( talk) 23:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
bio chem ? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
164.82.30.36 (
talk) 08:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The link to Russia in the article's first word was removed in this revision: Special:Diff/1084574301. This link should be present, as stated in surrounding comments. Okay420 ( talk) 07:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian invasion of Ukraine as it does not currently redirect to this page, and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hentheden ( talk) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Please be notified of Talk:Battle of Kherson#Requested move 24 April 2022. It affects many articles related to the invasion. The proposal is to move from "battle of X" to "battle for X". Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Denis Pushilin and Leonid Pasechnik, leaders of the DPR LPR to commanders Scu ba ( talk) 15:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Not done Denis Pushilin has a single mention in the body of the article and Leonid Pasechnik has no mention. Addition of either is supported by the body of the article (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Wikipedia editors,
I am writing to report the map that shows the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The names of the cities that are written in English are transliterated from Ukrainian and are spelled correctly. However, the names of the cities that are spelled in the Cyrillic alphabet are spelled in Russian and not in Ukrainian!
Please change the spelling of those cities whose names are written in the Cyrillic alphabet from Russian to Ukrainian.
Thank you! 188.163.232.130 ( talk) 11:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved: was at
Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly version
Land | Arrow | |
---|---|---|
Ukraine | ||
Russia |
Land | Arrow | |
---|---|---|
Ukraine | ||
Russia |
The colorblind simulations are in the respective links, so please have a look at those. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The images shown to the right depict the color schemes currently being discussed and voted on on Commons. And I'd prefer the first three to the proposal in question here. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 01:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I would much rather us stick with the status quo than switch to a new color scheme that is as jarring and unappealing as the proposal in this discussion, especially as it still has contrast issues. I'd even prefer one of the two map options I listed just above to the proposal (the current map with blue arrows, and the original colorblind-friendly map), but I prefer the proposed colors that I have laid out. Also, I think we could really use a color theory professional here, as the colors in the proposal were rather poorly-chosen. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Greyshark09, Spesh531, Kwamikagami, Dawsongfg, RobiHi, Outth, Eoiuaa, Kippenvlees1, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Chesapeake77, Fogener Haus, Physeters, Viewsridge, Lx 121, Berrely, HurricaneEdgar, MarioJump83, Tradedia, Ermanarich, Brobt, CentreLeftRight, Wiz9999, Borysk5, Oganesson007, Nate Hooper, Rob984, Ceha, AlphaMikeOmega, WeifengYang, PutItOnAMap, TheNavigatrr, Beshogur, AntonSamuel, Paolowalter, and Emk9: Pinging other users with an interest in this topic, and those with experiencing in working with military conflict maps. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I've split this discussion because it has nothing to do with the specific proposal listed in Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly_version. That proposal is about replacing the one file with a specific different file, and this one discussed details of a commons file, a discussion which should normally be had on the file's talk page, not here. Melmann 06:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 appears to be the best across the four simulations and for unimpaired vision. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 but perhaps with light yellow arrows instead of blue. Viewsridge ( talk) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 has the best contrast for the arrows, but all of them are great improvements in presentation. If none of them were used, the original colorblind-friendly one is also an improvement by itself and could be the main one. Rauisuchian ( talk) 13:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option visually ok, if it helps colorblind too. Beshogur ( talk) 16:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I do not see a version I particularly like here: for 1–3, the colour of the arrows is too different to that of their background, while for 4 it is too similar. Obviously, the arrows must contrast to the background, but this is weighed against the fact that a map is more intuitive when each side is assigned a single colour. Dark-red arrows on a light-red/orange background is a good compromise for Russia, but for Ukraine, blue on yellow and grey on beige are unintuitive and unsightly. Have white (#FFFFFF) arrows been tried for Ukraine? I imagine these would work well on either yellow or beige backgrounds. In general, I think the arrows would look best as a lighter/darker shade of the colour behind them. —
AlphaMikeOmega
(
talk) 16:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 or the original colorblind-friendly version. Options three and four have a really unpleasantly strong yellow, I'd strongly oppose these two.-- Ermanarich ( talk) 21:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 As a colorblind person option 1 looks best-looking to me. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1, including color mark change Per EkoGraf, and I think mark colors should be changed too, not just yellow but something other than that. Cyan or blue would be good Mario Jump 83! 08:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Going to be a bit WP:BOLD here, but can we close the voting on here (and wherever else votes have taken place)? Option 1 is a clear winner here, at least for being the colorblind-friendly color scheme (at the very least for arrows and territorial control). Does the "Air and ground bombardments" icon need to be changed? They contrast well with both the new Ukrainian yellow control and the Russian red (which is the same as the original). If there's an agreement on the other icons, then Option 1 and the Original need to be put up to a vote. Spesh531 (talk, contrib., ext.) 05:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Conscription of inhabitants of occupied areas is, as far as I know, illegal. The same in occupied Eastern Ukraine. Xx236 ( talk) 07:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It is Elinruby ( talk) 02:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have now requested page protection, enough is enough. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I'd like to bring up something that I think this article lacks, and that is the issue of this being a "proxy war". I've identified some sources that seem to describe this as a proxy war in some way:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-long-holy-war-behind-putins-political-war-in-ukraine https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-arming-insurgency-ukraine-mean https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-25/nato-us-in-proxy-war-with-russia-biden-next-move-crucial/100937196
The definition of "proxy war": https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/proxy-war
"a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers..."
Clearly, with NATO/US steadfast refusal to engage directly and materiel support for Ukraine, it's a proxy on some level. On the Russian end, it's less clear--Russia has historically been considered more of the "military superpower" over China, but with their (alleged) underperformance, and with the potential of becoming economically dependent on China in the face of Western sanctions, perhaps they are the ones fighting the proxy on behalf of the superpower? This article does not mention "proxy" anywhere. Allegedly, the Moskva was sunk by Ukrainian missiles...but let's not pretend that Western-made Javelins weren't crucial to many Ukraine successes. How would this get added? Also, I can't seem to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Metalloid ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I wouldn’t advocate for calling it that, because it isn’t one. I was wondering if it would be helpful to discuss the debate over whether this is a proxy war. Lawfare is a far cry from Russian propaganda, and they’re game for at least discussing the idea. We haven’t even sold them MIGs (alternatively, they may be paperweights) due to fears of over-involvement. Providing small arms to the underdog defending themselves against a Goliath does not suggest nefarious proxy war geopoliticking, quite the contrary. Mentioning a proxy war in the way I envision would involve mostly saying why it isn’t one, per the sources. If you omit discussing this out of fear of parroting Russian propaganda, you risk creating a “forbidden fruit”. Noble Metalloid ( talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Its not a proxy was, as far as I am aware no RS has called it proxy war. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Based upon the beginning of a new Russian offensive in the East of Ukraine, we will move ahead soon to create a new section for the current time period, based upon viewing this as a new chronological period of the conflict. This is based upon a consensus to structure the article sections on the conflict, based on chronological periods, as per previous talk page discussion. You can click the link to view the full discussion, which has now been archived. Anyone is welcome to comment, of course. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
"what new offensive?"I think this illustrates the need to structure this aerticle to delineate the curent new phase of this conflict.
Ok that sounds good. Thanks for your work on that, @ErnestKrause. Sm8900 ( talk) 04:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can these all be merged into one thread, it's getting very hard to follow all these separate questions on the same thing? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
197.234.142.91 ( talk) 16:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Nato and Australia and New Zealand Sweden Finland should be put as support for ukraine
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How are there no countries listed as supporting Ukraine? At least every country that has reportedly supplied weapons to the Ukraine should be listed there, shouldn't it? Alfield ( talk) 05:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
We do not need 15 threads asking the same question.
Slatersteven (
talk) 09:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
So now that the Russian military objective has shifted towards consolidating gains made in Donbass and the south, should we keep limit the scope of this article to be just about the initial invasion and put the rest of it on Russo-Ukrainian War or should we keep adding to this article? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ ( talk) 04:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to propose that the main map shown in the infobox be changed to the colourblind-friendly version.
The current map (on the left above) does not offer sufficient contrast for individuals diagnosed with
tritanopia.
Although tritanopia incidence rate is about 1%, this
highly visible article has been viewed 5,445,185 times at the time this was written, which means that we have likely served this map to individuals diagnosed with
tritanopia more than 54 000 times. Of course, this number will only go up.
Per
MOS:ACCESS, accessibility is a core WMF policy, and it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project"
. Based on this, I think we have a clear case for action to switch to the colourblind-friendly map.
Simulations of tritanopia:
Current whole page
Just the image
Proposed replacement image
Please be patient as the tool loads, it may take a few seconds to be ready. Melmann 11:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I'm kindly requesting for an uninvolved editor to review this discussion, and implement the proposal at Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox. Melmann 07:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The external links to CNN, Reuters, etc seem excessive and UNDUE. Anyone can google to find these and they are not encyclopedic. Focus on the more necessary ones and try to cut the list to 3 or so. WP:NOTDIR and WP:EL both apply. I would be bold and remove, but I am not a regular editor and thought this might have been discussed? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a typo in the section Second phase: Southeastern offensive (8 April to present) where it says As of 30 April, an NATO official... instead of As of 30 April, a NATO official has described...
-- Tyco333 ( talk) 10:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the section "belligerents" it should be showed that Ukraine is supported from NATO 151.57.133.251 ( talk) 21:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314, the Definition of Aggression, Article 3: [13]
The reference to Article 2 means it is aggression prima facie, that is, it is legally aggression unless and until proven otherwise, and “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply.
By allowing the Russian Federation to use Belarusian territory to launch missile attacks and an invasion by its troops over the last two months, Belarus has committed an act of international aggression against Ukraine. As an aggressor state, Belarus should be listed in the infobox as a belligerent, not merely a supporter. To minimize its aggression with the restrictive label “supported by” is to reflect the non-neutral WP:POV of the Lukashenka régime. — Michael Z. 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
a state or nation at war, or a member of the military forces of such a state. An aggressor is defined by virtue of UN resolution. While the two terms may be similar, they do not have identical meanings and, while Belarus is clearly an aggressor (having committed an act of aggression) it is not "at war" with Ukraine. It is clearly supporting Russia by its actions but its actions do not rise to being a beligerant. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
According to the article introduction, this is the day the Duma authorized military action against Ukraine and when Russia openly sent troops into the DPR and LPR. Both are and were internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:1B46:84AF:2076:510A:1837:33CF ( talk) 11:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The introduction mentions the Budapest memorandum, which is potentially pertinent to the section on the use of low-yield nuclear weapons - i.e. the potential use of "tactical" nukes which is currently getting press coverage.
What is not mentioned on this page is the Dec 2013 guarantee which China provided, as reported by the WSJ, the pertinent text of which seems to be: "China pledges unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the nuclear-free Ukraine and China further pledges to provide Ukraine nuclear security guarantee when Ukraine encounters an invasion involving nuclear weapons or Ukraine is under threat of a nuclear invasion,”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.14.20 ( talk) 11:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The article claims, that On 27 April, Ukraine stated it could "take control" of Transnistria should the Moldovan government request.. As source, it gives an article from the 23rd of April in which neither Transnistria, nor Moldova are even mentioned. This needs to be fixed as soon as possible, but I'm not allowed to edit the article. Liekveel ( talk) 12:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Not a false claim. I simply forgot to add the source. The source that you mentioned has nothing to do with it - it refers to the previous sentence. Simply clumsly editing on my part.
YantarCoast ( talk) 12:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Alerting editors that, as of this note, four of these articles have been created. Improvement is needed for all of them, and if needed, they should be linked into this main article’s text. I will be creating more for the other affected Oblasts, but for now, these 4 exist.
Elijahandskip ( talk) 16:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is absolute nonsense that we still have only Ukraine in the box. There is a massive ammount of foreing help coming from the west, both weapons and military intelligence. We should vote for this issue again, or change all the infoboxes of other conflicts. -- Novis-M ( talk) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Need to include in the right square of the article the contries that are supporting Ukraine, like is put in all other wikipedia pages on wars and conflicts. There are lots of them that are sending weapons, instructors, food, rations, blocking russian sales, etc. All of this is publicly known, verified by press reports of both sides of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.140.133 ( talk) 13:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Super Dromaeosaurus, Slatersteven, Cinderella157, Cinderella157: So, do we have a consensus on adding "Supported by" for Ukraine? The Western military support for Ukraine has ramped up to the point where it's becoming a game-changer [14] [15]. Or, any volunteers to start RfC? -- Mindaur ( talk) 15:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the table of the parties to the conflict there is Belarus as a supporting country, should the countries providing material support, including military support to Ukraine, not be included ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 ( talk) 12:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
After many ukrainian or supposed false flag attacks on Russian territory, should we add Russia/names of western Russian regions into the location of the infobox? We should also add transnistria as a spillover in the infobox after the past few attacks there. Wikiman92783 ( talk) 13:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest to remove the opening sentence: "Over a thousand prisoners of war have been captured", as by now, by combining the claims of both sides (see the POW section in Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War), the prisoners are supposedly a few thousands. -- Potionkin ( talk) 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War § The state of this article. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The text in the refugees section currently says:
Thousands of refugees arriving in Russia appeared to have been forcibly relocated using 'filtration centers', evoking the memory of Soviet era population transfers and prior Russian use of such centers in the Chechen War of Independence to suppress evidence of war crimes. [1] [2] As of 8 April, Russia evacuated approximately 121,000 Mariupol residents to Russia, with some allegedly having been sent to work there. [2] RIA Novosti and Ukrainian officials stated that thousands were dispatched to various filtration centers in both Russian and Russian-occupied Ukrainian cities, [3] from which people were redirected to economically depressed regions of Russia. [4]
References
A great deal of this should be "Ukrainian accuses" rather than WP:VOICE, while other parts don't appear to be in the sources/and or are editorialising (covering war crimes?). I can't read many of the Ru and Ukr sources so cannot fix. A similar text was copied to the Refugee crisis page, but much of it removed as WP:OR while other parts were altereed to Ukr claims. Pincrete ( talk) 07:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the last paragraph in the 'Refugees' section, the word 'about' has been misspelled as 'aboit'. 04:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Done Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Belligerent is highly subjective 140.0.19.244 ( talk) 08:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Quick post, shouldn't "Reports vary widely" be "reports vary Wildly?"-- 97.123.120.227 ( talk) 02:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Please add russia or the western regions recently bombed into the infobox as ukraine occasionally bombs them now Wikiman92783 ( talk) 12:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Should we change "NATO and its member states also refused to send troops into Ukraine as this would risk a larger-scale war,[353][354] a decision which some experts have labeled as a policy of appeasement" to "NATO and its member states also refused to send troops into Ukraine , or to establish a no fly-zone, as this would risk a larger-scale war,[353][354] a decision which some experts have labeled as a policy of appeasement.", as it is sourced already. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll give till tomorrow if there are no obejcti0js I will make the change. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
typo: prupose → purpose 82.132.185.14 ( talk) 23:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Ama was trying to assist. This image is currently used on the Dutch Interwiki version of this article. Should it be used in the English version of this article? ErnestKrause ( talk) 00:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Evidence of Russian war atrocities and human rights violations, from forced removals of Ukrainians to Russia, to executions and tortures of Ukrainians in Bucha, Irpin and numerous other locations, to mass graves in Mariupol, Bucha and other locations, must be included. I am appalled that they are not and that they don't have their own section. 2604:2D80:A782:BC00:978:8BCA:17A1:1FFC ( talk) 04:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Russia falsely accused Ukraine of being na*i. I just wanted someone to use this source, according to pew research statistically in 2019 only 11% of Ukrainians had negative views on Jews, while 83% had positive views. That is higher than most European countries. [1] I added this help combat misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahm1453 ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Vladimir Putin has been diagnosed with cancer and will soon be undergoing an operation. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 07:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Whether this information should be included is also being discussed at Talk:Vladimir Putin. I would suggest trying to get consensus there before discussing whether it is appropriate for this article. QueenofBithynia ( talk) 15:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The previous discussion ( #Belarus is a belligerent) was closed after a brief period with reference to an unnamed dictionary, and with a suggestion to start a new discussion with sources. So below are some articles by legal scholars. @ Seryo93, ErnestKrause, EkoGraf, ProcrastinatingReader, Ahm1453, My very best wishes, and Cinderella157:
As pointed out above, the OSCE’s legal advice determined that by not sending forces into Ukraine Belarus is not a direct party to the international armed conflict, and therefore is not liable for Russian violations of international human-rights law in Ukraine. [18] [19] The OSCE’s report also included Ukraine’s response which points to the UN’s definition of aggression.
But at the same time, by facilitating Russia’s war and allowing unlawful invasion and direct attacks into Ukraine directly from its territory and airspace it bears state responsibility by violating the UN Charter’s Ch. I, Art. 2(4) prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, [20] [21] and is also guilty of aggression, according to the UN’s definition (and Ukraine’s response on the latter point was valid). [22] [23]
I’ll reiterate Oxford dictionaries’ definition of a “belligerent,” verbatim: “Engaged in a war or conflict, as recognized by international law.” [24] There is no more definitive legal source on war than the UN Charter’s article 2(4).
Belarus is guilty of unlawful use of force or threat of force and international aggression in this war against Ukraine. If we want to clarify what acts it did and did not commit, that is fine and right. But it should be listed as a belligerent for its illegal participation in use of force and aggression. — Michael Z. 18:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment Referring to my previous and the reasons given for the close. That we are arguing semanitics of definitions here clearly makes the assertion a matter of WP:SYNTH/ WP:OR. It is clearly contentious and not a matter of WP:BLUE. Per WP:BURDEN we need WP:RSs to support such a claim. However, it can (given the contention) be viewed as a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that would require exceptional sources. Sources would need to specifically state that Belarus is a belligerent. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (and the template documentation), we would require a clear consensus of sources before we might add such a claim to the infobox as a summary of the article and WP:DUE. We are far from anywhere near this. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@ RandomCanadian:, so you reverted my verbatim inclusion of conclusions from sources due to reasons: “A single opinion post, even by a PhD, is not enough to justify this kind of content in a Wikipedia article; per the WP:OR issues already explained at sufficient depth on talk page and also per WP:UNDUE,” which I do not understand. Other editors disputed the application of the term “belligerent,” which this does not address, and you closed the discussion as an uninvolved editor, asking for sources. So I found sources, and now you dispute these sources, including the ones previously used by advocates of opposing views, without any sources that contradict them. This is not right.
What I included is balanced and broadly and accurately represents sources without contradicting those that argued against labelling Belarus as a “belligerent” in the infobox.
Also, when reverting, please do the courtesy of using the “revert” function or pinging us in your edit summary. — Michael Z. 21:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
An article has been made for the 2022 Perm factory explosion and fire. The sources I can access allege that this might be sabotage, but since newsweek is pretty dubious, I don't want to put anything that isn't directly stated as fact into the article. I'd like some help in building the article. ☢️Plutonical☢️ ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The neutral point of view is clearly violated because in truth Transnistria is Moldovan territory illegally occupied by Russia. This is a fact, not an opinion. The map does not respect this, therefore I suggest changing this so that the neutral point of view is not violated. 2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:396C:BBA9:BB1F:9851 ( talk) 08:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
As this article's section on war crimes used to be identical to the lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I'd welcome if all interested editors could help us reach a consensus (or at least an orderly discussion) on that article's talk page. We are reaching the brink of another edit war there. The main controversial changes recently made to the lead section of that article are the following ones:
The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about reports and videos of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine: alleged marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators have been publicly humiliated by police officers and members of the territorial defence...; plus, removed this section on the same topic from the article.
... and Russian prisoners of war have allegedly been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution.) and replaced them with references to allegations of ill-treatment of Russian POW (
The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment of Russian prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine.).
Ukrainian prisoners of war have also been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution.
Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war", possibly with tacit approval from their superiors. In March 2022 the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine stressed the heightened risks of sexual violence and the risk of under-reporting by victims in the country. After Russian withdrawal from areas north of Kyiv, according to The Guardian, there was a "mounting body of evidence" of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces inflicted upon Ukrainian civilians, including gang-rapes committed at gunpoint and rapes committed in front of children
You can confront this old version (11:19, 26 April 2022) with this more recent one (00:43, 30 April 2022). This is the diff between the two versions. These changes were made by User:Volunteer Marek and User:Shadybabs against the opposition of User:Ilenart626 and myself. As the latter editors have been repeatedly accused of misrepresenting facts to push a POV, I disengage and leave it to all interested editors to restore the balance or find a new one on the article. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 11:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Change invasion to war 2A01:E0A:A7E:E860:584A:2A5F:88EF:7F2C ( talk) 17:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
They were sent to Ukraine by order of their president, so they clearly should be listed. 87.50.178.158 ( talk) 20:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
As for war crimes go Russia has been seen and filmed using cluster bombs which are illegal to use against civilians, and even placed many many land mines around bridges. Another incident is the train station bombing that killed 50-100 people or the mass graves found. lastly jailed 15-20K protesters banned Facebook IG and news stations for calling it a war/invasion and anyone could be jailed for calling it so for 15 years. 47.157.236.115 ( talk) 09:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done This article is a summary of the invasion as a whole. The section on war crimes herein is the lead of the main article on this specific topic - War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The lead of that aricle is a summary of that article. Specific details should be added to that article if not already there. Cluster munitions are already mentioned in this article, as is deliberate killing of civilians and censorship is dealt with in another section of this article. Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
A lot of editors here and on other Ukrainian pages seem to have English as a second or third language. Nothing wrong with that of course, but a couple of points that I keep correcting over and over again:
Thank you everybody for your attention to these matters. Elinruby ( talk) 00:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Another point I keep seeing that isn't *wrong* but isn't quite English somehow: In constructions like " Kristalina Georgieva, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund", that "the" is not normally used in the first mention. If you are going to mention her again after a fairly long intervening text, and the reader might have forgotten who she is, however, the proper format would be "Georgieva, the IMF managing director". In this case you are reminding the reader; don't ask me to explain why this is not done in first mentions, but it isn't. This is also my notification to the group that I am making these copyedits, btw. Feel free to object that I am imposing my own dialect or whatever if that seems appropriate ;) Elinruby ( talk) 07:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
One of the knock-on effects has been that NATO enlargement is on the agenda in a very big way in Finland and Sweden (see Finland–NATO relations for Finnish sources to choose from with some in English, and there's incidental stuff for Sweden there too, but probably better Swedish sources exist). Specifically, there's been a _massive_ shift in public opinion, and it's now being worked through in parliament in Finland, and, though neither country's officially come out and said as much yet, it looks like both countries will be submitting applications. I'm pretty sure this should be mentioned somewhere in the article-plex covering the war, but I can't quite figure out the best place to put it. Main article? Maybe marginally not noteworthy enough - but a short sentence might be a good amount of weight; even if it does go in to the main article, it should also go into one of the specific reactions articles. Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Well, it's not governmental yet! Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Maybe - but I can't see any other examples of big public opinion shifts mentioned in there, and it's likely to become governmental in a few weeks. I also slightly quibble about this being a 'reaction' - if NATO does expand due to the war, it seems pretty impactful! Ideas, anyone? FrankSpheres ( talk) 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The Background section says "During the election campaign, the pro- European integration opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned by TCDD dioxin; he later implicated Russian involvement." I believe the intended meaning of "implicated" here is "accused" but that fails verification also, since what he actually does, according to the source at the end of the sentence, is accuse Russia of refusing to make witnesses (suspects?) available. Needs a better source and possibly a rewrite Elinruby ( talk) 08:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
At 85kb of readable prose, this article is already in "probably should be split" territory, and heading towards "almost certainly should be split". We should start a discussion to see in what manner this article should be split, since as time goes on, and the war goes on, it's likely to continue getting bigger. One possibility is the sections "First phase..." and "Casualties...", each of which is around 45kb (raw), and which could be summarized, with content moved into a new article. See WP:SIZESPLIT. Mathglot ( talk) 08:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a fairly obvious issue with infobox strength figures. Russian army is shown only as its initial force, and separatist armies are shown at their peacetime size. On other hand for Ukraine both standing army and reservists are shown. Basically Russia + separatists are shown at their initial frontline strength, while Ukraine is shown at full theoretical potential. This is highly misleading, while Ukraine is mobilizing, this is not an instant process. Additionally separatist republics are also mobilizing and in fact started mobilizing earlier than Ukraine. Also, while Russia itself is not officially mobilizing, it has sent additional reinforcements from other regions to Ukraine.-- Staberinde ( talk) 19:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi! It seems to me that the article lacks a mention to the role of the Ukrainian resistance in the lead and focuses almost exclusively on the Russian action. If I well remember it once said something like "Russian troops met stiff resistance and logistical problems that hampered their progress," is there a reason behind its removal? FilBenLeafBoy ( Let's talk!) 00:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The US stated last week that it does not believe Russia will use nuclear weapons or attack NATO territory, in spite of Russian statements. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-sees-no-threat-russia-using-nuclear-weapons-despite-rhetoric-official-2022-04-29/ Possibly applicable to the nuclear weapons use section. Overlasting Peace ( talk) 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I recall that in the early days of the war, the 'leaders' portion of the infobox included more than just Putin and Zelenskyy. Somewhere in March other figures like Mishustin, Shoigu etc were removed. Obviously not every general of politician should be included, but why the change? I haven't seen any infobox show just the heads of state before Rousillon ( talk) 15:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The fact that this page still does not show that Ukraine is supported by other countries is so fricking ridiculous. It serves no purpose other than to push an agenda. I mean it is not even a matter of denial of support, Ukraine is openly supported by western allies with weapons, training, and intelligence. Why is it even up for debate whether they should be shown as supporting or not? It is plainly misleading and dishonest to show it as it is. 142.184.180.208 ( talk) 06:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
In the "Foreign military sales and aid" section, there is a mention of Slovakia having SU-25s with which it could supply Ukraine. However, that source is incorrect, Slovakia does not operate any SU-25s since ~2002 and sold most of them to Armenia in ~2004. Here's a wiki page detailing every Slovak SU-25s and what happened to them (though it is only in Slovak). There's also a List of Sukhoi Su-25 operators Standa-SK ( talk) 19:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that the EU intended to supply Ukraine with fighter jets. Bulgaria, Poland, and Slovakia had MiG-29s, and Slovakia also had Su-25s, aircraft which Ukraine already flew and which could be transferred without pilot training. However, the planes' owners were reluctant to donate weapons critical for their own territorial defences, and feared that Russia could view it as an act of war if jets fly from their air bases to fight over Ukraine.This section is describing an "intention". It fails WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. As to the more specific question (questionable clam re Slovakia), the is WP:ONUS. Strike the lot IMHO. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Done Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Not a word about Mearsheimer's take on the conflict? 2001:B07:646B:4D36:FDE4:1A7B:6912:9FA0 ( talk) 15:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Please add: "The CIA provided intelligence that helped Ukrainian forces locate and strike the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. The targeting help, which contributed to the eventual sinking of the Moskva, is part of a continuing classified effort by the Biden administration to provide real-time battlefield intelligence to Ukraine."
reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/05/us-intelligence-ukraine-moskva-sinking -- 91.54.19.14 ( talk) 16:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Can someone, anyone, explain the point of 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Potential_Russian_use_of_tactical_nuclear_weapons? It's a long section devoid of any substance at all. A bunch of speculation about whether Russia will use nuclear weapons, most recently a denial from Russia, mixed in with extended (yet predictable) quotes from Zelensky about the suitability of Russia as a responsible nuclear weapons state due to apparent contamination concerns (which–if actual–should come from scientists if anything, not from politicians). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Why are there no wikipedia articles detailing equipment losses?
Numbers can never be 100% accurate, but for instance there's been 7 provable downings of a TB-2 Bayraktar Drone used by the UA Air Force occuring as late as early May - However, Russia claimed that they've successfuly downed all operational drones since early on in the war. These two discrepencies could be easily rectified with a list detailing confirmed equipment losses to give a more complete picture of the war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:3582:571C:5343:76D ( talk) 23:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Section "Russian accusations and demands": "repressng" should be "repressing" Andyofmelbourne ( talk) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Done Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence of the last paragraph of the lead section ('The invasion was internationally condemned as an war of aggression.') please fix 'an war' to 'a war'. Jakub 42 ( talk) 03:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
In the section "Alleged clashes (17–21 February 2022)" there is a spelling mistake: "the another" instead of just "another" or "the other". Please change this to one of the two suggestions. Thanks.
In the same section there is a dot in the middle of the sentence about russian videos after the word "amateurish".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribidag ( talk • contribs) 6:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done both. Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Second phase — Siege of Mariupol" section, please change "Reports of dissent within the Ukrainian troops at Azovstal were reported by Ukraienskaya Pravda on 8 May indicating that the commander of the Ukrainian Marines assigned to defend the Azovstal bunkers made an unauthorized acquisition of tanks, munitions and personnel to make a breakout from the entrenched position there in order to flea from the city" to "in order to flee the city. These are two different words. Plus, please fix the typo in the same sentence: Ukraienskaya to Ukrainskaya. Thank you. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:14C4:5AD3:A60C:2C7C ( talk) 06:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done both. Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is not a invasion. President Putin's statement says that it's a "special operations in Ukraine". There was no formal declaration of war on former state of Soviet Union "Ukraine". Please change the title of the page to "2022 Russia's Special Operation in Ukraine" as Russia haven't declared war on Ukraine. I believe Wikipedia should see sources from both sides instead of relying entirely on Western Sources. 106.197.2.17 ( talk) 08:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
In the section "Impact on agriculture and food suppies" there is a very long sentence relying on a single source:
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), further to causing the loss of lives and increasing humanitarian needs, the likely disruptions caused by the Russian invasion to Ukraine's grain and oilseed sectors, combined with potential food and fertiliser export difficulties encountered by the Russian Federation as a result of economic sanctions, could jeopardise the food security of many countries, especially those that are highly dependent on Ukraine and the Russian Federation for their food and fertiliser imports.
I suggest breaking this sentence up, perhaps like so:
Due to the Russian invasion, disruptions to the grain and oilseed sectors of Ukraine are likely. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), this would cause further loss of life and increase humanitarian needs. In addition, potential food and fertiliser export difficulties encountered by the Russian Federation as a result of economic sanctions could jeopardise the food security of many countries. Particularily vulnerable are those that are highly dependent on Ukraine and the Russian Federation for their food and fertiliser imports.
(However, feel free to change it as you like.)
This would mean repeating the source after each full stop, but would make it much easier to read.-- Ribidag ( talk) 17:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done by Iseult Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe that NATO involvement in the war has helped Ukraine get an upper hand, and I think it should be mentioned. Here are some sources to back up my point:
Please excuse my bad citing, I am still working on it. BadKarma22 (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, what section would this be added under? BadKarma22 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC) BadKarma22 ( talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I originally intended to add this to the Russo-Ukraine War page and didn't check this article. I apologize. However, I think we could still mention the US intelligence contribution. BadKarma22 ( talk) 01:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I was also using NATO as an umbrella term. BadKarma22 ( talk) 01:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I would add to the page the ramification of the conflict in terms of the change in the geopolitical situation in the scandinavian peninsula, today the uk and finland signed a mutual security agreement to protect eachother, quite a strong sign that finland is almost certainly going to join nato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELtorto ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
In the section "Prisoners of War", it says that over a thousand prisoners were captured. Seeing as though the conflict is still ongoing and more are likely to be captured, I suggest changing this to have been captured.-- Ribidag ( talk) 15:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NATO Casualties : The Russians have got WARD recently ... Do YOU know who was JW Clark ? Is he a hero from the USA or just one "white mercenary" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 02:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The Russian TV often shows dead americans ... Can you mention their names in the table "NATO Casualties" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 09:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
BUT they showed PASSPORT CARDS of killed young men ... IGNORE THOSE FACTS in en-wiki ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 09:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
YOU don't trust RU-WIKI ? NO NATO casualties ? O.key. 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 12:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOTHING TO TRANSLATE
DOMESTIC ? it's an INTERNATIONAL CASE of State terrorism ! 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 12:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOW i wonder are you for or against THE PUTIN ADMINISTRATION in KIEV ?
Because IT IS ME who translated THE THEME for Ru-Wiki ! 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 12:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOT the Kremlin Pool
PLEASE ... USE your own links: State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list) after new NATO summit 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 12:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
WE were talking about NATO CASUALTIES : AMERICAN ... NOT BRITISH ! That is my address was TO Mr.Biden 2.61.3.205
IP comes back to Rostelcom (Russian telecom), Sibirtelecom actually, to nobody's surprise I am sure Elinruby ( talk) 13:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
( talk) 13:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead (first big paragraph), begins in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea, then progresses to a build-up in 2021. Then comes Putin's "special operations" speech on the 24:th of February. After this we jump back one day to the 23:d of February to say that Russian officials denied plans to invade up to and including that day, which I suppose is fine as a look-back after the invasion has started.
In the next paragraph we are suddenly back on the 21:st of February, the invasion hasn'st started yet, and instead Russia recognizes the two self-proclaimed statelets. Then the invasion begins on the 24:th again, with Putin again announcing a "special military operation". We then hear a little about what happened shortly thereafter, with missile strikes and general mobilization.
I was a little confused reading this and the first time I did, I thought the first speech mentioned was different from the second, when they are in fact the same. This is because the first time it is mentioned no date is given. It just says "shortly before the invasion" which really means 10:s of minutes before, but with how the lead jumps in time makes you think it is a few days before, somewhere before the 23:d of February, which is the next actually given date.
More nitpicky is that the fourth paragraph begins with "As the invasion began on 24 February 2022" and then goes into fronts and such. This again gives a feel of "restarting" after just having heard what happend as the invasion began: missile strikes and general mobilization. Some way to show these happened simultaneously might tie it together better.
I think it could be an improvement to make the lead more chronological.-- Ribidag ( talk) 05:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am slightly surprised that I can't see any mention of alleged 'attacks' inside Russia and Belarus. Belarus has just legislated against sabotage with the death penalty because of the extent. A military facility in the far east of Russia suffered an explosion reported today: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/12/1-dead-7-injured-in-russia-military-base-explosion-a77650 many others I am sure editors will know about. There are good RSS but I could understand a reason why sabotage is left out of the article. However the situation in Belarus is now cited as being partly the cause of Russia's withdrawal from the north. It's part of Ukrainian solidarity and strategically, militarily significant. I thought worth a discussion maybe. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I mean, it's still going on, and probably will be for several years, right? HighwayTyper ( talk) 10:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
How about add this, on place of Ukrainian side Im talking about us financial supporting Ukraine with Lend lease, so M1Jyyy ( talk) 15:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
These aren't really prohibited; many countries have signed a treaty agreeing not to use them. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is among them. However, using cluster munitions against civilians is most likely a war crime. but that would fall under different international laws. Struggling to find a concise way to express this. I have been changing "prohibited" to "banned" on this and the applicable subpages, but that is only slightly less wrong. Anyone have any thoughts? Elinruby ( talk) 04:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Comprehensive map key of the invasion says about 'Ukrainian advances'. Even if we do not take into account that in most northern areas Russian forces just withdrew because they could not do anything, maybe the correct term would be 'Ukrainian counter-offensive' as these moves are entirely in Ukrainian territory and Ukrainian army held those before the current war? Κλειδοκράτωρ ( talk) 10:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
UK has now stated that Russia lost 1/3 of its ground invasion force from February, 24. (KIA, MIA, WIA, POWs included I suppose.) https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1525762560888344577?s=20&t=5bifi3vtZs7vfcseRrzzPA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oca24016 ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add a section explaining how the invasion caused Finland (a non-NATO country), to join NATO. Source:
[? 1] BadKarma22 ( talk) 21:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The causalities table is quite confusing - it's very hard to quickly see what casualties relate to what party because of inconsistent use of line thickness. For example, the Russian and Allied forces, the line between US and UK estimates is thick, despite both being estimates for the Russian and Allied forces. However, the line between Luhansk and Russian and Allied forces is thin despite between different parties.
Thick line should be used to separate different categories, while thin lines should be used to separate the different estimates within that same category imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.246.42 ( talk) 08:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The high command for the Russian invasion is now known, should the image be added somewhere in the article? ErnestKrause ( talk) 01:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding.See also MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Images support the text of the article - don't write the article with images or in image caption. It is a case of showing that the proposal meets the WP:P&G. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The subject is covered, perhaps the sources may be used.
The result of the move request was: Further recognition denied. Super Ψ Dro 19:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Special military operation in Ukraine – For an invasion to occur, the following criteria must be met: the objective of a third country must be the seizure of the country and its annexation. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has declared that his goal is solely the de-Nazification and demilitarization of Ukraine.. JanPawel2025 ( talk) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" should be renamed to "Russo-Ukrainian War". Also "Annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation" and "2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" should be removed from "Russo-Ukrainian War" and it should be renamed to something else as technically "2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" is the actual war between the two parties and the "Russo-Ukrainian War" page is actually referring to the series of conflicts, disputes and clashes since 2014. PadFoot2008 ( talk) 06:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
What's with these nonsense proposals lately? Super Ψ Dro 13:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It should add nato and the listings of nato countries in the support part of Ukraine 2001:8F8:1471:D52E:F064:352A:1506:2A2F ( talk) 23:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need to update the infrmation LOLl-KING ( talk) 20:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC) I just need to update this information
As posted before but was ignored, the Security Service of Ukraine officially denied a Chinese cyber attack took place or have any evidence of such attack.
From their official Twitter, posted on 2 April: https://twitter.com/ServiceSsu/status/1509983294334582793
"The SBU did not provide the media with any official information that cyber-attacks from China were allegedly carried out on the eve of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our military and other resources. The SBU has nothing to do with the findings of The Times. The Security Service of Ukraine does not currently have such data and no investigation is underway."
I would suggest adding keeping the allegation while adding this, and remove "pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge" because it is not NPOV. Chokoladesu ( talk) 07:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A few days ago, I sounded out adding the potential Finnish/Swedish NATO applications to the article in Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#Potential_NATO_enlargement_as_a_reaction/impact, and there was a rough consensus for adding it once there was official movement. Today, the Finnish President and PM made a joint declaration saying that "Finland must apply for NATO membership without delay", which looks like it meets the threshold of officiality to me. I can't add this myself, but here's some proposed text for the 'Reactions' section:
There might be room for some further elaboration on this (e.g., discussing just how badly the idea of invading a neighbour to keep NATO away from Russia has backfired on Putin here), but the article's pretty dense already. Maybe when there's some more heavy-weight analysis to cite on this point?
I haven't tried to describe the likely next steps, but they'll happen shortly, it's expected, and I don't think that the precise procedural details matter as much as the declared intention. This means that the information we put in will get stale quite quickly, but that's okay - it's a wiki and nothing's set in stone, and especially not on a highly-active article like this one. FrankSpheres ( talk) 10:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
References
On 18/05/2022 Finland, together with Sweden, officially applied to join NATO, although Turkey raised some objections to this. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 07:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Finland and Sweden on Wednesday morning (18 May 2022) simultaneously handed in their official letters of application to join NATO NATO official website. IP-Editor; May 19, 2022.
Note: I am marking this edit request as answered procedurally as it is an ongoing discussion as to whether or not the requested edit should be included at this time, per the template instructions. Cheers! — Sirdog ( talk) 05:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
At the moment, the article introduction says the following "falsely[26] accused Ukraine of being governed by neo-Nazis who persecute the ethnic Russian minority."
This reads like politicised editorialising. Our reference for the "falsely" part is The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. What a strange choice for a source on such a major issue, a journal of a random American Jewish community? Is the word "falsely" needed at all here? Can we categorically say there was no mistreatment of ethnic Russians in the Donbas and none of that mistreatment was associated with Azov or other groups which have some kind of neo-Nazi connection?
Maybe we could say the Russian claim is exaggerated, but even that may be editorialising. To categorically say "false" seems misleading. Torchist ( talk)
[Deleted non-constructive anonymous WP:SOAP. — Michael Z. 19:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)]
There is Belarus listed as supprorting Russia, but nowhere the full list of 40+ Western countries supplying weapons, training, intelligence (i.e much more than Belarus supports Russia) thereby distorting (intentionally or not) the full view of this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.185.38.18 ( talk) 17:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
On May 21st Zelensky told to journalists that Ukrainian armed forces are actually 700 thousand strong. Sources: https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/05/21/7347610/ https://censor.net/en/news/3342842/today_you_see_result_of_work_of_700_thousand_ukrainian_defenders_zelenskyi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIcY-jEH0Bg
So the 'Strength' infobox should be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.172.92.34 ( talk) 18:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Russian gas has already been turned off for Poland and Bulgaria.
Please may someone add this in the article.
Thank you.
It's the same with Finland as well: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-20/finland-loses-main-gas-supply-as-russia-will-turn-off-taps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:3D54:C9BD:1A5F:4CD7 ( talk) 21:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Why are the leaders of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics not included in the infobox? They are the heads of state of those states just as Putin is the head of state of Russia, and the DPR and LPR are completely involved in the war. Cyrobyte ( talk) 22:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
they exist if the USA say's so, is that it? any other country should abbid to this rule? the same happen to the Palestinians. Nunovilhenasantos ( talk) 00:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not saying that the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics are legitimate countries, but that they are sovereign because they have control over a particular territory. In fact, they are listed as sovereign states at the article " List of sovereign states". Cyrobyte ( talk) 01:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if we should include info re the Russian UN diplomat that quit and said he was ashamed over the war. He also made some statements saying that the Russian population has been led to believe that a nuclear strike would scare Americans causing them to kneel to what ever Russia wanted. This incident has been reported on in all the major U.S. news sources. Sectionworker ( talk) 17:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
“For 20 years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on Feb. 24 of this year,” Mr. Bondarev said, referring to the date that President Vladimir V. Putin sent Russian forces into Ukraine.
“The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine and in fact against the entire Western world is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia,” he added.BetsyRMadison ( talk) 20:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The website is supposed to add nato in the Ukranian side of the belligerents because Ukraine is supported everyday with heavy money and heavy equipment by NATO 2001:8F8:1471:BDAD:A10B:746B:7F38:C4A ( talk) 19:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Single error in Tedros quote, black should be lowercase. 99.106.93.88 ( talk) 03:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended content
|
---|
Hi, everyone.
"Russian leaders described this expansion as a violation of Western powers' assurances that NATO would not expand eastward, although any such alleged pledges, if real, were made informally, and their nature is disputed."
in this paragraph 3 sources are mentioned, to be true, "they must be people of very good morals" ???
Since the media are involved in this, they took this lie and replicated it to exhaustion, both in america and europe. Let's take some care in here, for there are many "newspapers" and "journalist" and also "writers" who don't mind write lies.
"Date: Feb 9, 1990 Description: This Gorbachev Foundation record of the Soviet leader’s meeting with James Baker on February 9, 1990, has been public and available for researchers at the Foundation since as early as 1996, but it was not published in English until 2010 when the Masterpieces of History volume by the present authors came out from Central European University Press. The document focuses on German unification, but also includes candid discussion by Gorbachev of the economic and political problems in the Soviet Union, and Baker’s “free advice” (“sometimes the finance minister in me wakes up”) on prices, inflation, and even the policy of selling apartments to soak up the rubles cautious Soviet citizens have tucked under their mattresses." "Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that “neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Baker argues in favor of the Two-Plus-Four talks using the same assurance: “We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the ‘two+four’ mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.” Gorbachev responds by quoting Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski: “that the presence of American and Soviet troops in Europe is an element of stability.”" Nunovilhenasantos ( talk) 23:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
|
The Russians took Rubizne on May 11th but the map still shows it as contested. 2A00:23C8:928:5301:8141:7C97:466F:35FB ( talk) 09:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
As the title says. I’m asking this as I think it would be beneficial for us all to hear more about what the Ukrainian forces are doing. The timeline seems not to have as much info as it does about the Russians. I think it would also be good for us all to hear some of the more positive developments. I’m sure we all want this conflict to end, and therefore I would like to see more Ukrainian successes in these pages. 2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:3550:7C65:C66C:EE29 ( talk) 17:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the text description of the animated map from "February 24 to April 21" to "February 24 to May 27" Physeters ✉ 14:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. Add the Institute for the Study of War's daily updates on Ukraine to the External Links section. Imo it should be added because a consistently updated link with a focus on the military aspects only would be both helpful and interesting.
2. Add RUSI's report on the conflict to the Further Reading section. It's a month old, so it's somewhat outdated. However, the sections on what happened at the start of the invasion are accurate, interesting and accessible, and the assumptions that underly the predictions are still mostly true. SentientObject ( talk) 02:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The ICC also set up an online portal for people with evidence to contact investigators, and sent investigators, lawyers and other professionals to Ukraine collect evidence.[608][609]" to "The ICC also set up an online portal for people with evidence to contact investigators, and sent investigators, lawyers and other professionals to Ukraine to collect evidence.[608][609]" as the former is missing a 'to'. EloquentMosquito ( talk) 00:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
We need at least four more articles about four battles near the cities where they take place. For example. Lyman, Lysychansk, Bakhmut and Marinka. — Baba Mica ( talk) 00:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Please consider #Don’t assume DLNR are present without support of reliable sources when creating new articles. — Michael Z. 16:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Let’s please not blindly insert DLNR or “separatist forces” into articles’ infoboxes and body text without confirming that reliable sources support their participation. The majority of reliable sources on military action only refer to Russian forces or the Russian army, and don’t even mention DLNR.
I just removed such unsupported assertions from three articles, one where only Russian and separatist sources asserted their presence, [52] one where a single source mentioned their marginal participation (occupying a rural point near a battleground after the fight), [53] and one in which not a single cited source mentions their participation. [54] — Michael Z. 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the countries supplying Ukraine with military aid in the supporting belligerents section Bigfifa ( talk) 21:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 09:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The soldiers are part of Russian military units based in South Ossetia but which also include some local contract soldiers.The second source is not sufficiently specific that it would contradict the first source or other sources offered in the previous discussion. Bottom line, the previous consensus is that South Ossetia is not participating as a "soverign state" and these sources don't show otherwise. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
SO soldiers are Russian soldiers.I apologise for any confusion. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Strength estimates are as of the start of the invasion. See also: Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This is not a WP:FORUM. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
"Putin ... incorrectly described the country as having been created by Soviet Russia,[25]"
But Ukraine has no legal history as a state prior to the Bolshevik revolution? Lenin's support for devolving the Russian Empire to give such legal power and affirmation to various National Minorities was hotly debated by other communists of the time.
From Wiki on Ukraine:
"The 19th century saw the growth of Ukrainian nationalism, particularly in Galicia, then part of Austria-Hungary. In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution a Ukrainian national movement re-emerged, and the Ukrainian People's Republic was formed in 1917. This short-lived state was forcibly reconstituted into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which became a founding member of the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1922" 73.191.41.112 ( talk) 12:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repiblic won the ukrainian civil war in 1921 and was admited in USSR in late 1922 not was conquered by Soviet Union in 1920 on the third attempt. DrYisus ( talk) 16:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
~ Sorry Michael Z I am new on WP and I dont know how insert the answers from mobile or make calls (the @). I am not arguing anything of that. I only said that UkrSSR (puppet or not) won the civil war in 1921 (not 1920) and later joined USSR. And by the way, is true that some part of Ukraine origins (Ukraine People's Republic) are based on soviet/bolsevisk actions, in fact the Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets was stablished nearly at the same time that UPR, the bolsevisk uprising in kiev drove out the white forces leting the Rada (which suported bolseviks during the uprising) increasing the autonomy that months after lead to independence. I wouldn't say that Ukraine have full soviet origin like Vlad said, but has partial. DrYisus ( talk) 22:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The Russian ministry of defence has posted their latest update on Ukrainian losses on the 26th of April. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyazKader ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The article size is back over 400Kb which can be daunting to readers of the article, and the article has been template tagged for length issues. One suggestion might be to note that there is a great deal of duplication with the Russo-Ukrainian war article as to both of them covering a 'deep history' version of the events leading to the 2022 Russian Invasion. There is no reason for maintaining two versions of this 'deep history' going back 30-35 years, and it seems a useful endeavor to merge the two subsections of the Background section into the Russo-Ukrainian war article, along with perhaps 2-3 subsections of the Prelude section as well. A very short summary and link can be left in this Invasion article after that merge is done. The other suggestion might similarly note that the Peace efforts section lower in the TOC also has a sibling article already written for it at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, and to merge it from this Invasion article into the sibling article (leaving a link to that page from this Invasion article). The read time for the article is currently 40-50 minutes which is over Wikipedia policy guidelines and this makes a large demand upon new readers who are going through the article from top-to-bottom for the first time. Suggesting here that both of these merge-to-sibling article measures be done to deal with the bulking down of this long article. ErnestKrause ( talk) 19:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
"Ukraine, like pro-Russian separatists in Donbas, has a far-right fringe, including the neo-Nazi-linked Azov Battalion and Right Sector,", although others may disagree, so it might be worth discussing on talk first or expecting WP:BRD. Jr8825 • Talk 02:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Took a quick look at the Invasion section. Nowhere near done, but some comments:
The material in front of it was completely unrelated. Putting here for now, discussion of an aspect of military aid from Germany [3] Elinruby ( talk) 04:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
References
On 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Popular_resistance, we have already described that 700,000 Ukrainian forces are fighting in this war, and Zelensky said that too. [55] Why the figure of Ukrainian strength amounts to only 298,600 in infobox? >>> Extorc. talk 17:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I need the dates for the Battle of Bakhmut, which was recently deleted. Can someone send it? Xurum Shatou ( talk) 23:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Wtf is Battle of Bakhmut? Russian occupation forces didn't get closer than 30 km to the city DakeFasso ( talk) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah agree, the number of these “Battle of” articles, about every small town and village is getting pretty ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 18:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
In the Prelude section, would “mobilization” be the correct spelling for moving troops and equipment to engage in war? 174.251.64.117 ( talk) 03:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
“On 14 March, the Russian source RT reported that the Russian Armed Forces had captured about a dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdiansk, including the Polnocny-class landing ship Yuri Olefirenko. [1]“
Anybody know this source? The archives at WP:RSN have nothing on it, but quite a few other articles use it as a source on military hardware. The wikilinked article about the ship uses the same source, plus another one I don’t know. Elinruby ( talk) 18:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC) “On 14 March, the Russian source RT reported that the Russian Armed Forces had captured about a dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdiansk, including the Polnocny-class landing ship Yuri Olefirenko. [2]“
References
Does the Right Sector participate in the 2022 war? The references are not unequivocal. The ABC text is biased, it quotes Donbas people only. Putin's opinions belong to pre-invasion period. Xx236 ( talk) 08:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
There is such section, but no 'Rejection of Russian accusations and demands', 'Critics'. Xx236 ( talk) 07:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The article Anonymous and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has recently been created. Any help improving it would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 17:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
In accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, I have removed commanders/leaders from the infobox in the subject article because save one, none of the commanders listed in the article had any mention in the article that would support their inclusion and the one that did had only a single passing mention. An editor has reinstated these. There is a discussion on this at Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)/Archive 1#Are we putting commanders or not?. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
See also, the discussion at Talk:Siege of Mariupol#Commanders in infobox. Please comment there. Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Considering that DPR and LPR are listed as belligerents, not merely support (as with Belarus), shouldn't their heads of state be included with Putin in the "Commanders and Leaders" section? I think Denis Pushilin (DPR) and Leonid Pasechnik (LPR) should be included. Seems inconsistent to list them in belligerents but not commanders and leaders. -- 2601:644:8501:3FF0:ACD5:F6:ABFE:50AF ( talk) 19:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Senomo Drines ( talk) 12:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The heading “revision and resistance” video’s caption “June 2” should be updated to “June 6”
There is a discrepancy - looking at total Casualty figures in the Siege of Mariupol - it is given as 22,000+ deaths. The wide range given here takes one yahoo source that states 6000 deaths for Mariupol. Isn't this undue weight given the fact that no other source gives the 6000 number? I suggest using 22,000 for Mariupol and add the casualties for other areas on top. Please advise. mezil ( talk) 07:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
It is given in the breakdown : Mariupol: 6000-2200 deaths mezil ( talk) 09:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Please look at article Casualties of Russo-Ukrainian war for breakdown. mezil ( talk) 09:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Now the table doesn't make sense. You have one city with over 22,000 casualties and yet the total is 11,000 - 27,000. The lower figure is still confusing. I think it's best to remove the 11000 figure as it just doesn't add up. mezil ( talk) 11:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone include Institute for the Study of War's interactive map of Russian invasion of Ukraine as a link/source or embed it into the article? Here is the map https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375 which updates daily. 50.64.136.84 ( talk) 18:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Would it make sense to suggest a page move, to perhaps "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" or sorts? The term "invasion" suggests only the opening phase of a conflict; it is now more than three months and the conflict is a full-scale war involving multiple parties, with wide global repercussions (economic/fuel crises etc.). Hence I think the term "invasion" in the title doesn't merit the scale or significance of the topic covered in the article; having it describe the first phase of the war in February is sufficient. The broader " Russo-Ukrainian War" describing the overall conflict can still remain as it is without going into details of the 2022 war.
I haven't been active on this topic, so perhaps active editors can voice opinions here? No News ! 16:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Should we add "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list the countries providing military aid? -- Mindaur ( talk) 21:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
No. Allowing a state to use your territory for a war of aggression is an illegal act of international aggression, according to the UN’s definition. Allowing weapons transfers by commercial sale or donation is not, whether a party is at war or not.Could you please provide your sourcing for this statement as it would seem very pertinent to this RfC. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
"the United States military"is now training
"Ukrainian troops"[1] and there's been
"a stark shift from Western support for Ukraine [...] focused now on delivering heavy weaponry and not only defensive system."[2] If on the off-chance listing becomes too long, we can partially shorten or link. CurryCity ( talk) 04:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC) NYT reports that
direct assistancefrom US and Western
intelligence serviceshelped Ukraine successfully attack senior Russian officers, whose heavy losses
astonishedanalysts. US goal has shifted to weakening and deterring Russia for the long term per statement by Def Sec Lloyd Austin. [3] [4] Even though I voted against in a previous RfC, events have since escalated. updated 07:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Many countries imposed new sanctions, which have affected the economies of Russia and the world, and provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine.There is a prominant section in the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military support and a daughter article linked from that section: See also: List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. How could it be reasonably argued that we are not already openly reporting the nature and extent of legal 'support' being provided by other countries to Ukraine and in a way that best conforms to WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and any other relevant WP:P&G. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
that's something we could change as a community if we wanted to.But such a change has not happened?. Levivich makes a number of closing observations on what a new RfC might propose (as a more refined question) such that it might lead to a consensus. This RfC has failed to head such advice and is likely to produce the same outcome as previous precisely because it has failed to head their advice. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
On the strength of arguments, there is no global consensus to be applied that would give one side or the other sufficient weight to overcome the numerical split of opinion. In light of that, I recommend we mutually agree to close this RfC as "no consensus" in accordance with item #2 at Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Ending RfCs. I don't see any reason to tie up the time and effort of an uninvolved editor if we can agree that we haven't reached a consensus here. -- N8wilson 18:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |first3=
has numeric name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
The problem of ethnic composition of the Russian army, especially in Ukraine, exists. I do not know if official numbers are available. But some informations exist.
The following line in the lead regarding protests in Russia should be removed or modified; "those in Russia were met with mass arrests and increased media censorship, including a ban on the words "war" and "invasion"."
To highlight the Russian government's censorship of war opposition while failing to mention the Ukrainian government's censorship of their war opposition violates WP:NPOV. As has been reported by reliable sources, the Ukrainian government has banned opposition parties sympathetic to Russia [1] and has, in general, heavily censored dissent. [2] The Azov regiment has also been credibly accused of abduction, torture, and killing of pro-Russia Ukrainian citizens. [3] Because of these facts, this page should either highlight the censorship from both sides, or neither. DayTime99 ( talk) 14:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
References
The current source links to https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-do-so-many-russians-say-they-support-the-war-in-ukraine, but there is no mention of those numbers there. Can someone point to the correct source or add [citation needed] or remove it if misleading? VZakharov ( talk) 06:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Can someone explain how is it that Colombia (a country that isn't mentioned once otherwise in the whole article) is in the info box as supporting Ukraine because it's "allegedly" sending a demining team (the sources being some unknown Russian-language websites) while countries sending millions of weapons, money and providing military intelligence aren't?
189.193.65.250 ( talk) 16:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the following, excessively detailed content from the lede. Full details can be provided in the article or sub-articles. The lede should be a concise summary. By necessity, many important facts will not fit in the lede. Jehochman Talk 12:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Putin also alleged that eastward expansion by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) threatens Russia's national security, which it has disputed. [1] Russia demanded NATO stop expanding and permanently bar Ukraine from ever joining the alliance. [2] Multiple nations accused Russia of planning to attack or invade Ukraine, which Russian officials repeatedly denied as late as 23 February 2022. [6]
On 8 April, Russia announced that its forces in southern and eastern Ukraine would be placed under the command of General Aleksandr Dvornikov, and some units withdrawn from northern Ukraine were subsequently redeployed to the Donbas. [7]
By 13 May, Russian forces near Kharkiv had withdrawn following a Ukrainian counter-offensive. By 20 May, Mariupol fell to Russian troops following a prolonged siege of the Azovstal steel works. [8] [9]
Numerous companies withdrew their products and services from Russia and Belarus, and Russian state-funded media were banned from broadcasting and removed from online platforms. The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into crimes against humanity in Ukraine since 2013, as well as war crimes in the 2022 invasion. [10]
References
NATO is a defensive alliance. Our purpose is to protect our member states. Every country that joins NATO undertakes to uphold its principles and policies. This includes the commitment that 'NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia,' as reaffirmed at the Brussels Summit this year. NATO enlargement is not directed against Russia. Every sovereign nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also subscribed to and should respect. In fact, after the end of the Cold War, Russia committed to building an inclusive European security architecture, including through the Charter of Paris, the establishment of the OSCE, the creation of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, and the NATO-Russia Founding Act.
Deny
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).denials
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Czech
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).It is currently 00:09:30 UTC. In the "Casualties" column, for the "Russian and allied forces" row, it states that 15,000–20,000 wounded: /info/en/?search=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties_and_humanitarian_impact . However, the source says that number were killed. The claim of wounded is inconsistent with the provided source. I am not yet extended confirmed and cannot update this error. Could someone else?
Brom20110101 ( talk) 00:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Is the Kyiv Independent reliable enough for use in a featured article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanth Nalluri 11 ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The Ukraine war animation has now reached the size limit allowing it to be displayed in thumbnail form. If the number of frames exceeds 104 (June 6th) the animation will no longer be able to be viewed in thumbnail form, as it would no longer make the following equation true, (length of image in pixels) x (width of image in pixels) x (number of animation frames) < 100,000,000. There are a few possible fixes, including lowering the the gifs resolution, dropping some frames, converting it to some other file format, or if we don't want to change anything about the gif itself, a subtext could be added underneath the image saying something like "please click to view the animation". I would like to get everyone's thoughts on what the best solution is before I change anything.
PS: I was told that some people can't even view the gif in its regular form when I added frames for June 7th through 10th, which is above the limit. I'm not experiencing that issue, and I don't know what could be causing it, if it is happening at all. Please see if that version of the
Ukraine animation plays for you, and tell me the result. Thanks!
Physeters
✉ 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Any sources conforming independence of the 'separatists' from Russia?
Xx236 ( talk) 10:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"Right Sector ... is a right-wing to far-right". Even if there exist sources supporting 'fringe', there are different ones, so no. Xx236 ( talk) 13:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The size of the article is a little more than 350 KB. The readable prose size is more than 100 KB as per [ [76]]. So, can someone please remove trivial information from this article? That would help! Hemanth Nalluri ( Talk) 22:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion that is dominating this talk page should be replaced with a link to the discussion just like how we did it to the first one on this page. Hemanth Nalluri ( Talk) 22:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
There's a row indicating 3,528 killed among Russian forces from IStories. The data was compiled from an unaffiliated anonymous Ukrainian Telegram channel. The site does not look trustworthy at all (no about us page, no financing info, no editorial staff etc, same for telegram channel). I suggest to remove this source completely or at least somebody from experienced users should check that data for credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.99.36.148 ( talk) 19:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a section on the invasion, and a subsection (three good-sized paragraphs): 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Potential Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons
1. This seems out of place - as the larger section is about what has happened. The reader expects a summary of events. But this is speculative. 2. Given that this is speculative, the size of the subsection would seem to violate the wikipedia policy against giving things undue weight.
I would recommend 1. Condensing the subsection 2. Moving it out of the main invasion section.
(It is reliably source - it belongs in the article. I am addressing the size and and the position only). Jd2718 ( talk) 12:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the cuts made in this
diff. Key contextual events such as the Euromaidan are missing, and the text refers to things that are no longer mentioned (e.g. "Russia's annexation of Crimea followed in March 2014"
, which originally came after a mention of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest). I raised my objection to making severe cuts to the background in the
discussion that took place beforehand and I'm disappointed to notice that
ErnestKrause went ahead regardless without raising specific proposals (edit: without specifically discussing what information should be removed; I missed your suggestion regarding the number of paragraphs you'd like to cut it down to, but was expecting a discussion about which content should/shouldn't be cut) on the talk, as I don't believe there was a consensus for such a drastic reduction. While I'm definitely open to the idea of a significant shortening, I'd like to discuss specific changes first as I think such a massive cut is a significant loss for this article, the most visited article related to the current war.
I'd like to hear more opinions on the proposed cut (the current version). @ErnestKrause: could you please urgently fix the missing references to events so the text flows properly. I'll hold off reverting per WP:BRD for now until others have had their say (in case I'm the only editor who sees things this way), although WP:FAITACCOMPLI indicates that if there isn't a consensus for such a large removal, then the correct course of action is to restore the previous text and start cuts again from there, even if this seems like more work. Jr8825 • Talk 21:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
If Belarus is listed as a supporter of Russia, then surely the US, Sweden, Estonia etc should be listed as supporting countries of Ukraine? They're providing more help than Belarus. A bit weird? Dopeliciouss ( talk) 09:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "Belligerents" section, provide a link to the section "Foreign Military Support". This is consist with the article "Russo-Ukranian War" 108.36.196.232 ( talk) 12:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
This is a general page, I am not sure if destruction of a tugboat deserves so much place here. Xx236 ( talk) 09:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I think a new dedicated section dedicated to briefly summarising Russia's occupation of new territories (e.g. grain theft, protests, arrests, cutting of internet, media changes) might be warranted. See, for example, the Russian wiki's equivalent section (you can use Google Translate to get a rough idea of what's covered). What are others' thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 17:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Should this article be marked as "controversial" with the " controversial warning template?" Hemanth Nalluri ( Talk) 4:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
On the Battle of Donbas (2022) page, I have been keeping track of Russian Ministry of Defense daily briefings, where they announce the number of Ukrainian troops killed in the Donbas. I have literally gone onto Russian government websites each day and Telegram pages and found independent news pages corroborating those claims to cite them in that article. I've done the same with LPR claims, DPR claims, as well as Ukrainian claims for Russian casualties.
In my spare time, I'm going to find the LPR and DPR claims about killed Ukrainian soldiers for 24 February - 18 April, add them onto the claims from 18 April to present, and put them in the table for this article. But this new section is not about that.
I am still missing a few briefings, but if you go onto that page I've tallied 12,500 killed Ukrainians in the Donbas from 21 April to 20 June alone. Given that the most recent Russian figure in the table stands at 23,367 and that is dated from 18 April, does it make sense to add up these figures (which gives us about 36,000+ killed) and keep the "+" sign to indicate that the casualties from other regions is still unknown? PilotSheng ( talk) 21:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Do the recent edits quoting Russian opinions belong here? Xx236 ( talk) 08:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Something should be added. Xx236 ( talk) 07:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "Crimes against cultural heritage", add this additional statement at the end:
"Notable heritage sites the war has destroyed include the All Saints Monastery in Donbas [1] [2] and the house of Russian composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky in Trostyanets. [3]" Skippy2520 ( talk) 15:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
References
I have not yet looked at the alternate versions (and I suspect this will be a problem with most of the votes on the RfC) but in case this is helpful, I do have some thoughts on the section as it is as of this writing. Some of these thoughts also applied to previous versions. It is currently unclear to me whether the consensus is that the section is too long or too short.
For context, I have historically followed news events quite closely but did not pay particular attention to Ukraine until the invasion, after which I did a deep dive and have since done at least a copy-edit on pretty much all the en-Wikipedia articles on the topic. So I consider myself informed on the topic but with no deep expertise, and might be able to channel a best-case scenario for an intelligent casual reader. So here are some concerns about the background section:
In hopes some of the above is helpful Elinruby ( talk) 18:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
"run by a succession of puppet regimes"isn't an accurate characterisation of post-1991 Ukraine. Even if Kuchma and Yanukovych weakened institutions and put the country's autonomy at risk, it has had multiple free elections, and Kravchuk and Yushchenko's presidencies in particular were not oriented towards Russia. Jr8825 • Talk 20:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing that any of the comments/proposals by Elinruby substantially add to the text at present (B) and some might reduce. I would only suggest that we shouldn't expend (too much) effort until the RfC is concluded. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
"articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions or phrases [are appropriate to link] — but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link".
Ukraine’s governments were absolutely not “a succession of puppet régimes,” except arguably Yanukovych’s from the day he gave in to Russian pressure to cancel signing of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement on November 21, 2013, until Ukraine’s parliament dismissed prime minister Arbuzov’s caretaker government on February 27, 2014 (less than 100 days).
“Since Ukraine’s independence” means either the day Ukraine proclaimed independence, in August 1991, the day Ukrainians ratified the declaration in a referendum or the following day when its independence was Internationally recognized, in December, or perhaps even the days of the signing of the Belovezha Accords, or the Almaty Protocol, or the day the USSR voted itself out of existence, December 25. One can argue about how much Russian influence on it there was during the years after that, but that is an opinion about politics and not the conventional meaning of the phrase “Ukrainian independence.” — Michael Z. 20:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Probably a stupid change, but in the casualties box it says RAF. I confused this for the Royal Air Force instead of the Russian Armed Forces, though it is hyperlinked. Anyone else agree? ~~~~ Harveywalker500 ( talk) 12:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Can you add South Ossetia to the attacking side, they have battalion or so in Ukraine. 79.100.80.172 ( talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change the length counter from months to days. At the time of writing it would be change the '4 Months and 3 Days' to '122 Days' Scu ba ( talk) 20:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.There should be totals on the casualties tab so as to make it easier to ascertain who's winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:9C63:999:8E75:C32B ( talk) 04:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The time has finally come to bury your biased views and add the United States as a party in this conflict. There are US boots on the ground. The Americans are actively helping Ukraine against Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-russia-ukraine.html?searchResultPosition=1 109.38.141.24 ( talk) 21:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Editors pointed to a number of other articles about wars that included, or did not include, a "support by" section in the infobox. There is ample precedent for both approaches and no universally-consistent practice.-- N8wilson 17:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
It is a fact that Ukraine is supported by over 30 countries. You even list them at foreign support. I like wikipedia, i am not pro-russian(my country is member of EU and nato), but let us not pretend that we didn t support them. I do think that billions of $ and € and six round of sanctions is more then support, and 100x more then the support of Belarus.
In the moment you write Donbas and Luhansk Republic as support for Russia, you officially admit its existence. That doesn't bother me either, just stating a fact. 2A02:2F07:D801:6100:B0E1:524C:41D6:2D64 ( talk) 14:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
So. As i said and you did whatever you did with my post. I have no secrets. You need no ip tracking. I am from romania-targu mures.
So what makes you think that letting attack from belorus is support and giving weapons and moneyis not. Read your own wiki article abbout support and military support. And if this is correct, change that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support Herminator2 ( talk) 15:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
It is Support Type of support: Military Subtype of support: combat service support. As simple as that according to your own definitions. Herminator2 ( talk) 15:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Okie. For me that sentence means that if you give a bullet to someone who s engaged in a war is combat service support. As i said i don t really care, i find the article biased, but as citizen of a pro-ucrainian country of course i just stop donating. I thought we support them. My bad. Have a nice day yall. Herminator2 ( talk) 15:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
To summarize: financial support and military supply are things that happen in peacetime, and do not make a state a belligerent. (BTW, some of these countries have supplied military equipment and weapons to the Russian Federation too.) Belarus’s wartime provision of its soil for acts of aggression is itself legally an act of aggression, according to the UN’s definition.
This keeps coming up in talk. Is there a way to make the infobox section more self-explanatory on what it represents, say with better labels? — Michael Z. 15:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot of articles in WP that includes not boots on terrain countries in the infobox. (Sweeden in Vietnam, Lybia in Iran-Iraq, Korean war...) in some articles infobox i have seen "weapons support", "diplomatic support" and "financial aid" I think is 100% clear that Ukraine have received financial, diplomatic and weapons support from a lot of countries. So why is not listed in this article infobox and is in other war articles? Please edit the infobox to add this foreign suppor to ukraine or lets modify a lot of war articles to make consistent with the "boots on field" criteria in this article. DrYisus ( talk) 12:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Explain me why Nazi Germany is in the infobox supporting Ethiopia in the Second Italo-Abyssinian war and Czechoslovakia is supporting Bolivia and Italy Paraguay in Chaco war, but United states, UK and European Union are not in the infobox supporting Ukraine? I am only trying to understand WP criteria to include a supporting country in the infobox. DrYisus ( talk) 12:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
CIA personnel operate in Kyiv according to former & current US officials. At least USA should be added to "Supported By" for Ukraine
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-russia-ukraine.html RandomPotato123 ( talk) 03:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Belarus didn't set foot in Ukraine but it is considered a supporting country as well. The US, the UK and the European Union should be included as supporting country for the Ukraine counterpart Marcodicaprio90 ( talk) 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but NATO sent weapons and offered Ukraine logistic and military support – it is public domain. If we mention Belarus in the chart, we should do the same for NATO members. Marcodicaprio90 ( talk) 19:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
An issue has arisen at the article Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. As per earlier consensus established at the War in Donbas article in 2014, self-admitted casualty figures and those presented by 3rd party sources (example UN) were to be included into the casualty tables, while claims made by belligerents about their enemies losses were to be only presented in text/prose form outside the tables due to the possibility of propaganda inflation (unreliability). This consensus extended to the Casualties article which was born out of the start of the War in Donbas. Recently, a consensus at this article's (invasion) talk page, reaffirmed the old consensus in regards to the Casualties article, but that the belligerent's claims of their enemies losses would be included in the table located in the casualties section of this article (since all casualty information was moved from the infobox to the casualties section due to bloating). @ Volunteer Marek: has requested that claims of enemy losses now be included in the table of the Casualties article as well, just like they are here in the Invasion article. In principle I do not object to this (having identical tables would be less confusing) as long as there is editor agreement, so we could verify a new consensus moving forward (overwriting the old one). Between, discussion has been started at this talk page since the last consensus reaffirmation was made on this article's talk page a few months ago, so this could be considered a sort of continuation. Opinions, objections, no objections? EkoGraf ( talk) 01:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The statement is not obvious so it does not deserve to be quoted in the lead. The statelets are controlled rather by Russia. I will remove the phrase. Xx236 ( talk) 07:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Name one channel not controlled by the Russian state. Probably the same in Ukraine. Xx236 ( talk) 07:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I 'show up', because the text says 'Pro-Kremlin television pundits like Vladimir Solovyov and Russian state-controlled channels like Russia-24,[613] Russia-1,[614] and Channel One[615] follow the government narrative'. The phrase suggests that there exist independent channels in Russia. Xx236 ( talk) 06:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 05:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Some days ago Russian forces managed to surround Ukrainian troops in Hirske and Zolote. This is something that has not happened often, as far as I know the only other examples are Mariupol, Chernihiv and Slavutych. These three have articles on their respective military engagements, but the surrounding at Hirske and Zolote does not. I was wondering if a specific article could perhaps be written about it. Probably not as not much actually happened, but I'd like to see the opinions of other editors as I feel like this event has no appropriate article for coverage other than the broad Eastern Ukraine offensive and the articles on the towns themselves. We have some similar examples in Wikipedia, like Falaise pocket or the Kamenets–Podolsky pocket, but these are far more obviously notable. The Kholm Pocket is the one with the smallest scale I've been able to find. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This needs closing as a violation of wp:tenditious. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I remember reading several weeks ago, I believe in the ISW that Russia had committed upwards of 330,000 Soldiers to the invasion. I believe that, along with more recruits who have joined the forces of the DPR and LPR around with the estimated 10,000 - 20,000 foreign mercenaries who have reportedly been flown in by the Russians should be included in the "Strength" section. As for the Ukrainian side, they have also highly increased the number of fighters they now have, I believe their president also recently reported that up to 700,000 people were participating in the "defense of Ukraine" in some way or another. Either way, the strength section should be updated to reflect more current figures of troops involved on both sides. History Man1812 ( talk) 14:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812
Foreign military support section, Foreign military involvement subsection : "On 5 May, a US official confirmed that US gave "a range of intelligence"... should have a "the" before "US gave". Astrosalad ( talk) 01:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
It is estimated around 8.4 million Ukrainians have fled the country not 6.4 million 5.59.117.168 ( talk) 21:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Here we are again. So just like last time, we are about to hit the limit of frames the gif can have if we want it to play in thumbnail form. The limit is 104 frames, and the Part 2 gif will pass that limit on July 19th, so it is still possible that a natural breaking point will occur where the gif can be split. @ ErnestKrause proposed changing the gif to only show every other day, which would extend the deadline to November 1. I know some people might have a problem with this, but it seems like the best option, other than splitting the gif in two. If there are any other possible solutions, please let me know! Physeters ✉ 02:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The article currently reads some press reports grew increasingly unsure about a possible Ukrainian victory in the conflict. The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung noted, after the loss of Severodonetsk, that the chances for a Ukrainian victory "tend towards zero". with two sources given. One is Süddeutsche Zeitung itself. The other one is an Al Jazeera article that has the opposite tenor, claiming the loss of Severodonetsk is of minor military importance but the Russian forces are running out of ammunition and are demoralized: To some observers, Moscow’s long-term perspectives in the war do not look promising because of heavy losses and demoralised manpower amid Western sanctions that prevent the production of high-precision weaponry. [97] SovielHungerhabichgarnicht ( talk) 02:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Al Jazera says the opposite of what this paragraph says. That leaves a single Op-Ed in the Süddeutsche Zeitung to document this supposed trend. Deleting paragraphand
This mischaracterized an OP-ED by a single journalist as the position of the newspaper. This paragraph may need to be altered further, having [should be "haven't"] checked al jazera but the fact that a single journalist in a country full of defeatists (Germany) wrote something defeatist is not really notable. So basically, I think we're all in agreement. The Al-Jazeera article says that the loss of Severodonetsk isn't strategically important and quotes experts to that effect. Now I have seen a Washington Post article about differing assessments in the US, with some saying the US isn't doing enough to help Ukraine and a minority saying US assessments are too rosy and Ukraine can't win, but that's not really about media coverage. German "intellectuals" and "pacifists" have been calling for Ukraine basically surrendering for various reasons since before the conflict, though they don't call it surrendering, which is how the article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung has to be contextualized.
There are a ton of western countries supporting and military supplying Ukraine (whole of NATO, Australia, Japan ect). Yet none of them are mentioned in the section. As per other wikipedia articles about conflicts, military assistance to a country in the form of providing weapons is considered a semi-belligerent mentioned in "supported by" section.
I hope the editors familiar with the article see my post and make the necessary changes. Thank you all for your work! NickTheRipper ( talk) 20:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
All the other wikipedia articles (about military conflicts) list countries in "supported by" section that have even provided just diplomatic support to the belligerents (e.g. see Vietnam War for reference). Also I don't see how international law has to do anything with how a wikipedia article is structured. Thanks NickTheRipper ( talk) 14:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it's kind of laughable to assume that Ukraine is not supported by anyone in the world in its war against Russia. But I guess wikipedia's political bias has changed a lot from when I used to edit back in the day... NickTheRipper ( talk) 16:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take the time to answer even though I know that will not change your pov.
>Michael Z
"There is no “semi-belligerent” status in international law." International law has nothing to do with how a wikipedia article should be structured. "We know providing weapons doesn’t make one a belligerent, because it is done constantly by a large number of states without ever creating a state of war." Never said otherwise. Providing weapons makes one support a belligerent.
>ErnestKrause
"Assessment of military alliances is normally done by observing boots on the ground or planes in the air." A party does not have to be in an alliance with a belligerent in order to provide support to them. Also units (on the ground or in the air as you said) would make a party full-fleged belligerent (providing they take part in hostilities). "No country has provided Ukraine with boots on the ground or planes in the air." Again that would make a party a belligerent.
>Slatersteven
"We are not saying that, we are saying they are not beligerants" Ok, we agree here. They are not a belligerent. They are providing support for one. "That their level of support does not rise high enough to really count as involved in direct conflict." I think you have not understand what I am trying to say here. These parties are involved in the conflict not enough to be listed as belligerents but enough to be listed as supporting a belligerent. NickTheRipper ( talk) 17:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, please add the UK. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are being trained on British soil right now. Stop your biased views. Game over.
https://news.sky.com/story/we-see-them-as-brothers-in-arms-here-uk-training-thousands-of-ukrainian-recruits-in-england-12648559 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.38.137.43 ( talk) 21:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
According to the NYT and numerous other sources, US has boots on the ground in Ukraine via many CIA operatives since at least 2015. This article mentions nothing that Ukraine IS supported by the US, NATO and EU. 120.17.193.129 ( talk) 01:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/10/world/europe/russia-recruits-ukraine-war.html June,
Another source https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-war-women-soldiers-home-buryatia-tyva/31940262.html
Xx236 ( talk) 09:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/108385/pdf/ Xx236 ( talk) 09:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
At what point shall we rename this article from "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" to something more resembling reality, as was the case with the Iraq-Iran war, which followed a similar pattern? LordParsifal ( talk) 19:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the wording that wikipedia has chosen is very confusing. It has labeled the Ukrainian-Russian conflict from 2014 onwards a war so it is forced to find a different wording for this article. In reality whoever mentions Ukraine-Russian war means the one started in February. No one actually means a "continuous" war from 2014. It feels like an artificial label used exclusively by wikipedia. In my opinion the first article should be renamed to Ukraine-Russian conflict and that one to Ukraine-Russian war. As for the -Russian invasion- wording it better suits the "first" part of the war, as the war itself approaches a stalemate and becomes protracted. NickTheRipper ( talk) 20:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, prior to the 2022 invasion a number of Ukrainian politicians (mainly those opposed to Zelensky [who was a moderate figure until the 2022 invasion], and the most anti-Russian figures) claimed that the country had been at war since 2014. I'm guessing that's why we have the current wording on Wikipedia, due to certain editors taking this position. YantarCoast ( talk) 20:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
That was my impression from watching Прямий канал for something like three years. Anyway, here you go (sorry, it's not in English). [1] Apparently, Ukraine wasn't at war (apologies if it doesn't fit in with your view of the situation). YantarCoast ( talk) 21:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Aa the infobox already says "Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War". Slatersteven ( talk) 16:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
References
@ LordParsifal: @ Mzajac: @ NickTheRipper: @ Alcibiades979: My thoughts exactly. A title with invasion would be fine if this was a short conflict, but the way it's looking this is turning into a protracted conflict. An example of a similar situation is Soviet-Afghan War, where the Soviet Union invaded, but it ended up going into a years long war, hence it has that title. On the other hand, we've also got the War in Afghanistan (2001-2021) in which there is a separate United States invasion of Afghanistan article that deals with the initial few months of the invasion. With this Ukraine war, we could go into one of these ways. Personally, should this war continue for a couple more months, I would support renaming it to War in Ukraine (2022-present) or (if it ends this year) War in Ukraine (2022). These are very neutral titles. Unless in the future this conflict becomes known as the Ukraine War (like the Vietnam War), it could better become Ukraine War, but not at this time. -- WR 13:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
How about naming the 2014-2022 period the First Ukraine War, and then the 2022- period the Second Ukraine War, like we do with the First- and Second Congo Wars? LordParsifal ( talk) 03:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, all correct. But it still irks me that this is still called an invasion. Precisely what irks me is how long this might go on. Will it still be called the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine a year from now? Or 2022-2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine? It just sounds ridiculous. It's a full-scale conventional war between two full-sized, fully armed, fully warring parties. It's Iraq-Iran. LordParsifal ( talk) 03:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Xx236|Xx236, what do you mean by, "Ukraine is not allowed to attack Russia"? 216.24.45.37 ( talk) 12:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are two proposed versions of the Background section of this article ( version A and version B), both of which might be further refined. Which of these two versions is the better option moving forward? Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Previous RfC statement, retained for context: Should the previous background section ("A") be reduced in size? Is the shortened background section ("B") better or worse? Jr8825 • Talk 01:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Adoring nanny ( talk) 00:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[Putin] calls the Soviet collapse the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." Russian forces seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, and remain to this day. Putin wrote last summer that Russia and Ukraine are really one country — which they were for long periods over the centuries.
Jr8825, while it is good to garner further participation, I think that your RfC is premature.
I can see an argument for keeping Cinderella's shortening of the Euromaidan summary as it successfully manages to cut a couple of sentences ...
You may wish to reconsider this, at least for the present. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
In February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special police resulted in the deaths of 100 protesters and 13 policemen; most of the victims were shot by police snipers, where the numbers killed is "intricate detail" it is sufficient to say that there were widespread protests and possibly, that these resulted in deaths. Also:
... candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned with TCDD dioxin ...- it is sufficient to say he was poisoned. And that is without really looking. A better proposition in phrasing the RfC is to acknowledge that both are a basis for further review and which is the preferred basis for this further review. The questions posed by the RfC are not "equal". Consequently, there is an intrinsic and subtle bias. Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
both of which might be further refined, it is an acceptable statement of the reality of WP. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
During the Russian invasion there has been a few friendly fire incidents such as the tank battle russia vs russia, the Russian warplane that was fired upon by the Russian navy, the SAM missile that did a 180⁰ turn destroying the SAM missile launcher, the sinking of a Russian landing vessel after it hit a Russian sea mine russian tanks that drove through a mine field so theirs a bit of missing information 101.188.18.162 ( talk) 07:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest the article should include a blurb about the various territorial adjustments that have been ignored for decades (much like older colonial Africa/colonial Asia border adjustments) -- when the USSR collapsed in 1991. At the time -- the SSR borders were "phony borders" based on internal USSR politics. The various SSRs spun off using those borders -- yet Russia SSR insisted that various adjustments were needed. Events happened too fast, the West recognized the SSR states, and Russia SSR under Yeltsin did not press the issue...hoping to get immediate economic aid from the West. They asked for $15 billion -- they got $1.5 billion -- with Bush Sr more concerned about USSR nuclear weapon issues than cultivating real Great Power to Great Power good will. The West favored the small SSR spin-offs rather than the main Russia SSR successor state, and relations soured a few years later over the first and second Chechnya war. NATO expanded in additional waves. Putin took a leadership role. 9/11 happened. Good will over the Russian offer to let the US military build a huge base in former Soviet Asia...dissipated. The various enclaves and separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine, Georgia, etc. drew Western criticism. Georgia was goaded into trying to resolve its separatist issues by talk of Georgia joining NATO -- in 2008, that led to a brief Russia-Georgia war where Russia was labeled the aggressor for intervening. These border adjustments and separatist mini-states (Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donbas states) have led to the impression of Russia as an aggressor. In reality these are issues left over from the USSR break-up/divorce. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 ( talk) 19:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It should be "BBC News Russian & Mediazona" instead of "BBC News Russian & Meduza". Also the link doesn't work, it should be https://zona.media/casualties (in Russian, 2022-07-15 data) or https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/11/casualties_eng (in English, 2022-07-01 data).
Also it should probably noted that they say they count only those dead who were identified (by mass media, the Russian government, or their relatives on social media). Arzet Ro ( talk) 07:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The entire passage of: effects on ukrainian scociety[sic], seems to be written to push a political agenda. The information given by the sources is not checked and taken out of context 2A02:8108:97C0:1DC0:2D0C:7933:671C:3BF8 ( talk) 10:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It is fair to add the EU and NATO countries that support Ukraine with weapons, when Belarus is included in the belligerents list as supportive. 2A00:A200:0:813:56E:D75A:58E0:768F ( talk) 10:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For countries who support Russia, add North Korea and Iran as both have said the support the invasion and are willing to provide aid 166.181.81.169 ( talk) 01:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. I'm assuming this is for the support section in the infobox? The amount of support they have provided is not sufficient for inclusion in the infobox.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 01:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Why is there a section on this, longer than the section e.g. on naval warfare aspects of the war? It seems completely out of proportion considering it deals with a purely speculative situation. Yakikaki ( talk) 18:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
At the time of the Invasion, the Crimean peninsula is Russian, and cannot be painted blue! At a minimum, it should be painted as a disputed territory. HellSAS ( talk) 11:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I do not know the subject, but Dnipro is probably not a front city now. Xx236 ( talk) 07:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you think that Russian Wikipedia is subject to the state and facts cannot be taken from it? 212.164.204.35 ( talk) 13:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved per strong consensus. Closing early, since this is a highly visible article, and the proposal has no chance to gain consensus. No such user ( talk) 12:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine (2022) – Reliable sources such the BBC use this title in their headings. Interstellarity ( talk) 21:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Belligerent section for Ukraine shows blank which is total bullshit as if no country supports it when the whole Western world led by US and UK supplies it with high modern weaponry and sanctions against Russia 197.186.5.116 ( talk) 11:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Please see the FAQ Q2 at the top of this page. — Michael Z. 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The website seems to be heavily positively biased towards russia. A lot of its articles cannot be verified through prominent news outlets. It also seems to heavily rely on sputnik as a source, which is a wikipedia deprecated source.
Your input would be appreciated. Eddmanx ( talk) 12:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has been reporting on Russian military bloggers, known as milbloggers" to "The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has been reporting on Russian military bloggers, known as milbloggers" Originalcola ( talk) 03:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The text says "Several African leaders said the western expansion of NATO contributed to the war" I suppose this should be eastern expension?
Teun Spaans ( talk) 17:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Translation is incorrect. The term "western expansion" refers to the expansion of the influence of Western Europe and the United States to the east in the form of NATO. TheRatProphet ( talk) 12:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Some countries only provided non-lethal military aid, and it’s slightly misleading to list them alongside countries that provided heavy weaponry or combat weapons. I would suggest using two shades of blue for this purpose. 2A0D:6FC2:4970:A100:21C8:F806:25C4:99AF ( talk) 10:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into crimes against humanity in Ukraine since 2013, as well as war crimes in the 2022 invasion." to "The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into crimes against humanity in Ukraine over war crimes in the 2022 invasion." as the lead should contain information directly related to this event Originalcola ( talk) 03:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 11:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)https://www.euronews.com/amp/2022/07/23/russian-missile-strikes-in-ukrainian-port-hours-after-grain-deal-claims-odesa-mp https://www.ukrinform.net/amp/rubric-ato/3535226-russian-missiles-hit-odesa-port.html Vyacheslav1921 ( talk) 10:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-pledges-more-military-aid-ukraine-peace-seems-far-off-2022-07-22/ Vyacheslav1921 ( talk) 11:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
https://news.ru/vlast/zaharova-vyskazalas-po-povodu-raketnogo-udara-po-odesse/ https://www.svoboda.org/a/mariya-zaharova-prokommentirovala-raketnyy-udar-po-portu-odessy/31957376.html Kyiv* Vyacheslav1921 ( talk) 09:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The article on the refugee crisis caused by the war states that the number of people who have fled Ukraine is now 9.9 million not 9.6 million citing the UN refugee agency among other sources. Can someone look into this please? 2A00:23C8:905:2701:2135:2504:3AA0:4023 ( talk) 13:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The caption under the animation currently says from April to 11 July but the animation runs to the 24th of July. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B ( talk) 01:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Can we add the “Terminology” section to the article? The terms used in Ukraine are “ Russian invasion of Ukraine”, “ resistance against full-scale Russian aggression”, etc while Russia uses the term “special military operation”, etc.. Neutral terms are “Russo-Ukrainian war”, “Russo-Ukrainian conflict”, “War in Ukraine”… - 76.68.77.13 ( talk) 17:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
It is not full-scale anyway. You can look at size of Russian army and compare it to forces in Ukraine. And you will not find terminology like USA invasion to Korea, Belgrade or Vietnam. It's up to you, anyway. Also neither Ukraine, nor Russia officially declared a war. Which is quite strange and confusing in this situation. The best term, imho, Russo-Ukranian conflict. Because here is Russia, here is Ukraine, and here is the conflict. No war declared. And officially the Russian army has been taking part in this only since February 2022. There is no evidence otherwise, except for propaganda from either side, as I understand it. TheRatProphet ( talk) 13:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect WarTok and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#WarTok until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The infobox “Casualties and losses” section currently links to the article section with no data. It should at least give the reader an idea of the magnitude of losses. I suggest we put the range of losses estimated by third parties or accepted by reliable sources, even if it is a very wide range. — Michael Z. 16:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Any speculation that casualty figures will somehow improve and become more suitable for the infobox in the future is WP:crystall ball gazing. The casualties line is for the best estimated range of casualties. There is no standard for what is not reliable enough, and surely the estimates available today are of better quality than the thousands entered in infoboxes for historical battles.
If there is a concrete reason not to state them according to some guideline or supportable logic and data, then please provide it. Until then, I will enter the best third-party estimates in the infobox. — Michael Z. 14:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
More importantly the given casualty figures were misrepresenting the sources. The sources explicitly mention only those deaths confirmed by name and explicitly state that "the data collected does not reflect the actual level of casualties'. Yet, our table pretended that these were total deaths.
This is the third time I've found someone trying to pull this trick off. Don't do that again. Volunteer Marek 18:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Please change the short description to {{Short description|none}} per WP:SDNONE. 🇺🇦 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
self explanatory, the united states sent himars artillery, & billions of dollars in military aid along with certain nato countries, might as well list them as supporting ukraine in the war if belarus will be listed as supporting russia 2603:9001:2B09:9A93:74D3:9AF1:269C:E865 ( talk) 13:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first sentence under the map of Ukraine would read better as: "The Euromaidan protests and a revolution named the Revolution of Dignity resulted the removal of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, after which pro-Russian unrest erupted in parts of Ukraine." 14.203.161.145 ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 15:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Why Belarus is listed as sponsor of Russia when USA not listed as sponsor of Ukraine? 203.219.83.10 ( talk) 00:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, since you were using the nomenclature of Russian Wikipedia to argue that saying war is not illegal in Russia, see this Reuter's article
[101]. Russian Wikimedia is being fined in Russia for "propaganda," and Reuters says as of yesterday Russia does not call what is happening a "war" or an "invasion", criminalising the use of either word
.--
Ermenrich (
talk) 18:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I've started a merging discussion at Talk:Battle of Dovhenke#Merge into new article. It involves a reorganization of some battles of the invasion and may be relevant for this talk page. I think there should be some discussion on the four theaters Wikipedia has made up for covering the invasion and whether some battles could be moved around or grouped together in subtheaters. Super Ψ Dro 09:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I would like to ask why in all the articles about a military conflict there are so few images of personnel and equipment in action, or images of military actions. the articles are dominated by damaged buildings. Is this a war between buildings, where they throw walls and stairs at each other? There are thousands of hours of video and millions of frames, thousands upon thousands of photos, all without copyright, in all social networks, or published by the defense ministries of each country, and in the articles you hardly see any image of military actions. 152.206.209.212 ( talk) 02:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a link to Olenivka prison explosion, an article about the massacre of 50 Ukrainian POWs by Russian soldiers. -- WithUinH ( talk) 06:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The Pentagon’s number three official says Russia has suffered between 70,000 and 80,000 casualties since invasion of Ukraine began. — goethean 23:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Has border security in Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and over the Bering Strait been tightened since the invasion? This is because Putin might believe that Russia may have been swindled/de frauded over the 1867 Alaska Purchase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Has any link been established between the Russo-Ukrainian war and the current tensions between China and Taiwan? (unsigned editor)
I have started a draft for the 2022 Russian theft of Ukrainian grain. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 02:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Recently Amnesty international published a report, stating the Ukrainian forces are endangering civilians
as per amnesty report
Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals
Attacks launched from populated civilian areas
Such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians
Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today.
Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/
I see no mention of this in article, kindly add
Mrboondocks (
talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Page split from main article at 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia following CWW due to bulking down the article because of large page size at the main article. The article was approaching 450Kb in page size which is excessive by Wikipedia standards and conventions. The new page may be found at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions. The link is included in the abridged section of this article as well. ErnestKrause ( talk) 17:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect TikTok war and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#TikTok war until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
In section "Casualties and humanitarian impact" subsection "Casualties" we can read the following two sentences:
Both Russian and Ukrainian sources are widely considered to inflate casualty numbers in opposing forces, while downplaying their own losses for the sake of morale. Both sides also tend to be quieter about their own military fatalities.
Since "downplaying their own losses" and "tend to be quiter about their own military fatalities" say the same thing, could not the second sentence be removed? Ribidag ( talk) 07:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious why this article uses British English? Don't get me wrong, as a Brit myself I feel a throb of pride when I see a "u" in "colour", but why was it chosen for this article in particular? Asking out curiosity rather than a desire to actually change this. Anyway, Rule Britannia, God Save the Queen, etc etc 🇬🇧🇺🇦 — Czello 08:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The Ukrainian estimate does not include anything but Russian regular military forces. It does not include LPR, DPR, Wagner, or any other military or paramilitary units. Goliath74 ( talk) 17:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Could use more watchers at the above page. Adoring nanny ( talk) 20:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Involvement of the United States in this war is, by conservative measures, on par with USSR involvement in the Vietnam War. By liberal measures even much greater. I suggest we either add US into the infobox, or remove USSR from the infobox in the Vietnam War and then revise all other war infoboxes. Otherwise, it is pointless to continue calling Wikipedia an independent encyclopedia. -- Novis-M ( talk) 23:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
TL:DR, Rename this to Russo-Ukrainian War, and rename the other page to Russo-Ukrainian Conflict.
Longer Answer: In other long conflicts with periods of intense violence escalating into full scale war, and long periods of down time with small scale engagments and casulties with the odd small flair up, Wikipedia has, by in large, a very consistent system.
Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict covers the entire period of tensions from 1988-present day, within it containing seperate articles for the wars (the term reserved for the intense fighting in the early 90s and 2020) and some notable flairups outside of it.
Afghanistan Conflict covers everything from the 1978 Saur Revolution to todays Panjishir Conflict, all part of a single continuous conflict, but the various seperate civil wars and interventions within are categorized separately.
Libya Crisis(slightly different term due to...reasons I'm not sure, but same principle), covers both wars and the period of low level violence inbetween them and after the 2nd one ended.
Therefore, this current flareup is the Russo-Ukrainian War, part of the larger Russo-Ukrainian Conflict(which also includes the 2014-2015 War in Donbas, and a period of low intensity fighting inbetween(Mid 2015-February 2022) that perhaps should have a seperate article ala what the others do. Of course, the others were all crafted with far more hindsight than we had when we made the War in Donbas article years ago, but with further clarity now a restructing to something like. Russo-Ukrainian Conflict Page (Which describes the seperate War in Donbas, 2015-2022 Donbas Skirmishes, Russo-Ukrainian War, all of which get their own pages) TheBrodsterBoy ( talk) 01:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
A couple of months ago Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya stated "We understand that, without a free Ukraine, there cannot be a free Belarus." And on top of that, the opposition also supported Ukraine in the Battle of Kyiv. So I was thinking we should add the Belarusian opposition to the belligerents section on the Ukrainian side. I got these sources here, here, and on the infobox on the Battle of Kyiv. 2601:600:827F:67C0:6088:8A2C:A09B:17CE ( talk) 01:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I have created a draft article for the Draft:National Republican Army (Russia), the group which may be responsible for the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina according to Ilya Ponomarev. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 22:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
In the last ten days there have been two or more large explosions in Crimea https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/08/16/the-ukrainians-have-struck-another-russian-airfield-in-crimea/?sh=4791ca3c2dfa It is a new aspect of the war, so I would have thought a heading here might be justified. I haven't check other related pages yet. Any thoughts? Thelisteninghand ( talk) 19:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
President Zelenskyy has mentioned several times that the Crimean peninsular will be eventually be liberated. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 05:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
. 86.123.7.179 ( talk) 19:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page supports ukrainr too much and is biased 113.254.66.32 ( talk) 11:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
This needs closing before it gets out of hand.
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Almost 9,000 Ukrainian military killed in war with Russia -armed forces chief | Reuters -- kazerniel ( talk | contribs) 14:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add the Belarusian opposition on Ukraine’s side, because that is the main purpose for the organization, to oppose Belarus at all times, especially with Belarus’ support to Russia with the invasion.
I want to add the Belarusian opposition on Ukraine’s side, because that is the main purpose for the organization, to oppose Belarus at all times, especially with Belarus’ support to Russia with the invasion. Javyriv ( talk) 15:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article currently has a number of 196,600 armed forces personnel and 102,000 paramilitaries for Ukraine. As early as May 21, Ukrainian President Zelensky was claiming there were as many as 700,000 due to mobilizations. [127] Should this number be updated? Apologies if this was already discussed and was not included due to prior discussions. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 20:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
First, I'll preface by saying given the nature of the conflict and politicized claims, the claims made in the
casualties section are naturally messy, but at least it is organized and attributed well. I was looking through the sources and noticed an inconsistency with the "193,000+ killed and wounded" claim by the "Donetsk People's Republic". The source says "irretrievable", and clarifies that it is killed and wounded to such a degree that they "could not rejoin the troops". "As the spokesman for the DPR people’s militia specified, irretrievable losses included killed military personnel and crippled service members who could not rejoin the troops."
Wounded on its own is not necessarily permanent. A soldier could be wounded from a broken bone, be counted as wounded, and return to service a few weeks later after recovering. This is contrary to the "irretrievable" terminology which specifies wounded to the point of no longer being able to serve. Should the language in this claim be revised on the Wiki article to better represent what is meant by wounded in this context?
Saucysalsa30 (
talk) 21:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update Donbas map in the Second Phase section to say as of August 23 Physeters ✉ 08:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I suspect the graph EUR/Ruble exchange rate is showing the number of rubles required to buy one euro. But readers are left with doubt, so it would be helpful to have more explicit description of the graph. I would make the edit myself but I am not completely sure of what it is meant to show. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with proposed deletion of Russian and Ukraine war because need keep it for research purposes that I always do. 49.224.220.170 ( talk) 09:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine gets military support by a number of nations, but that is still missing in this article.
Is there any explanation for this, since articles about other wars clearly state it? Daimler92 ( talk) 11:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
A discussion took place to decide whether countries supplying arms should be listed in the infobox, and the outcome was ' No Consensus'. Please do not add individual countries without discussing here first. While consensus can change, please review the closed discussion, and try to bring forward novel arguments.Kleinpecan ( talk) 12:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The source that the person who wrote it provided even says that it was the Narva tank monument that was removed, not Tallinn! The WW2 monument in Tallinn was moved in 2007, not now. Please fix this error. BananasAreViolet ( talk) 13:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
-As of early september. Russia intends to purchase
artillery and
MLRS ammunition from
North Korea
[1]
[2]
It should go under foreign support section, the section is very heavy on the support Ukraine receives and very lacking in the supporters of Russia. --
Kennet.mattfolk (
talk) 12:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
References
Has he defected from the Ukrainian military? 208.127.136.43 ( talk) 09:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Someone is reverting and re-adding the Peace section to this article which is already covered in two other Wikipedia articles. It is a fully Redundant section. It already has its own article at Main article: 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations. Also it is covered in the new 2022 Reactions article created last week. Is there support for keeping three copies of this section on Wikipedia, or should it be deleted from this 2022 Invasion article? ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
What is the reason? Are you saying that this topic is redundant? I definitely cannot agree with that, it is an important topic, which can affect the entire invasion and definitely related to this article - and not for another article about the war, as these negotiations began just from the beginning of this invasion. As I still do not see a reason for deleting the text from the stable version, I request its restoration. Jirka.h23 ( talk) 15:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
redundant", that's good practice. So I support the re-addition. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 15:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it is a redundant section in this article. It can be included as a new section in summary form. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 11:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
POV-pushing? This isn't about my personal views (if you are interested in these:*start POV* I would love peace, but I can only see that coming once Russia is pushed back. Peace efforts until then are futile, Ukraine needs weapons. *end POV*), it's purely about policy and consensus. That you bring up an AfD policy now is at least a fresh development – could you link to it please? In any case, I think an WP:RfC is really warranted now, as the only way to get this to a conclusion without bad blood. I shall start one. – LordPickleII ( talk) 18:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the post-2022 phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war which is a part of the wider war. It looks like it will overshadow the previous 8 years of the conflict which means that there is quite a lot of overlap. Ideally we should agree on some kind of a framework but I think we are not there yet. In the meantime the reader (who might have come via a wikilink from the Main Page) is likely to be interested in knowing about the peace negotiations and therefore this article should have a short summary and a link to the main article on the negotiations. Alaexis ¿question? 10:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The general approach in the international press has been that there have been three phases in the Russo-Ukraine War since the annexation of Crimea. [...]– meaning? I'm sorry, I just really can't follow your reasoning. If you point to the press reaction, then the peace efforts were definitely covered, and almost exclusively as a result of the current invasion. I agree that longer term, we may need some restructuring. But at present, all news are talking about the Invasion, nothing else, because it is ongoing and the major development in what had otherwise been a relatively "restrained" war. – LordPickleII ( talk) 13:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted the renewed addition of this section as it does not appear to me that clear consensus has been reached. If the talk page is deadlocked, someone should call an wp:RfC.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
consensus has finally reached, 6:3 for keeping this section. The only issue now is how it should look. For whose interested, please share your opinion at the section at the bottom. Thank you all! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 ( talk)
In the second to last paragraph under the section 'Effects on Russian forces', in the fourth to last sentence, there is a typo: 'They must past a physical test'. Stephanos100 ( talk) 15:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the link at the bottom of the sidebar (title "Casualties and losses") from "#Casualties_and_humanitarian_impact" to "#Casualties_and_refugees" as the heading was changed in a previous edit. Bemoty ( talk) 17:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Are you sure that's the correct number on the Russian side? Dawsongfg ( talk) 17:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can barely see the names on the map and want to see specifically where is being won by either side 2600:6C64:617F:62C4:F512:2867:ED10:87CD ( talk) 09:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
In the References section, citations 279 and 435 have a big red "Cite error" on them. Ribidag ( talk) 11:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=?>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=?}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFE/RL: "many Kyrgyz citizens -- in Russia as migrant workers -- have voluntarily joined the Russian military as contractors in return for money or fast-tracked Russian citizenship." https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-russia-invasion-ukraine-fighting/31795637.html
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.
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. (minor edit) Error in the lead: "in an internationally condemned an act of aggression". The "an" before " act of aggression" needs to be removed.
2. Additionally, I think the lead should say the persons, groups, or states who consider this an act of aggression. According to the sources given, this would be the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations, who should be attributed in-text (In My Opinion).
Thanks -- QueenofBithynia ( talk) 12:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Available here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 9#Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox - DownTownRich ( talk) 15:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC:)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there any reliable data what heavy equipment is available to both sides? While there is considerable open source intelligence about confirmed equipment losses, it is obscure e.g. how many tanks participate in the invasion. I think the article would gain from that. -- Rebentisch ( talk) 14:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
From the official Twitter account of the Security Service of Ukraine, translated: https://twitter.com/ServiceSsu/status/1509983294334582793
"The SBU did not provide the media with any official information that cyber-attacks from China were allegedly carried out on the eve of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our military and other resources. The SBU has nothing to do with the findings of The Times. The Security Service of Ukraine does not currently have such data and no investigation is underway."
Chokoladesu ( talk) 12:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I wrote this in my editsum, but whilst the RS does use the word "falsely accused" and the factual basis of the term is relatively well-established, the problem is that the term "falsely accused" is more partisan and accusatory than, for instance, "accused without basis". See WP:PARTISAN -
reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.
The truth is that the language used seems, at least from a semantical standpoint, to be potentially problematic. Augend ( drop a line) 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion it goes against WP guidelines on balancing our language and keeping it neutral.What kind of WP guidelines are you talking about? Renat 10:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
However, using a finger-pointing term like "falsely" to hammer home the point here is both redundant and unencyclopaedic.Why do you think so? And what is your policy based argument? Renat 10:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment It is one thing to be quoting a source (directly or indirectly using non-neutral terms, it is quite another to be writing in non-neutral terms in WP's voice. The lead is a summary of the body. We might state that the allegations are false in the summary if this represents the consensus of opinion in good quality, independent reliable sources. Even then, we should (probably) not be saying this in a WP voice. The body of the text should be showing us that there is such a consensus to show that the allegation can be considered false. We are putting the "falsely accused" in a WP voice before the cart ... analysts have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence ...
. Of the two news sources cited to support this, one doesn't appear to be referring to the opinion of anybody particularly and the second refers to a representatives of an American expatriate Ukranian organisation, an American Jewish organisation and a former American ambassador to Russia. I think that the description of "analysts" is being a little free with the truth. Now, I'm not saying that the allegations are true but it does appear to me that we are probably being a little free with what should be said in a WP voice and
WP:NPOV.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 03:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
we...describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.The proper context of these accusations is that they're false, which you don't dispute, and it's not a NPOV violation to describe them as such. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 16:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
[t]he tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Forgive my pedantry, but the use of the term here is explicitly rejecting a point-of-view. Now- while the existing terminology "falsely accused" may be fine within the current context, the question ought to be framed more so as whether an alternate phrasing may be better. I am of the opinion that the use of a more neutral term, incorporating such language as "without evidence" or "without basis" would be more suitable. Augend ( drop a line) 16:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Vladimir Putin is not a reliable source on nazism in general, or nazism in Ukraine in particular- nobody said he is. I'm pretty sure nobody in this thread has ever claimed Putin's words have any truth value. That said, I am challenging the wording because it (a) provides, at least, the presentation of an NPOV violation & (b) may or may not be a leap of encyclopedic register. For instance, can you give me a single difference between my suggested wording and the extant wording? Why must we use the word "falsely" exactly?
We should follow the Reliable Sources- "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" - we do not, and indeed, probably should not, follow RS' semantics choices verbatim.
For instance with the Gleiwitz incident the article simply states that it was a false flag attack, not that "Germany invaded Poland because it claimed that Poland attacked a german radio tower."- yes, but the term false in that context is a false flag (a well-established term) - it alone is an incomplete clause. It would obviously be appropriate for use in that context. If you are suggesting we call Russia's invasion a false-flag, that is a separate discussion.
"Falsely somewhat implies that there is certainty that those accusations are false"– that's precisely why "false" is appropriate here. There is no reasonable doubt that Putin's accusation that Ukraine is run by Nazis committing genocide against Russian speakers is false. The sources are unanimous and express certainty. Jr8825 • Talk 13:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The claim of Nazis and genocide in Ukraine was also a fiction.[1]
Putin’s claim that Russia is invading Ukraine to denazify it is therefore absurd on its face[2]
Just as they now provided false pretexts for the invasion of Ukraine?[3]
Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism. Your statement that " stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine" is nonsense; the article says or implies nothing of the sort. Your suggestion would have us leave the statement that Ukraine is "dominated by neo-Nazism" unchallenged, only qualifying the persecution bit. "Accuse without basis" and "falsely accuse" are two (somewhat-)reasonable ways to frame this, but your suggestion is a complete non-starter. (Also, glad to see the goalposts have moved from "US" to "western"; not particularly unexpected.) Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 01:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
[your] statement that " stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine" is nonsense; the article says or implies nothing of the sort- I presume you are referring to the extant Wikipedia article? Clarification here. Augend ( drop a line) 04:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
This rhetoric is factually wrong, morally repugnant and deeply offensive ...Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication ( editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."This part of the guideline talks about materials from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/, https://www.nytimes.com/section/opinion, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/commentisfree , https://www.theage.com.au/opinion and https://www.aljazeera.com/opinion/. But in this case our content is supported by factual content, not opinion. And not only from news sources, but also from subject-matter experts. Renat 12:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author[emphasis added]. Per WP:RSPRIMARY,
All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.WP:RSPRIMARY gives more cautions. We are lacking secondary sources on this issue. "Facts" are not opinion or conclusions and subject-matter experts must be attributed. But as I said, the news sources paint these with a broad brush. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
bucket load of reliable secondary sourcesthat say the claim is "false"? Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Falsely is judgemental, it should just be "Putin accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism and invaded." Or "The pretext of invasion was that the Ukrainian government is led by neo-Nazis and needs to be de-nazified", ect. RomanPope ( talk) 00:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Funny how Wikipedia editors are all citing English-speaking, Western-propagandized news sources to call something “false”. If you do more research, using more academically acceptable sources for INTERNATIONAL POLITICS from different non-Western countries (definitely not biased news websites—BBC, The NY Times, and for God’s sake, Business Insider, seriously?) you will realize this is a DEBATABLE topic.
So yes, “falsely” is a biased word, coming from Western propaganda. Chiemvu ( talk) 17:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/8/we-have-significant-losses-and-its-a-huge-tragedy-kremlin
~~~~
), or clicking the signature icon
on the edit toolbar. --
Renat 12:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)One fifth of the total of Russian troops killed in the Ukraine were officers. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 14:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
"killing a Russian prisoners": should be "killing a Russian prisoner" (no "s"). (The edit needs to be done by someone with sufficient rights) Thank You! -- Sasha7272 ( talk) 09:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates § Russian cruiser Moskva. Venkat TL ( talk) 23:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
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.
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Club On a Sub 20 ( talk) 16:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Change "news tha" to "news that
Answered= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Club On a Sub 20 ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I think there has been enough coverage for a standalone article on the looting done during the invasion. I started a draft here: Looting during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 17:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This article page is so large it's daunting and it's continuing to grow. Reliable sources are stating to expect the second phase of the Invasion to start within two weeks now that the 'first phase' has come to a completion with Russian troops redeploying away from Kyiv. There are several sections which might be reconsidered as to the best place to keep them on Wikipedia and which sibling articles on Wikipedia might be the best place for moving them. One suggestion is to possibly split or re-allocate the "Legal implications" section with all its subsection to go fully into its sibling articles. All of the potential prosecutions will only take place after the Invasion is completed and it seems unlikely that any Military trials will take place at least until next year, and possibly later than that. For example, the "Nuremburg trials" only took place after the end of WWII, and they are treated as a separate subject. Also, its possible other editors have other suggestions for thinking about bulking down this very large article. ErnestKrause ( talk) 15:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I would be surprised if there were no significant correlation– I didn't say there's no significant correlation; I said the correlation is weak, and it is. (Significant doesn't mean strong.) Anyway, why waste time trying to reason from something irrelevant (wikisource size) when you could just talk about something relevant, or at least closer to what's relevant, which is word count? (Although, as noted elsewhere, people don't read from top to bottom anyway, so that's no all that relevant either. But at least it's better.)
apart from images ... lightweight browsers will ignore images and javascript and minimise CPU usage– Once you ignore those, you've cut bandwidth usage and cycles by 95%. People who need to do that will do that. Great! But that's not enough for you? You now want to cut the remaining 5% in half as well?
Editors are one of the groups of people who use Wikipedia– If by this you're suggesting that total source length might be a problem for someone editing: that's what section edits are for.
There's no need to wait until we hit WP:PEIS here– Yeah, actually, there is, because otherwise you're wasting time, and distorting article structure and content, in order to prevent something which (a) might not happen anyway, and (b) is easily handled when it happens.
I am already working on media for the information war article and volunteer for that section. Elinruby ( talk) 07:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This is simply a section break to allow easier commenting, as the trimming for this article moves ahead. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 00:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join Contemporary History Task Force, at WikiProject History!! |
I would like to invite any interested editors here to join the task force for Contemporary History. One of our core goals is to highlight and promote the coverage of contemporary history as its own distinct area here at Wikipedia.
We differ from a simple effort to cover current events, in that we seek to provide the editing community with resources that would allow it to provide broad and comprehensive coverage of articles on contemporary history as a broad topical field, rather than simply on individual current events as they may occur.
to that end, we have set up articles such as 2020s in political history, which allow the whole editing community to adopt a broad scope in keeping wikipedia updated with broad historical trends, topics and events, as they occur, but also as they become relevant to the field of history overall. I hope that sounds helpful and worthwhile to you. you are welcome to join us in any way, or to offer any input or ideas that you may wish. we welcome your input. thanks!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 13:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I think this needs to be included in the casualties-section. As far as I'm aware, it's the first more or less official statement by the Russian government on the casualties their military has suffered since the doubtful figures they put out on March 25. Full text in the video of the interview, short summary (from Sky): "Vladimir Putin's spokesman has admitted a "significant" loss of Russian troops since the invasion of Ukraine began, telling Sky News their deaths are a "tragedy"." Source: https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-putins-spokesman-denies-war-crimes-but-admits-significant-russian-losses-12584552. I see no reason not to include this statement. 82.176.221.176 ( talk) 09:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Буча и концентрированное зло: последний аргумент против русских - РИА Новости, 05.04.2022 (archive.org) deleted link:ria.ru
Article Archive:
Буча и концентрированное зло: последний аргумент против русских - РИА Новости, 05.04.2022 (archive.org) http://web.archive.org/web/20220407222347/https://ria.ru/20220405/rusofobiya-1781778401.html
Per Russia (5 April): 1,500 soldiers killed,
Per the DPR and LNR (5 April): 1,500 soldiers killed
More than twenty thousand people have already died in Ukraine - almost fifteen hundred of our military and about the same number of soldiers DNR and LNR, and under twenty thousand on the Ukrainian side (including about a thousand civilians). That is, this civil war, and it is a civil war, albeit in the form of a conflict between two states, is already costing us a lot of Russian blood (it is shedding on both sides). This is a real tragedy for the Russians. More than twenty thousand people have already died in Ukraine - almost one and a half thousand of our military and about the same number of soldiers of the DPR and LPR, and about twenty thousand from the Ukrainian side (including about a thousand civilians). That is, this civil war, and it is civil, albeit in the form of a conflict between two states, is already costing us a lot of Russian blood (it is she who is shed on both sides). This is a real tragedy for the Russians.
Finland and Sweden have both declared that they intend to join NATO. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 06:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
References
The very first sentence of this article begins:
And yet the article say on the Second World War begins:
Or the Korean War...
"The Korean War (see § Names) was fought between North Korea and South Korea from 1950 to 1953."
Neither of article begins:
Spot the diferrence? This article starts off with opinion before it even gets to the facts. All military conflicts are an act of agression. Hilariously bad even for amateur night at Wikipedia. 146.200.202.126 ( talk) 11:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 marking a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began following the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity. Everything else in that first paragraph may then be moved to the appropriate location and the second paragraph joined to the first. Mr rnddude ( talk) 14:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
In February and March 2014, Russia invaded and subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. This event took place in the aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity and is part of the wider Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
I started an article for the Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The Refugees section lists several countries that have accepted Russian political refugees and economic migrants ("A second refugee crisis created by the invasion and by the Russian government's crackdown has been the flight of approximately 300,000 Russian political refugees and economic migrants, the largest exodus from Russia since the October Revolution of 1917, to countries such as the Baltic states, Finland, Georgia, and Turkey"). Armenia, having accepted 43000 refugees from Russia, was listed among them but has since been removed. The referred article in this section talks mainly about Armenia as the major destination for Russian IT workers.
-- Unotheo ( talk) 02:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
As of this week, the war has appeared to enter a new phase. Based on this turn of events, i would like to recommend that we create some chronological-based structure for this article, rather than solely by region.
as per an article in the Washington Post, please see the quote below. this highlights a vast new conflict that appears to be starting in the eastern region of Ukraine. this amounts to a major new military campaign.
Russian forces bombarded several towns in eastern Ukraine on Sunday, destroying an airport and damaging several civilian targets, as the war careens toward a pivotal new phase. The shift of the war and fears of full-scale military confrontation on open terrain prompted Ukrainian officials to again call for Western alliances to step up weapons supply efforts to strengthen Ukraine’s position on the battlefield. Ukraine is preparing for a “massive attack in the east,” its ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova, warned Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Of the Russian forces, she said: “There are so many of them and they still have so much equipment. And it looks like they’re going to use all of it. So we are preparing for everything.” Military analysts have been predicting the movement of the war toward the eastern border that Ukraine shares with Russia in an area known as Donbas. The energy-rich region includes territory where pro-Russian forces have been battling the Kyiv government since 2014.
how does that sound? Please feel free to comment. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 14:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On April 14th the Russian Federation flagship, "Moskva," sank. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/14/europe/russia-navy-cruiser-moskva-fire-abandoned-intl-hnk-ml/index.html. Russia has aid that ammunition had an accidental explosion. The Ukraine forces have announced that they targeted and hit Moskva with 2 Neptune missiles and it started a fire, listed to the side and began to sink. The loss of this vessel is a huge morale boost to Ukraine and loss to Russia. This ship had bombarded Mariupol. It has surface to air (both short and ling range), naval ship to ship missiles, anti submarine armaments and other weapons. https://en.as.com/latest_news/moskva-ship-how-big-is-it-when-was-it-built-what-weapons-does-it-have-n/ AgAero89 ( talk) 21:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I made this addition after the Russian and Ukraines both reported the loss of this vessel. AgAero89 ( talk) 21:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
CNN is saying that the Pentagon now confirms that this ship was struck by two Neptune missiles. As of right now the article is still both-sidesing this.
I could of course make this change myself but I heard this rather that saw it online, and since it’s disputed, somebody should make sure other media are also saying it. I am myself somewhat behind on making changes to this article that I promised to take care of, and the resulting need to update daughter articles, so I will just be the messenger here. Elinruby ( talk) 19:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the top image should not be an up to date map, but instead one that shows Russia's maximum control over Ukrainian territory before they were pushed back before Kiev. The up to date map should be further down in the article. If Russia is pushed further and further back, the map would have less usefulless in illustrating an invasion. In a hypothetical scenario, where Russia is pushed back to the same borders as 2014, the map would have zero value in illustrating anything. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 05:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Child casualty estimates should be included in the article. Chesapeake77 ( talk) 10:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I recently created a draft for the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022. It is currently being voted on in the United States Congress. Thriley ( talk) 20:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine has warned that if Mariupol falls, a red line will have been crossed and any further negotiations will cease (ie, the war will continue indefinitely). [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 07:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I am not a linguist but someone recently pointed out that the Russian term спецоперация - currently translated to mean special operation, is Sonderbetrieb in German. Why's this a problem? Because SS Sonderbetrieben at Nazi extermination camps concentration camps slaughtered those held then used Sonderkommandos to dispose of the bodies. Given the frequency of, and numbers mentioned in reports about the horrific war crimes committed by Russian forces, could it be that the reason Putin chose the term 'special operation' (спецоперация) is because like Nazi Germany he wants to ethnically cleanse the land of Ukrainians not just conquer it? As I say, I am not a linguist but the connection, in conjunction with known warcrimes, is alarming. 人族 ( talk) 02:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moving this here for discussion: "social media users showed sympathy for Russian narratives more due to cynicism about US foreign policy rather than support for the invasion as such."
While possibly true, this is followed by zero citations. There are quite a few in front of it though Elinruby ( talk) 16:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Nod, just noting it as a change somebody might disagree with. I will restore the text if the citations that precede it support it or if somebody has another good reason why it should be there. I will need to verify those sources anyway. I have seen the kind of post this is talking about but it should be cited. Has anyone started a social media in the Ukraine invasion page? One might be warranted. For now I guess I will summarize these two paragraphs and move the highly referenced detail to Russian information war against Ukraine. This does also include Ukrainian actions, which is about to become more prominent in the pending reorganization, if anyone is concerned about that. I will now be offline for several hours Elinruby ( talk) 16:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
It’s been moved already but I am not against Donkey Hot-day’s proposal to put it in Reactions instead (or as well), if that edit is made. I came in here to close this section but since there is a new proposal I will leave it open a while longer Elinruby ( talk) 06:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
There's a newly created article Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some editors here may be interested in:
The place to discuss is Talk:Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the place to edit is directly in the article. Boud ( talk) 09:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't feel that invasion is correct term for Russia's "operation". Russia is murdering and terrorising civilians, destroying homes and infrastructure, and forcefully transporting Ukrainian citizens to Russia. There are too many incidents for this to be a case of few hot-headed individuals; this is part of their plan.
Those cities that are not under Russian control are bombed ruthlessly, targeting as many casualties and/or fear as possible. Those cities that are under Russian control are terrorised in the most despicable, cruel, and inhuman ways.
It is more and more evident that the goal of this operation is to destroy Ukraine, not to invade it. This means destroying Ukrainian culture and cities, murdering huge amount of Ukrainians, and trying to scare those who are alive to become Russians.
I agree with one thing that the Russian propaganda is spitting out: this should not be called "war". Even in war there are some rules, and there can even be something humane as a reason for war.
Alas, my English skills are not strong enough to find an accurate name for this operation. Invasion sounds too neutral, and does not convey the message that Russia is trying to commit genocide. Optimally, the term would also say that Russia is committing acts of terrorism. 130.234.128.26 ( talk) 17:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
A split proposal is ongoing on the Battle of Kherson article. Feel free to participate in the discussion here. Elijahandskip ( talk) 00:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
According to you, as though by yourselves, experts wikipedians, who do not allow others contribution, and prefer Wiki sometimes with Errors and Wrong, we understand here at home, that the WWIII following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine had indirect started. More and more Nations as USA, France, Slovenian, Slowakia, Germany etc. contributes with Vehicles to Ukraine to Combat USSR or Russia. For example, GM sent 50 Chevrolet Tahoe, Germany sent 50 Gepard Tanks, Slowenia sent 50 M-84 aka T-72 to help and received Marder Tanks of Germany. USA Ministers visited Ukraine President, given US$ 3.5 Billion money, as well as the UK Prime Minister helping with many money and Tanks. So. The World War III had began, different, passive or indirect, not so active like WWI or WWII, but it is there. -- 90.186.249.22 ( talk) 17:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
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.
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the caption of the animated map of the invasion under the heading "Invasion and Resistance" from "An animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 9 April" to "An animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 21 April". The animated map has been updated and the newest date is now 21 April.
K1401986
Talk with me 22:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not logged in at the moment, but I am assuming that in the sentence "At the start of the invasion on 24 February, the northern front was launched out of Byelorus and targeting Kyiv", the intended word is "Belarus"? I am not familiar with geography in the region but I do not believe that Byelorus is a place. Can an editor rectify please. 82.15.196.46 ( talk) 13:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
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.
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Certain city names are in their Russian forms are opposed to Ukrainian ones. Mikolaev and Odessa, for example, should be spelled Mykolaiv and Odesa respectively. Ian Lautert da Costa ( talk) 12:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The Royal Navy nuclear powered submarine HMS Audacious sailed from Gibraltar after several days in port, during which it loaded Tomahawk missiles while berthed alongside the Z Berth in the South Mole of the dockyard. The vessel was seen heading into the Mediterranean after leaving Gibraltar. The American nuclear powered submarine USS Georgia also docked at Gibraltar two days prior to the British submarine. Its destination is unknown. [1]
Five USAF F15Es and a tanker plane where pictured flying in formation over the Strait of Gibraltar at 20,000 feet on Wednesday 20/04/2022. The planes had just taken off from the USAF base at Moron, Spain and were believed to be heading to the Middle East. [2] If this last detail is correct, then Middle East could include Turkey and from Turkey to Ukraine is just a short hop across the Black Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 10:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
There are sources that Belorusian and Bulgarian troops take activity for defense/release of their citizens in Ukraine. May be suitable for Foreign military involvement section. Alex Spade ( talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey, just wanted to suggest that the casualty numbers get updated. They’re from Feb 25 I believe. I would try, but I’ve never edited an info box and I’m scared I’d mess it up. FinnSoThin ( talk) 16:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The article currently contains the following sentence:
"According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, regarding Russian military losses, Ukraine's government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims."
There is no citation, which needs fixing. If there is no citation, the statement needs to be removed. If a valid citation does indeed exist, it needs to be put into context and verified (does wikipedia have a policy on statements of individual researchers?).
PerLugdunum ( talk) 09:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The whole discussion under the casualties is problematic. The truth will come out, whether or not certain "editors" can dissemble at the moment via weasel words about unnamed "researchers" and "analysts". Yellowmellow45 ( talk) 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
In that section, the Guardian source doesn't really say what the text claims it says. At most it says that nobody really knows. Removing. Volunteer Marek 12:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I also don't think that this one guy's opinion is really WP:DUE. Especially since it really boils down to "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated to some degree" which is to be expected. Gonna replace present text with that. Volunteer Marek 12:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: you say the Guardian source doesn't say what's been written in the WP text, however the Guardian source says, and I quote, "And Ukrainian officials on Monday evening estimated that more than 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed... Analysts have warned about taking that information at face value during a war where western countries want to emphasise the toll of the war on the Russian military while the Kremlin wants to downplay its losses". Thus, I would ask that you please reinstate and rewrite the sentence (if you think it doesn't fully represent what is written). As for the opinion expressed by the researcher regarding that Ukraine is engaged in a miss-information campaign for sake of moral, as both @ Cinderella157: and @ Mr.User200: have said, I also do not see anything problematic about including it. You inserted "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated to some degree". I think it nicely rewords the "miss-information campaign" bit, thanks, but I would expand this to "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated for sake of moral" or "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths, generally accepted by Western media, are exaggerated for sake of moral" since I see no reason to omit the purpose in his view of the Ukrainian's exaggeration or his obvious critic of the Western media. But I would settle with just the purpose of the exaggeration as stated by him (without the critic of the Western media). EkoGraf ( talk) 14:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence: "The use low-yield tactical nuclear capacity was originally discussed in the decade following the end of WWII by Henry Kissinger as a tactical weapon separable from the use of other atomic weapons in warfare." Emphasis is mine, and I initially thought this fragment should read "The use of...". That does not seem to fit the rest of the sentence, and I am unsure of what the best edit might be. TJSwoboda ( talk) 23:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
bio chem ? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
164.82.30.36 (
talk) 08:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The link to Russia in the article's first word was removed in this revision: Special:Diff/1084574301. This link should be present, as stated in surrounding comments. Okay420 ( talk) 07:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian invasion of Ukraine as it does not currently redirect to this page, and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hentheden ( talk) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Please be notified of Talk:Battle of Kherson#Requested move 24 April 2022. It affects many articles related to the invasion. The proposal is to move from "battle of X" to "battle for X". Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Denis Pushilin and Leonid Pasechnik, leaders of the DPR LPR to commanders Scu ba ( talk) 15:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Not done Denis Pushilin has a single mention in the body of the article and Leonid Pasechnik has no mention. Addition of either is supported by the body of the article (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Wikipedia editors,
I am writing to report the map that shows the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The names of the cities that are written in English are transliterated from Ukrainian and are spelled correctly. However, the names of the cities that are spelled in the Cyrillic alphabet are spelled in Russian and not in Ukrainian!
Please change the spelling of those cities whose names are written in the Cyrillic alphabet from Russian to Ukrainian.
Thank you! 188.163.232.130 ( talk) 11:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved: was at
Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly version
Land | Arrow | |
---|---|---|
Ukraine | ||
Russia |
Land | Arrow | |
---|---|---|
Ukraine | ||
Russia |
The colorblind simulations are in the respective links, so please have a look at those. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The images shown to the right depict the color schemes currently being discussed and voted on on Commons. And I'd prefer the first three to the proposal in question here. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 01:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I would much rather us stick with the status quo than switch to a new color scheme that is as jarring and unappealing as the proposal in this discussion, especially as it still has contrast issues. I'd even prefer one of the two map options I listed just above to the proposal (the current map with blue arrows, and the original colorblind-friendly map), but I prefer the proposed colors that I have laid out. Also, I think we could really use a color theory professional here, as the colors in the proposal were rather poorly-chosen. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Greyshark09, Spesh531, Kwamikagami, Dawsongfg, RobiHi, Outth, Eoiuaa, Kippenvlees1, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Chesapeake77, Fogener Haus, Physeters, Viewsridge, Lx 121, Berrely, HurricaneEdgar, MarioJump83, Tradedia, Ermanarich, Brobt, CentreLeftRight, Wiz9999, Borysk5, Oganesson007, Nate Hooper, Rob984, Ceha, AlphaMikeOmega, WeifengYang, PutItOnAMap, TheNavigatrr, Beshogur, AntonSamuel, Paolowalter, and Emk9: Pinging other users with an interest in this topic, and those with experiencing in working with military conflict maps. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I've split this discussion because it has nothing to do with the specific proposal listed in Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly_version. That proposal is about replacing the one file with a specific different file, and this one discussed details of a commons file, a discussion which should normally be had on the file's talk page, not here. Melmann 06:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 appears to be the best across the four simulations and for unimpaired vision. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 but perhaps with light yellow arrows instead of blue. Viewsridge ( talk) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 has the best contrast for the arrows, but all of them are great improvements in presentation. If none of them were used, the original colorblind-friendly one is also an improvement by itself and could be the main one. Rauisuchian ( talk) 13:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option visually ok, if it helps colorblind too. Beshogur ( talk) 16:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I do not see a version I particularly like here: for 1–3, the colour of the arrows is too different to that of their background, while for 4 it is too similar. Obviously, the arrows must contrast to the background, but this is weighed against the fact that a map is more intuitive when each side is assigned a single colour. Dark-red arrows on a light-red/orange background is a good compromise for Russia, but for Ukraine, blue on yellow and grey on beige are unintuitive and unsightly. Have white (#FFFFFF) arrows been tried for Ukraine? I imagine these would work well on either yellow or beige backgrounds. In general, I think the arrows would look best as a lighter/darker shade of the colour behind them. —
AlphaMikeOmega
(
talk) 16:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 or the original colorblind-friendly version. Options three and four have a really unpleasantly strong yellow, I'd strongly oppose these two.-- Ermanarich ( talk) 21:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 As a colorblind person option 1 looks best-looking to me. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1, including color mark change Per EkoGraf, and I think mark colors should be changed too, not just yellow but something other than that. Cyan or blue would be good Mario Jump 83! 08:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Going to be a bit WP:BOLD here, but can we close the voting on here (and wherever else votes have taken place)? Option 1 is a clear winner here, at least for being the colorblind-friendly color scheme (at the very least for arrows and territorial control). Does the "Air and ground bombardments" icon need to be changed? They contrast well with both the new Ukrainian yellow control and the Russian red (which is the same as the original). If there's an agreement on the other icons, then Option 1 and the Original need to be put up to a vote. Spesh531 (talk, contrib., ext.) 05:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Conscription of inhabitants of occupied areas is, as far as I know, illegal. The same in occupied Eastern Ukraine. Xx236 ( talk) 07:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It is Elinruby ( talk) 02:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have now requested page protection, enough is enough. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I'd like to bring up something that I think this article lacks, and that is the issue of this being a "proxy war". I've identified some sources that seem to describe this as a proxy war in some way:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-long-holy-war-behind-putins-political-war-in-ukraine https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-arming-insurgency-ukraine-mean https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-25/nato-us-in-proxy-war-with-russia-biden-next-move-crucial/100937196
The definition of "proxy war": https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/proxy-war
"a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers..."
Clearly, with NATO/US steadfast refusal to engage directly and materiel support for Ukraine, it's a proxy on some level. On the Russian end, it's less clear--Russia has historically been considered more of the "military superpower" over China, but with their (alleged) underperformance, and with the potential of becoming economically dependent on China in the face of Western sanctions, perhaps they are the ones fighting the proxy on behalf of the superpower? This article does not mention "proxy" anywhere. Allegedly, the Moskva was sunk by Ukrainian missiles...but let's not pretend that Western-made Javelins weren't crucial to many Ukraine successes. How would this get added? Also, I can't seem to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Metalloid ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I wouldn’t advocate for calling it that, because it isn’t one. I was wondering if it would be helpful to discuss the debate over whether this is a proxy war. Lawfare is a far cry from Russian propaganda, and they’re game for at least discussing the idea. We haven’t even sold them MIGs (alternatively, they may be paperweights) due to fears of over-involvement. Providing small arms to the underdog defending themselves against a Goliath does not suggest nefarious proxy war geopoliticking, quite the contrary. Mentioning a proxy war in the way I envision would involve mostly saying why it isn’t one, per the sources. If you omit discussing this out of fear of parroting Russian propaganda, you risk creating a “forbidden fruit”. Noble Metalloid ( talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Its not a proxy was, as far as I am aware no RS has called it proxy war. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Based upon the beginning of a new Russian offensive in the East of Ukraine, we will move ahead soon to create a new section for the current time period, based upon viewing this as a new chronological period of the conflict. This is based upon a consensus to structure the article sections on the conflict, based on chronological periods, as per previous talk page discussion. You can click the link to view the full discussion, which has now been archived. Anyone is welcome to comment, of course. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
"what new offensive?"I think this illustrates the need to structure this aerticle to delineate the curent new phase of this conflict.
Ok that sounds good. Thanks for your work on that, @ErnestKrause. Sm8900 ( talk) 04:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can these all be merged into one thread, it's getting very hard to follow all these separate questions on the same thing? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
197.234.142.91 ( talk) 16:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Nato and Australia and New Zealand Sweden Finland should be put as support for ukraine
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How are there no countries listed as supporting Ukraine? At least every country that has reportedly supplied weapons to the Ukraine should be listed there, shouldn't it? Alfield ( talk) 05:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
We do not need 15 threads asking the same question.
Slatersteven (
talk) 09:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
So now that the Russian military objective has shifted towards consolidating gains made in Donbass and the south, should we keep limit the scope of this article to be just about the initial invasion and put the rest of it on Russo-Ukrainian War or should we keep adding to this article? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ ( talk) 04:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to propose that the main map shown in the infobox be changed to the colourblind-friendly version.
The current map (on the left above) does not offer sufficient contrast for individuals diagnosed with
tritanopia.
Although tritanopia incidence rate is about 1%, this
highly visible article has been viewed 5,445,185 times at the time this was written, which means that we have likely served this map to individuals diagnosed with
tritanopia more than 54 000 times. Of course, this number will only go up.
Per
MOS:ACCESS, accessibility is a core WMF policy, and it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project"
. Based on this, I think we have a clear case for action to switch to the colourblind-friendly map.
Simulations of tritanopia:
Current whole page
Just the image
Proposed replacement image
Please be patient as the tool loads, it may take a few seconds to be ready. Melmann 11:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I'm kindly requesting for an uninvolved editor to review this discussion, and implement the proposal at Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox. Melmann 07:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The external links to CNN, Reuters, etc seem excessive and UNDUE. Anyone can google to find these and they are not encyclopedic. Focus on the more necessary ones and try to cut the list to 3 or so. WP:NOTDIR and WP:EL both apply. I would be bold and remove, but I am not a regular editor and thought this might have been discussed? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a typo in the section Second phase: Southeastern offensive (8 April to present) where it says As of 30 April, an NATO official... instead of As of 30 April, a NATO official has described...
-- Tyco333 ( talk) 10:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the section "belligerents" it should be showed that Ukraine is supported from NATO 151.57.133.251 ( talk) 21:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314, the Definition of Aggression, Article 3: [13]
The reference to Article 2 means it is aggression prima facie, that is, it is legally aggression unless and until proven otherwise, and “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply.
By allowing the Russian Federation to use Belarusian territory to launch missile attacks and an invasion by its troops over the last two months, Belarus has committed an act of international aggression against Ukraine. As an aggressor state, Belarus should be listed in the infobox as a belligerent, not merely a supporter. To minimize its aggression with the restrictive label “supported by” is to reflect the non-neutral WP:POV of the Lukashenka régime. — Michael Z. 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
a state or nation at war, or a member of the military forces of such a state. An aggressor is defined by virtue of UN resolution. While the two terms may be similar, they do not have identical meanings and, while Belarus is clearly an aggressor (having committed an act of aggression) it is not "at war" with Ukraine. It is clearly supporting Russia by its actions but its actions do not rise to being a beligerant. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
According to the article introduction, this is the day the Duma authorized military action against Ukraine and when Russia openly sent troops into the DPR and LPR. Both are and were internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:1B46:84AF:2076:510A:1837:33CF ( talk) 11:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The introduction mentions the Budapest memorandum, which is potentially pertinent to the section on the use of low-yield nuclear weapons - i.e. the potential use of "tactical" nukes which is currently getting press coverage.
What is not mentioned on this page is the Dec 2013 guarantee which China provided, as reported by the WSJ, the pertinent text of which seems to be: "China pledges unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the nuclear-free Ukraine and China further pledges to provide Ukraine nuclear security guarantee when Ukraine encounters an invasion involving nuclear weapons or Ukraine is under threat of a nuclear invasion,”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.14.20 ( talk) 11:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The article claims, that On 27 April, Ukraine stated it could "take control" of Transnistria should the Moldovan government request.. As source, it gives an article from the 23rd of April in which neither Transnistria, nor Moldova are even mentioned. This needs to be fixed as soon as possible, but I'm not allowed to edit the article. Liekveel ( talk) 12:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Not a false claim. I simply forgot to add the source. The source that you mentioned has nothing to do with it - it refers to the previous sentence. Simply clumsly editing on my part.
YantarCoast ( talk) 12:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Alerting editors that, as of this note, four of these articles have been created. Improvement is needed for all of them, and if needed, they should be linked into this main article’s text. I will be creating more for the other affected Oblasts, but for now, these 4 exist.
Elijahandskip ( talk) 16:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is absolute nonsense that we still have only Ukraine in the box. There is a massive ammount of foreing help coming from the west, both weapons and military intelligence. We should vote for this issue again, or change all the infoboxes of other conflicts. -- Novis-M ( talk) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Need to include in the right square of the article the contries that are supporting Ukraine, like is put in all other wikipedia pages on wars and conflicts. There are lots of them that are sending weapons, instructors, food, rations, blocking russian sales, etc. All of this is publicly known, verified by press reports of both sides of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.140.133 ( talk) 13:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Super Dromaeosaurus, Slatersteven, Cinderella157, Cinderella157: So, do we have a consensus on adding "Supported by" for Ukraine? The Western military support for Ukraine has ramped up to the point where it's becoming a game-changer [14] [15]. Or, any volunteers to start RfC? -- Mindaur ( talk) 15:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the table of the parties to the conflict there is Belarus as a supporting country, should the countries providing material support, including military support to Ukraine, not be included ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 ( talk) 12:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
After many ukrainian or supposed false flag attacks on Russian territory, should we add Russia/names of western Russian regions into the location of the infobox? We should also add transnistria as a spillover in the infobox after the past few attacks there. Wikiman92783 ( talk) 13:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest to remove the opening sentence: "Over a thousand prisoners of war have been captured", as by now, by combining the claims of both sides (see the POW section in Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War), the prisoners are supposedly a few thousands. -- Potionkin ( talk) 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War § The state of this article. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The text in the refugees section currently says:
Thousands of refugees arriving in Russia appeared to have been forcibly relocated using 'filtration centers', evoking the memory of Soviet era population transfers and prior Russian use of such centers in the Chechen War of Independence to suppress evidence of war crimes. [1] [2] As of 8 April, Russia evacuated approximately 121,000 Mariupol residents to Russia, with some allegedly having been sent to work there. [2] RIA Novosti and Ukrainian officials stated that thousands were dispatched to various filtration centers in both Russian and Russian-occupied Ukrainian cities, [3] from which people were redirected to economically depressed regions of Russia. [4]
References
A great deal of this should be "Ukrainian accuses" rather than WP:VOICE, while other parts don't appear to be in the sources/and or are editorialising (covering war crimes?). I can't read many of the Ru and Ukr sources so cannot fix. A similar text was copied to the Refugee crisis page, but much of it removed as WP:OR while other parts were altereed to Ukr claims. Pincrete ( talk) 07:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the last paragraph in the 'Refugees' section, the word 'about' has been misspelled as 'aboit'. 04:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Done Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Belligerent is highly subjective 140.0.19.244 ( talk) 08:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Quick post, shouldn't "Reports vary widely" be "reports vary Wildly?"-- 97.123.120.227 ( talk) 02:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Please add russia or the western regions recently bombed into the infobox as ukraine occasionally bombs them now Wikiman92783 ( talk) 12:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Should we change "NATO and its member states also refused to send troops into Ukraine as this would risk a larger-scale war,[353][354] a decision which some experts have labeled as a policy of appeasement" to "NATO and its member states also refused to send troops into Ukraine , or to establish a no fly-zone, as this would risk a larger-scale war,[353][354] a decision which some experts have labeled as a policy of appeasement.", as it is sourced already. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll give till tomorrow if there are no obejcti0js I will make the change. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
typo: prupose → purpose 82.132.185.14 ( talk) 23:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Ama was trying to assist. This image is currently used on the Dutch Interwiki version of this article. Should it be used in the English version of this article? ErnestKrause ( talk) 00:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Evidence of Russian war atrocities and human rights violations, from forced removals of Ukrainians to Russia, to executions and tortures of Ukrainians in Bucha, Irpin and numerous other locations, to mass graves in Mariupol, Bucha and other locations, must be included. I am appalled that they are not and that they don't have their own section. 2604:2D80:A782:BC00:978:8BCA:17A1:1FFC ( talk) 04:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Russia falsely accused Ukraine of being na*i. I just wanted someone to use this source, according to pew research statistically in 2019 only 11% of Ukrainians had negative views on Jews, while 83% had positive views. That is higher than most European countries. [1] I added this help combat misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahm1453 ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Vladimir Putin has been diagnosed with cancer and will soon be undergoing an operation. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 07:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Whether this information should be included is also being discussed at Talk:Vladimir Putin. I would suggest trying to get consensus there before discussing whether it is appropriate for this article. QueenofBithynia ( talk) 15:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The previous discussion ( #Belarus is a belligerent) was closed after a brief period with reference to an unnamed dictionary, and with a suggestion to start a new discussion with sources. So below are some articles by legal scholars. @ Seryo93, ErnestKrause, EkoGraf, ProcrastinatingReader, Ahm1453, My very best wishes, and Cinderella157:
As pointed out above, the OSCE’s legal advice determined that by not sending forces into Ukraine Belarus is not a direct party to the international armed conflict, and therefore is not liable for Russian violations of international human-rights law in Ukraine. [18] [19] The OSCE’s report also included Ukraine’s response which points to the UN’s definition of aggression.
But at the same time, by facilitating Russia’s war and allowing unlawful invasion and direct attacks into Ukraine directly from its territory and airspace it bears state responsibility by violating the UN Charter’s Ch. I, Art. 2(4) prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, [20] [21] and is also guilty of aggression, according to the UN’s definition (and Ukraine’s response on the latter point was valid). [22] [23]
I’ll reiterate Oxford dictionaries’ definition of a “belligerent,” verbatim: “Engaged in a war or conflict, as recognized by international law.” [24] There is no more definitive legal source on war than the UN Charter’s article 2(4).
Belarus is guilty of unlawful use of force or threat of force and international aggression in this war against Ukraine. If we want to clarify what acts it did and did not commit, that is fine and right. But it should be listed as a belligerent for its illegal participation in use of force and aggression. — Michael Z. 18:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment Referring to my previous and the reasons given for the close. That we are arguing semanitics of definitions here clearly makes the assertion a matter of WP:SYNTH/ WP:OR. It is clearly contentious and not a matter of WP:BLUE. Per WP:BURDEN we need WP:RSs to support such a claim. However, it can (given the contention) be viewed as a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that would require exceptional sources. Sources would need to specifically state that Belarus is a belligerent. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (and the template documentation), we would require a clear consensus of sources before we might add such a claim to the infobox as a summary of the article and WP:DUE. We are far from anywhere near this. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@ RandomCanadian:, so you reverted my verbatim inclusion of conclusions from sources due to reasons: “A single opinion post, even by a PhD, is not enough to justify this kind of content in a Wikipedia article; per the WP:OR issues already explained at sufficient depth on talk page and also per WP:UNDUE,” which I do not understand. Other editors disputed the application of the term “belligerent,” which this does not address, and you closed the discussion as an uninvolved editor, asking for sources. So I found sources, and now you dispute these sources, including the ones previously used by advocates of opposing views, without any sources that contradict them. This is not right.
What I included is balanced and broadly and accurately represents sources without contradicting those that argued against labelling Belarus as a “belligerent” in the infobox.
Also, when reverting, please do the courtesy of using the “revert” function or pinging us in your edit summary. — Michael Z. 21:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
An article has been made for the 2022 Perm factory explosion and fire. The sources I can access allege that this might be sabotage, but since newsweek is pretty dubious, I don't want to put anything that isn't directly stated as fact into the article. I'd like some help in building the article. ☢️Plutonical☢️ ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The neutral point of view is clearly violated because in truth Transnistria is Moldovan territory illegally occupied by Russia. This is a fact, not an opinion. The map does not respect this, therefore I suggest changing this so that the neutral point of view is not violated. 2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:396C:BBA9:BB1F:9851 ( talk) 08:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
As this article's section on war crimes used to be identical to the lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I'd welcome if all interested editors could help us reach a consensus (or at least an orderly discussion) on that article's talk page. We are reaching the brink of another edit war there. The main controversial changes recently made to the lead section of that article are the following ones:
The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about reports and videos of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine: alleged marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators have been publicly humiliated by police officers and members of the territorial defence...; plus, removed this section on the same topic from the article.
... and Russian prisoners of war have allegedly been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution.) and replaced them with references to allegations of ill-treatment of Russian POW (
The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment of Russian prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine.).
Ukrainian prisoners of war have also been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution.
Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war", possibly with tacit approval from their superiors. In March 2022 the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine stressed the heightened risks of sexual violence and the risk of under-reporting by victims in the country. After Russian withdrawal from areas north of Kyiv, according to The Guardian, there was a "mounting body of evidence" of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces inflicted upon Ukrainian civilians, including gang-rapes committed at gunpoint and rapes committed in front of children
You can confront this old version (11:19, 26 April 2022) with this more recent one (00:43, 30 April 2022). This is the diff between the two versions. These changes were made by User:Volunteer Marek and User:Shadybabs against the opposition of User:Ilenart626 and myself. As the latter editors have been repeatedly accused of misrepresenting facts to push a POV, I disengage and leave it to all interested editors to restore the balance or find a new one on the article. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 11:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Change invasion to war 2A01:E0A:A7E:E860:584A:2A5F:88EF:7F2C ( talk) 17:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
They were sent to Ukraine by order of their president, so they clearly should be listed. 87.50.178.158 ( talk) 20:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
As for war crimes go Russia has been seen and filmed using cluster bombs which are illegal to use against civilians, and even placed many many land mines around bridges. Another incident is the train station bombing that killed 50-100 people or the mass graves found. lastly jailed 15-20K protesters banned Facebook IG and news stations for calling it a war/invasion and anyone could be jailed for calling it so for 15 years. 47.157.236.115 ( talk) 09:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done This article is a summary of the invasion as a whole. The section on war crimes herein is the lead of the main article on this specific topic - War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The lead of that aricle is a summary of that article. Specific details should be added to that article if not already there. Cluster munitions are already mentioned in this article, as is deliberate killing of civilians and censorship is dealt with in another section of this article. Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
A lot of editors here and on other Ukrainian pages seem to have English as a second or third language. Nothing wrong with that of course, but a couple of points that I keep correcting over and over again:
Thank you everybody for your attention to these matters. Elinruby ( talk) 00:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Another point I keep seeing that isn't *wrong* but isn't quite English somehow: In constructions like " Kristalina Georgieva, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund", that "the" is not normally used in the first mention. If you are going to mention her again after a fairly long intervening text, and the reader might have forgotten who she is, however, the proper format would be "Georgieva, the IMF managing director". In this case you are reminding the reader; don't ask me to explain why this is not done in first mentions, but it isn't. This is also my notification to the group that I am making these copyedits, btw. Feel free to object that I am imposing my own dialect or whatever if that seems appropriate ;) Elinruby ( talk) 07:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
One of the knock-on effects has been that NATO enlargement is on the agenda in a very big way in Finland and Sweden (see Finland–NATO relations for Finnish sources to choose from with some in English, and there's incidental stuff for Sweden there too, but probably better Swedish sources exist). Specifically, there's been a _massive_ shift in public opinion, and it's now being worked through in parliament in Finland, and, though neither country's officially come out and said as much yet, it looks like both countries will be submitting applications. I'm pretty sure this should be mentioned somewhere in the article-plex covering the war, but I can't quite figure out the best place to put it. Main article? Maybe marginally not noteworthy enough - but a short sentence might be a good amount of weight; even if it does go in to the main article, it should also go into one of the specific reactions articles. Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Well, it's not governmental yet! Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Maybe - but I can't see any other examples of big public opinion shifts mentioned in there, and it's likely to become governmental in a few weeks. I also slightly quibble about this being a 'reaction' - if NATO does expand due to the war, it seems pretty impactful! Ideas, anyone? FrankSpheres ( talk) 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The Background section says "During the election campaign, the pro- European integration opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned by TCDD dioxin; he later implicated Russian involvement." I believe the intended meaning of "implicated" here is "accused" but that fails verification also, since what he actually does, according to the source at the end of the sentence, is accuse Russia of refusing to make witnesses (suspects?) available. Needs a better source and possibly a rewrite Elinruby ( talk) 08:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
At 85kb of readable prose, this article is already in "probably should be split" territory, and heading towards "almost certainly should be split". We should start a discussion to see in what manner this article should be split, since as time goes on, and the war goes on, it's likely to continue getting bigger. One possibility is the sections "First phase..." and "Casualties...", each of which is around 45kb (raw), and which could be summarized, with content moved into a new article. See WP:SIZESPLIT. Mathglot ( talk) 08:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a fairly obvious issue with infobox strength figures. Russian army is shown only as its initial force, and separatist armies are shown at their peacetime size. On other hand for Ukraine both standing army and reservists are shown. Basically Russia + separatists are shown at their initial frontline strength, while Ukraine is shown at full theoretical potential. This is highly misleading, while Ukraine is mobilizing, this is not an instant process. Additionally separatist republics are also mobilizing and in fact started mobilizing earlier than Ukraine. Also, while Russia itself is not officially mobilizing, it has sent additional reinforcements from other regions to Ukraine.-- Staberinde ( talk) 19:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi! It seems to me that the article lacks a mention to the role of the Ukrainian resistance in the lead and focuses almost exclusively on the Russian action. If I well remember it once said something like "Russian troops met stiff resistance and logistical problems that hampered their progress," is there a reason behind its removal? FilBenLeafBoy ( Let's talk!) 00:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The US stated last week that it does not believe Russia will use nuclear weapons or attack NATO territory, in spite of Russian statements. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-sees-no-threat-russia-using-nuclear-weapons-despite-rhetoric-official-2022-04-29/ Possibly applicable to the nuclear weapons use section. Overlasting Peace ( talk) 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I recall that in the early days of the war, the 'leaders' portion of the infobox included more than just Putin and Zelenskyy. Somewhere in March other figures like Mishustin, Shoigu etc were removed. Obviously not every general of politician should be included, but why the change? I haven't seen any infobox show just the heads of state before Rousillon ( talk) 15:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The fact that this page still does not show that Ukraine is supported by other countries is so fricking ridiculous. It serves no purpose other than to push an agenda. I mean it is not even a matter of denial of support, Ukraine is openly supported by western allies with weapons, training, and intelligence. Why is it even up for debate whether they should be shown as supporting or not? It is plainly misleading and dishonest to show it as it is. 142.184.180.208 ( talk) 06:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
In the "Foreign military sales and aid" section, there is a mention of Slovakia having SU-25s with which it could supply Ukraine. However, that source is incorrect, Slovakia does not operate any SU-25s since ~2002 and sold most of them to Armenia in ~2004. Here's a wiki page detailing every Slovak SU-25s and what happened to them (though it is only in Slovak). There's also a List of Sukhoi Su-25 operators Standa-SK ( talk) 19:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that the EU intended to supply Ukraine with fighter jets. Bulgaria, Poland, and Slovakia had MiG-29s, and Slovakia also had Su-25s, aircraft which Ukraine already flew and which could be transferred without pilot training. However, the planes' owners were reluctant to donate weapons critical for their own territorial defences, and feared that Russia could view it as an act of war if jets fly from their air bases to fight over Ukraine.This section is describing an "intention". It fails WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. As to the more specific question (questionable clam re Slovakia), the is WP:ONUS. Strike the lot IMHO. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Done Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Not a word about Mearsheimer's take on the conflict? 2001:B07:646B:4D36:FDE4:1A7B:6912:9FA0 ( talk) 15:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Please add: "The CIA provided intelligence that helped Ukrainian forces locate and strike the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. The targeting help, which contributed to the eventual sinking of the Moskva, is part of a continuing classified effort by the Biden administration to provide real-time battlefield intelligence to Ukraine."
reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/05/us-intelligence-ukraine-moskva-sinking -- 91.54.19.14 ( talk) 16:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Can someone, anyone, explain the point of 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Potential_Russian_use_of_tactical_nuclear_weapons? It's a long section devoid of any substance at all. A bunch of speculation about whether Russia will use nuclear weapons, most recently a denial from Russia, mixed in with extended (yet predictable) quotes from Zelensky about the suitability of Russia as a responsible nuclear weapons state due to apparent contamination concerns (which–if actual–should come from scientists if anything, not from politicians). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Why are there no wikipedia articles detailing equipment losses?
Numbers can never be 100% accurate, but for instance there's been 7 provable downings of a TB-2 Bayraktar Drone used by the UA Air Force occuring as late as early May - However, Russia claimed that they've successfuly downed all operational drones since early on in the war. These two discrepencies could be easily rectified with a list detailing confirmed equipment losses to give a more complete picture of the war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:3582:571C:5343:76D ( talk) 23:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Section "Russian accusations and demands": "repressng" should be "repressing" Andyofmelbourne ( talk) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Done Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence of the last paragraph of the lead section ('The invasion was internationally condemned as an war of aggression.') please fix 'an war' to 'a war'. Jakub 42 ( talk) 03:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
In the section "Alleged clashes (17–21 February 2022)" there is a spelling mistake: "the another" instead of just "another" or "the other". Please change this to one of the two suggestions. Thanks.
In the same section there is a dot in the middle of the sentence about russian videos after the word "amateurish".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribidag ( talk • contribs) 6:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done both. Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Second phase — Siege of Mariupol" section, please change "Reports of dissent within the Ukrainian troops at Azovstal were reported by Ukraienskaya Pravda on 8 May indicating that the commander of the Ukrainian Marines assigned to defend the Azovstal bunkers made an unauthorized acquisition of tanks, munitions and personnel to make a breakout from the entrenched position there in order to flea from the city" to "in order to flee the city. These are two different words. Plus, please fix the typo in the same sentence: Ukraienskaya to Ukrainskaya. Thank you. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:14C4:5AD3:A60C:2C7C ( talk) 06:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done both. Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is not a invasion. President Putin's statement says that it's a "special operations in Ukraine". There was no formal declaration of war on former state of Soviet Union "Ukraine". Please change the title of the page to "2022 Russia's Special Operation in Ukraine" as Russia haven't declared war on Ukraine. I believe Wikipedia should see sources from both sides instead of relying entirely on Western Sources. 106.197.2.17 ( talk) 08:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
In the section "Impact on agriculture and food suppies" there is a very long sentence relying on a single source:
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), further to causing the loss of lives and increasing humanitarian needs, the likely disruptions caused by the Russian invasion to Ukraine's grain and oilseed sectors, combined with potential food and fertiliser export difficulties encountered by the Russian Federation as a result of economic sanctions, could jeopardise the food security of many countries, especially those that are highly dependent on Ukraine and the Russian Federation for their food and fertiliser imports.
I suggest breaking this sentence up, perhaps like so:
Due to the Russian invasion, disruptions to the grain and oilseed sectors of Ukraine are likely. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), this would cause further loss of life and increase humanitarian needs. In addition, potential food and fertiliser export difficulties encountered by the Russian Federation as a result of economic sanctions could jeopardise the food security of many countries. Particularily vulnerable are those that are highly dependent on Ukraine and the Russian Federation for their food and fertiliser imports.
(However, feel free to change it as you like.)
This would mean repeating the source after each full stop, but would make it much easier to read.-- Ribidag ( talk) 17:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done by Iseult Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe that NATO involvement in the war has helped Ukraine get an upper hand, and I think it should be mentioned. Here are some sources to back up my point:
Please excuse my bad citing, I am still working on it. BadKarma22 (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, what section would this be added under? BadKarma22 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC) BadKarma22 ( talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I originally intended to add this to the Russo-Ukraine War page and didn't check this article. I apologize. However, I think we could still mention the US intelligence contribution. BadKarma22 ( talk) 01:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I was also using NATO as an umbrella term. BadKarma22 ( talk) 01:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I would add to the page the ramification of the conflict in terms of the change in the geopolitical situation in the scandinavian peninsula, today the uk and finland signed a mutual security agreement to protect eachother, quite a strong sign that finland is almost certainly going to join nato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELtorto ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
In the section "Prisoners of War", it says that over a thousand prisoners were captured. Seeing as though the conflict is still ongoing and more are likely to be captured, I suggest changing this to have been captured.-- Ribidag ( talk) 15:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NATO Casualties : The Russians have got WARD recently ... Do YOU know who was JW Clark ? Is he a hero from the USA or just one "white mercenary" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 02:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The Russian TV often shows dead americans ... Can you mention their names in the table "NATO Casualties" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 09:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
BUT they showed PASSPORT CARDS of killed young men ... IGNORE THOSE FACTS in en-wiki ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 09:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
YOU don't trust RU-WIKI ? NO NATO casualties ? O.key. 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 12:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOTHING TO TRANSLATE
DOMESTIC ? it's an INTERNATIONAL CASE of State terrorism ! 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 12:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOW i wonder are you for or against THE PUTIN ADMINISTRATION in KIEV ?
Because IT IS ME who translated THE THEME for Ru-Wiki ! 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 12:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOT the Kremlin Pool
PLEASE ... USE your own links: State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list) after new NATO summit 2.61.3.205 ( talk) 12:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
WE were talking about NATO CASUALTIES : AMERICAN ... NOT BRITISH ! That is my address was TO Mr.Biden 2.61.3.205
IP comes back to Rostelcom (Russian telecom), Sibirtelecom actually, to nobody's surprise I am sure Elinruby ( talk) 13:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
( talk) 13:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead (first big paragraph), begins in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea, then progresses to a build-up in 2021. Then comes Putin's "special operations" speech on the 24:th of February. After this we jump back one day to the 23:d of February to say that Russian officials denied plans to invade up to and including that day, which I suppose is fine as a look-back after the invasion has started.
In the next paragraph we are suddenly back on the 21:st of February, the invasion hasn'st started yet, and instead Russia recognizes the two self-proclaimed statelets. Then the invasion begins on the 24:th again, with Putin again announcing a "special military operation". We then hear a little about what happened shortly thereafter, with missile strikes and general mobilization.
I was a little confused reading this and the first time I did, I thought the first speech mentioned was different from the second, when they are in fact the same. This is because the first time it is mentioned no date is given. It just says "shortly before the invasion" which really means 10:s of minutes before, but with how the lead jumps in time makes you think it is a few days before, somewhere before the 23:d of February, which is the next actually given date.
More nitpicky is that the fourth paragraph begins with "As the invasion began on 24 February 2022" and then goes into fronts and such. This again gives a feel of "restarting" after just having heard what happend as the invasion began: missile strikes and general mobilization. Some way to show these happened simultaneously might tie it together better.
I think it could be an improvement to make the lead more chronological.-- Ribidag ( talk) 05:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am slightly surprised that I can't see any mention of alleged 'attacks' inside Russia and Belarus. Belarus has just legislated against sabotage with the death penalty because of the extent. A military facility in the far east of Russia suffered an explosion reported today: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/12/1-dead-7-injured-in-russia-military-base-explosion-a77650 many others I am sure editors will know about. There are good RSS but I could understand a reason why sabotage is left out of the article. However the situation in Belarus is now cited as being partly the cause of Russia's withdrawal from the north. It's part of Ukrainian solidarity and strategically, militarily significant. I thought worth a discussion maybe. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I mean, it's still going on, and probably will be for several years, right? HighwayTyper ( talk) 10:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
How about add this, on place of Ukrainian side Im talking about us financial supporting Ukraine with Lend lease, so M1Jyyy ( talk) 15:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
These aren't really prohibited; many countries have signed a treaty agreeing not to use them. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is among them. However, using cluster munitions against civilians is most likely a war crime. but that would fall under different international laws. Struggling to find a concise way to express this. I have been changing "prohibited" to "banned" on this and the applicable subpages, but that is only slightly less wrong. Anyone have any thoughts? Elinruby ( talk) 04:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Comprehensive map key of the invasion says about 'Ukrainian advances'. Even if we do not take into account that in most northern areas Russian forces just withdrew because they could not do anything, maybe the correct term would be 'Ukrainian counter-offensive' as these moves are entirely in Ukrainian territory and Ukrainian army held those before the current war? Κλειδοκράτωρ ( talk) 10:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
UK has now stated that Russia lost 1/3 of its ground invasion force from February, 24. (KIA, MIA, WIA, POWs included I suppose.) https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1525762560888344577?s=20&t=5bifi3vtZs7vfcseRrzzPA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oca24016 ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add a section explaining how the invasion caused Finland (a non-NATO country), to join NATO. Source:
[? 1] BadKarma22 ( talk) 21:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The causalities table is quite confusing - it's very hard to quickly see what casualties relate to what party because of inconsistent use of line thickness. For example, the Russian and Allied forces, the line between US and UK estimates is thick, despite both being estimates for the Russian and Allied forces. However, the line between Luhansk and Russian and Allied forces is thin despite between different parties.
Thick line should be used to separate different categories, while thin lines should be used to separate the different estimates within that same category imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.246.42 ( talk) 08:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The high command for the Russian invasion is now known, should the image be added somewhere in the article? ErnestKrause ( talk) 01:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding.See also MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Images support the text of the article - don't write the article with images or in image caption. It is a case of showing that the proposal meets the WP:P&G. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The subject is covered, perhaps the sources may be used.
The result of the move request was: Further recognition denied. Super Ψ Dro 19:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Special military operation in Ukraine – For an invasion to occur, the following criteria must be met: the objective of a third country must be the seizure of the country and its annexation. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has declared that his goal is solely the de-Nazification and demilitarization of Ukraine.. JanPawel2025 ( talk) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" should be renamed to "Russo-Ukrainian War". Also "Annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation" and "2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" should be removed from "Russo-Ukrainian War" and it should be renamed to something else as technically "2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" is the actual war between the two parties and the "Russo-Ukrainian War" page is actually referring to the series of conflicts, disputes and clashes since 2014. PadFoot2008 ( talk) 06:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
What's with these nonsense proposals lately? Super Ψ Dro 13:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It should add nato and the listings of nato countries in the support part of Ukraine 2001:8F8:1471:D52E:F064:352A:1506:2A2F ( talk) 23:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need to update the infrmation LOLl-KING ( talk) 20:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC) I just need to update this information
As posted before but was ignored, the Security Service of Ukraine officially denied a Chinese cyber attack took place or have any evidence of such attack.
From their official Twitter, posted on 2 April: https://twitter.com/ServiceSsu/status/1509983294334582793
"The SBU did not provide the media with any official information that cyber-attacks from China were allegedly carried out on the eve of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our military and other resources. The SBU has nothing to do with the findings of The Times. The Security Service of Ukraine does not currently have such data and no investigation is underway."
I would suggest adding keeping the allegation while adding this, and remove "pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge" because it is not NPOV. Chokoladesu ( talk) 07:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A few days ago, I sounded out adding the potential Finnish/Swedish NATO applications to the article in Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#Potential_NATO_enlargement_as_a_reaction/impact, and there was a rough consensus for adding it once there was official movement. Today, the Finnish President and PM made a joint declaration saying that "Finland must apply for NATO membership without delay", which looks like it meets the threshold of officiality to me. I can't add this myself, but here's some proposed text for the 'Reactions' section:
There might be room for some further elaboration on this (e.g., discussing just how badly the idea of invading a neighbour to keep NATO away from Russia has backfired on Putin here), but the article's pretty dense already. Maybe when there's some more heavy-weight analysis to cite on this point?
I haven't tried to describe the likely next steps, but they'll happen shortly, it's expected, and I don't think that the precise procedural details matter as much as the declared intention. This means that the information we put in will get stale quite quickly, but that's okay - it's a wiki and nothing's set in stone, and especially not on a highly-active article like this one. FrankSpheres ( talk) 10:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
References
On 18/05/2022 Finland, together with Sweden, officially applied to join NATO, although Turkey raised some objections to this. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 07:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Finland and Sweden on Wednesday morning (18 May 2022) simultaneously handed in their official letters of application to join NATO NATO official website. IP-Editor; May 19, 2022.
Note: I am marking this edit request as answered procedurally as it is an ongoing discussion as to whether or not the requested edit should be included at this time, per the template instructions. Cheers! — Sirdog ( talk) 05:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
At the moment, the article introduction says the following "falsely[26] accused Ukraine of being governed by neo-Nazis who persecute the ethnic Russian minority."
This reads like politicised editorialising. Our reference for the "falsely" part is The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. What a strange choice for a source on such a major issue, a journal of a random American Jewish community? Is the word "falsely" needed at all here? Can we categorically say there was no mistreatment of ethnic Russians in the Donbas and none of that mistreatment was associated with Azov or other groups which have some kind of neo-Nazi connection?
Maybe we could say the Russian claim is exaggerated, but even that may be editorialising. To categorically say "false" seems misleading. Torchist ( talk)
[Deleted non-constructive anonymous WP:SOAP. — Michael Z. 19:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)]
There is Belarus listed as supprorting Russia, but nowhere the full list of 40+ Western countries supplying weapons, training, intelligence (i.e much more than Belarus supports Russia) thereby distorting (intentionally or not) the full view of this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.185.38.18 ( talk) 17:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
On May 21st Zelensky told to journalists that Ukrainian armed forces are actually 700 thousand strong. Sources: https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/05/21/7347610/ https://censor.net/en/news/3342842/today_you_see_result_of_work_of_700_thousand_ukrainian_defenders_zelenskyi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIcY-jEH0Bg
So the 'Strength' infobox should be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.172.92.34 ( talk) 18:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Russian gas has already been turned off for Poland and Bulgaria.
Please may someone add this in the article.
Thank you.
It's the same with Finland as well: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-20/finland-loses-main-gas-supply-as-russia-will-turn-off-taps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:3D54:C9BD:1A5F:4CD7 ( talk) 21:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Why are the leaders of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics not included in the infobox? They are the heads of state of those states just as Putin is the head of state of Russia, and the DPR and LPR are completely involved in the war. Cyrobyte ( talk) 22:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
they exist if the USA say's so, is that it? any other country should abbid to this rule? the same happen to the Palestinians. Nunovilhenasantos ( talk) 00:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not saying that the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics are legitimate countries, but that they are sovereign because they have control over a particular territory. In fact, they are listed as sovereign states at the article " List of sovereign states". Cyrobyte ( talk) 01:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if we should include info re the Russian UN diplomat that quit and said he was ashamed over the war. He also made some statements saying that the Russian population has been led to believe that a nuclear strike would scare Americans causing them to kneel to what ever Russia wanted. This incident has been reported on in all the major U.S. news sources. Sectionworker ( talk) 17:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
“For 20 years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on Feb. 24 of this year,” Mr. Bondarev said, referring to the date that President Vladimir V. Putin sent Russian forces into Ukraine.
“The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine and in fact against the entire Western world is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia,” he added.BetsyRMadison ( talk) 20:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The website is supposed to add nato in the Ukranian side of the belligerents because Ukraine is supported everyday with heavy money and heavy equipment by NATO 2001:8F8:1471:BDAD:A10B:746B:7F38:C4A ( talk) 19:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Single error in Tedros quote, black should be lowercase. 99.106.93.88 ( talk) 03:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended content
|
---|
Hi, everyone.
"Russian leaders described this expansion as a violation of Western powers' assurances that NATO would not expand eastward, although any such alleged pledges, if real, were made informally, and their nature is disputed."
in this paragraph 3 sources are mentioned, to be true, "they must be people of very good morals" ???
Since the media are involved in this, they took this lie and replicated it to exhaustion, both in america and europe. Let's take some care in here, for there are many "newspapers" and "journalist" and also "writers" who don't mind write lies.
"Date: Feb 9, 1990 Description: This Gorbachev Foundation record of the Soviet leader’s meeting with James Baker on February 9, 1990, has been public and available for researchers at the Foundation since as early as 1996, but it was not published in English until 2010 when the Masterpieces of History volume by the present authors came out from Central European University Press. The document focuses on German unification, but also includes candid discussion by Gorbachev of the economic and political problems in the Soviet Union, and Baker’s “free advice” (“sometimes the finance minister in me wakes up”) on prices, inflation, and even the policy of selling apartments to soak up the rubles cautious Soviet citizens have tucked under their mattresses." "Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that “neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Baker argues in favor of the Two-Plus-Four talks using the same assurance: “We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the ‘two+four’ mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.” Gorbachev responds by quoting Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski: “that the presence of American and Soviet troops in Europe is an element of stability.”" Nunovilhenasantos ( talk) 23:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
|
The Russians took Rubizne on May 11th but the map still shows it as contested. 2A00:23C8:928:5301:8141:7C97:466F:35FB ( talk) 09:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
As the title says. I’m asking this as I think it would be beneficial for us all to hear more about what the Ukrainian forces are doing. The timeline seems not to have as much info as it does about the Russians. I think it would also be good for us all to hear some of the more positive developments. I’m sure we all want this conflict to end, and therefore I would like to see more Ukrainian successes in these pages. 2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:3550:7C65:C66C:EE29 ( talk) 17:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the text description of the animated map from "February 24 to April 21" to "February 24 to May 27" Physeters ✉ 14:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. Add the Institute for the Study of War's daily updates on Ukraine to the External Links section. Imo it should be added because a consistently updated link with a focus on the military aspects only would be both helpful and interesting.
2. Add RUSI's report on the conflict to the Further Reading section. It's a month old, so it's somewhat outdated. However, the sections on what happened at the start of the invasion are accurate, interesting and accessible, and the assumptions that underly the predictions are still mostly true. SentientObject ( talk) 02:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The ICC also set up an online portal for people with evidence to contact investigators, and sent investigators, lawyers and other professionals to Ukraine collect evidence.[608][609]" to "The ICC also set up an online portal for people with evidence to contact investigators, and sent investigators, lawyers and other professionals to Ukraine to collect evidence.[608][609]" as the former is missing a 'to'. EloquentMosquito ( talk) 00:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
We need at least four more articles about four battles near the cities where they take place. For example. Lyman, Lysychansk, Bakhmut and Marinka. — Baba Mica ( talk) 00:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Please consider #Don’t assume DLNR are present without support of reliable sources when creating new articles. — Michael Z. 16:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Let’s please not blindly insert DLNR or “separatist forces” into articles’ infoboxes and body text without confirming that reliable sources support their participation. The majority of reliable sources on military action only refer to Russian forces or the Russian army, and don’t even mention DLNR.
I just removed such unsupported assertions from three articles, one where only Russian and separatist sources asserted their presence, [52] one where a single source mentioned their marginal participation (occupying a rural point near a battleground after the fight), [53] and one in which not a single cited source mentions their participation. [54] — Michael Z. 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the countries supplying Ukraine with military aid in the supporting belligerents section Bigfifa ( talk) 21:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 09:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The soldiers are part of Russian military units based in South Ossetia but which also include some local contract soldiers.The second source is not sufficiently specific that it would contradict the first source or other sources offered in the previous discussion. Bottom line, the previous consensus is that South Ossetia is not participating as a "soverign state" and these sources don't show otherwise. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
SO soldiers are Russian soldiers.I apologise for any confusion. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Strength estimates are as of the start of the invasion. See also: Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This is not a WP:FORUM. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
"Putin ... incorrectly described the country as having been created by Soviet Russia,[25]"
But Ukraine has no legal history as a state prior to the Bolshevik revolution? Lenin's support for devolving the Russian Empire to give such legal power and affirmation to various National Minorities was hotly debated by other communists of the time.
From Wiki on Ukraine:
"The 19th century saw the growth of Ukrainian nationalism, particularly in Galicia, then part of Austria-Hungary. In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution a Ukrainian national movement re-emerged, and the Ukrainian People's Republic was formed in 1917. This short-lived state was forcibly reconstituted into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which became a founding member of the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1922" 73.191.41.112 ( talk) 12:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repiblic won the ukrainian civil war in 1921 and was admited in USSR in late 1922 not was conquered by Soviet Union in 1920 on the third attempt. DrYisus ( talk) 16:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
~ Sorry Michael Z I am new on WP and I dont know how insert the answers from mobile or make calls (the @). I am not arguing anything of that. I only said that UkrSSR (puppet or not) won the civil war in 1921 (not 1920) and later joined USSR. And by the way, is true that some part of Ukraine origins (Ukraine People's Republic) are based on soviet/bolsevisk actions, in fact the Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets was stablished nearly at the same time that UPR, the bolsevisk uprising in kiev drove out the white forces leting the Rada (which suported bolseviks during the uprising) increasing the autonomy that months after lead to independence. I wouldn't say that Ukraine have full soviet origin like Vlad said, but has partial. DrYisus ( talk) 22:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The Russian ministry of defence has posted their latest update on Ukrainian losses on the 26th of April. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyazKader ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The article size is back over 400Kb which can be daunting to readers of the article, and the article has been template tagged for length issues. One suggestion might be to note that there is a great deal of duplication with the Russo-Ukrainian war article as to both of them covering a 'deep history' version of the events leading to the 2022 Russian Invasion. There is no reason for maintaining two versions of this 'deep history' going back 30-35 years, and it seems a useful endeavor to merge the two subsections of the Background section into the Russo-Ukrainian war article, along with perhaps 2-3 subsections of the Prelude section as well. A very short summary and link can be left in this Invasion article after that merge is done. The other suggestion might similarly note that the Peace efforts section lower in the TOC also has a sibling article already written for it at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, and to merge it from this Invasion article into the sibling article (leaving a link to that page from this Invasion article). The read time for the article is currently 40-50 minutes which is over Wikipedia policy guidelines and this makes a large demand upon new readers who are going through the article from top-to-bottom for the first time. Suggesting here that both of these merge-to-sibling article measures be done to deal with the bulking down of this long article. ErnestKrause ( talk) 19:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
"Ukraine, like pro-Russian separatists in Donbas, has a far-right fringe, including the neo-Nazi-linked Azov Battalion and Right Sector,", although others may disagree, so it might be worth discussing on talk first or expecting WP:BRD. Jr8825 • Talk 02:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Took a quick look at the Invasion section. Nowhere near done, but some comments:
The material in front of it was completely unrelated. Putting here for now, discussion of an aspect of military aid from Germany [3] Elinruby ( talk) 04:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
References
On 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Popular_resistance, we have already described that 700,000 Ukrainian forces are fighting in this war, and Zelensky said that too. [55] Why the figure of Ukrainian strength amounts to only 298,600 in infobox? >>> Extorc. talk 17:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I need the dates for the Battle of Bakhmut, which was recently deleted. Can someone send it? Xurum Shatou ( talk) 23:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Wtf is Battle of Bakhmut? Russian occupation forces didn't get closer than 30 km to the city DakeFasso ( talk) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah agree, the number of these “Battle of” articles, about every small town and village is getting pretty ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 18:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
In the Prelude section, would “mobilization” be the correct spelling for moving troops and equipment to engage in war? 174.251.64.117 ( talk) 03:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
“On 14 March, the Russian source RT reported that the Russian Armed Forces had captured about a dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdiansk, including the Polnocny-class landing ship Yuri Olefirenko. [1]“
Anybody know this source? The archives at WP:RSN have nothing on it, but quite a few other articles use it as a source on military hardware. The wikilinked article about the ship uses the same source, plus another one I don’t know. Elinruby ( talk) 18:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC) “On 14 March, the Russian source RT reported that the Russian Armed Forces had captured about a dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdiansk, including the Polnocny-class landing ship Yuri Olefirenko. [2]“
References
Does the Right Sector participate in the 2022 war? The references are not unequivocal. The ABC text is biased, it quotes Donbas people only. Putin's opinions belong to pre-invasion period. Xx236 ( talk) 08:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
There is such section, but no 'Rejection of Russian accusations and demands', 'Critics'. Xx236 ( talk) 07:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The article Anonymous and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has recently been created. Any help improving it would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 17:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
In accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, I have removed commanders/leaders from the infobox in the subject article because save one, none of the commanders listed in the article had any mention in the article that would support their inclusion and the one that did had only a single passing mention. An editor has reinstated these. There is a discussion on this at Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)/Archive 1#Are we putting commanders or not?. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
See also, the discussion at Talk:Siege of Mariupol#Commanders in infobox. Please comment there. Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Considering that DPR and LPR are listed as belligerents, not merely support (as with Belarus), shouldn't their heads of state be included with Putin in the "Commanders and Leaders" section? I think Denis Pushilin (DPR) and Leonid Pasechnik (LPR) should be included. Seems inconsistent to list them in belligerents but not commanders and leaders. -- 2601:644:8501:3FF0:ACD5:F6:ABFE:50AF ( talk) 19:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Senomo Drines ( talk) 12:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The heading “revision and resistance” video’s caption “June 2” should be updated to “June 6”
There is a discrepancy - looking at total Casualty figures in the Siege of Mariupol - it is given as 22,000+ deaths. The wide range given here takes one yahoo source that states 6000 deaths for Mariupol. Isn't this undue weight given the fact that no other source gives the 6000 number? I suggest using 22,000 for Mariupol and add the casualties for other areas on top. Please advise. mezil ( talk) 07:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
It is given in the breakdown : Mariupol: 6000-2200 deaths mezil ( talk) 09:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Please look at article Casualties of Russo-Ukrainian war for breakdown. mezil ( talk) 09:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Now the table doesn't make sense. You have one city with over 22,000 casualties and yet the total is 11,000 - 27,000. The lower figure is still confusing. I think it's best to remove the 11000 figure as it just doesn't add up. mezil ( talk) 11:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone include Institute for the Study of War's interactive map of Russian invasion of Ukraine as a link/source or embed it into the article? Here is the map https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375 which updates daily. 50.64.136.84 ( talk) 18:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Would it make sense to suggest a page move, to perhaps "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" or sorts? The term "invasion" suggests only the opening phase of a conflict; it is now more than three months and the conflict is a full-scale war involving multiple parties, with wide global repercussions (economic/fuel crises etc.). Hence I think the term "invasion" in the title doesn't merit the scale or significance of the topic covered in the article; having it describe the first phase of the war in February is sufficient. The broader " Russo-Ukrainian War" describing the overall conflict can still remain as it is without going into details of the 2022 war.
I haven't been active on this topic, so perhaps active editors can voice opinions here? No News ! 16:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Should we add "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list the countries providing military aid? -- Mindaur ( talk) 21:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
No. Allowing a state to use your territory for a war of aggression is an illegal act of international aggression, according to the UN’s definition. Allowing weapons transfers by commercial sale or donation is not, whether a party is at war or not.Could you please provide your sourcing for this statement as it would seem very pertinent to this RfC. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
"the United States military"is now training
"Ukrainian troops"[1] and there's been
"a stark shift from Western support for Ukraine [...] focused now on delivering heavy weaponry and not only defensive system."[2] If on the off-chance listing becomes too long, we can partially shorten or link. CurryCity ( talk) 04:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC) NYT reports that
direct assistancefrom US and Western
intelligence serviceshelped Ukraine successfully attack senior Russian officers, whose heavy losses
astonishedanalysts. US goal has shifted to weakening and deterring Russia for the long term per statement by Def Sec Lloyd Austin. [3] [4] Even though I voted against in a previous RfC, events have since escalated. updated 07:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Many countries imposed new sanctions, which have affected the economies of Russia and the world, and provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine.There is a prominant section in the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military support and a daughter article linked from that section: See also: List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. How could it be reasonably argued that we are not already openly reporting the nature and extent of legal 'support' being provided by other countries to Ukraine and in a way that best conforms to WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and any other relevant WP:P&G. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
that's something we could change as a community if we wanted to.But such a change has not happened?. Levivich makes a number of closing observations on what a new RfC might propose (as a more refined question) such that it might lead to a consensus. This RfC has failed to head such advice and is likely to produce the same outcome as previous precisely because it has failed to head their advice. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
On the strength of arguments, there is no global consensus to be applied that would give one side or the other sufficient weight to overcome the numerical split of opinion. In light of that, I recommend we mutually agree to close this RfC as "no consensus" in accordance with item #2 at Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Ending RfCs. I don't see any reason to tie up the time and effort of an uninvolved editor if we can agree that we haven't reached a consensus here. -- N8wilson 18:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |first3=
has numeric name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
The problem of ethnic composition of the Russian army, especially in Ukraine, exists. I do not know if official numbers are available. But some informations exist.
The following line in the lead regarding protests in Russia should be removed or modified; "those in Russia were met with mass arrests and increased media censorship, including a ban on the words "war" and "invasion"."
To highlight the Russian government's censorship of war opposition while failing to mention the Ukrainian government's censorship of their war opposition violates WP:NPOV. As has been reported by reliable sources, the Ukrainian government has banned opposition parties sympathetic to Russia [1] and has, in general, heavily censored dissent. [2] The Azov regiment has also been credibly accused of abduction, torture, and killing of pro-Russia Ukrainian citizens. [3] Because of these facts, this page should either highlight the censorship from both sides, or neither. DayTime99 ( talk) 14:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
References
The current source links to https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-do-so-many-russians-say-they-support-the-war-in-ukraine, but there is no mention of those numbers there. Can someone point to the correct source or add [citation needed] or remove it if misleading? VZakharov ( talk) 06:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Can someone explain how is it that Colombia (a country that isn't mentioned once otherwise in the whole article) is in the info box as supporting Ukraine because it's "allegedly" sending a demining team (the sources being some unknown Russian-language websites) while countries sending millions of weapons, money and providing military intelligence aren't?
189.193.65.250 ( talk) 16:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the following, excessively detailed content from the lede. Full details can be provided in the article or sub-articles. The lede should be a concise summary. By necessity, many important facts will not fit in the lede. Jehochman Talk 12:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Putin also alleged that eastward expansion by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) threatens Russia's national security, which it has disputed. [1] Russia demanded NATO stop expanding and permanently bar Ukraine from ever joining the alliance. [2] Multiple nations accused Russia of planning to attack or invade Ukraine, which Russian officials repeatedly denied as late as 23 February 2022. [6]
On 8 April, Russia announced that its forces in southern and eastern Ukraine would be placed under the command of General Aleksandr Dvornikov, and some units withdrawn from northern Ukraine were subsequently redeployed to the Donbas. [7]
By 13 May, Russian forces near Kharkiv had withdrawn following a Ukrainian counter-offensive. By 20 May, Mariupol fell to Russian troops following a prolonged siege of the Azovstal steel works. [8] [9]
Numerous companies withdrew their products and services from Russia and Belarus, and Russian state-funded media were banned from broadcasting and removed from online platforms. The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into crimes against humanity in Ukraine since 2013, as well as war crimes in the 2022 invasion. [10]
References
NATO is a defensive alliance. Our purpose is to protect our member states. Every country that joins NATO undertakes to uphold its principles and policies. This includes the commitment that 'NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia,' as reaffirmed at the Brussels Summit this year. NATO enlargement is not directed against Russia. Every sovereign nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also subscribed to and should respect. In fact, after the end of the Cold War, Russia committed to building an inclusive European security architecture, including through the Charter of Paris, the establishment of the OSCE, the creation of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, and the NATO-Russia Founding Act.
Deny
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).denials
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Czech
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).It is currently 00:09:30 UTC. In the "Casualties" column, for the "Russian and allied forces" row, it states that 15,000–20,000 wounded: /info/en/?search=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties_and_humanitarian_impact . However, the source says that number were killed. The claim of wounded is inconsistent with the provided source. I am not yet extended confirmed and cannot update this error. Could someone else?
Brom20110101 ( talk) 00:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Is the Kyiv Independent reliable enough for use in a featured article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanth Nalluri 11 ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The Ukraine war animation has now reached the size limit allowing it to be displayed in thumbnail form. If the number of frames exceeds 104 (June 6th) the animation will no longer be able to be viewed in thumbnail form, as it would no longer make the following equation true, (length of image in pixels) x (width of image in pixels) x (number of animation frames) < 100,000,000. There are a few possible fixes, including lowering the the gifs resolution, dropping some frames, converting it to some other file format, or if we don't want to change anything about the gif itself, a subtext could be added underneath the image saying something like "please click to view the animation". I would like to get everyone's thoughts on what the best solution is before I change anything.
PS: I was told that some people can't even view the gif in its regular form when I added frames for June 7th through 10th, which is above the limit. I'm not experiencing that issue, and I don't know what could be causing it, if it is happening at all. Please see if that version of the
Ukraine animation plays for you, and tell me the result. Thanks!
Physeters
✉ 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Any sources conforming independence of the 'separatists' from Russia?
Xx236 ( talk) 10:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"Right Sector ... is a right-wing to far-right". Even if there exist sources supporting 'fringe', there are different ones, so no. Xx236 ( talk) 13:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The size of the article is a little more than 350 KB. The readable prose size is more than 100 KB as per [ [76]]. So, can someone please remove trivial information from this article? That would help! Hemanth Nalluri ( Talk) 22:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion that is dominating this talk page should be replaced with a link to the discussion just like how we did it to the first one on this page. Hemanth Nalluri ( Talk) 22:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
There's a row indicating 3,528 killed among Russian forces from IStories. The data was compiled from an unaffiliated anonymous Ukrainian Telegram channel. The site does not look trustworthy at all (no about us page, no financing info, no editorial staff etc, same for telegram channel). I suggest to remove this source completely or at least somebody from experienced users should check that data for credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.99.36.148 ( talk) 19:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a section on the invasion, and a subsection (three good-sized paragraphs): 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Potential Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons
1. This seems out of place - as the larger section is about what has happened. The reader expects a summary of events. But this is speculative. 2. Given that this is speculative, the size of the subsection would seem to violate the wikipedia policy against giving things undue weight.
I would recommend 1. Condensing the subsection 2. Moving it out of the main invasion section.
(It is reliably source - it belongs in the article. I am addressing the size and and the position only). Jd2718 ( talk) 12:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the cuts made in this
diff. Key contextual events such as the Euromaidan are missing, and the text refers to things that are no longer mentioned (e.g. "Russia's annexation of Crimea followed in March 2014"
, which originally came after a mention of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest). I raised my objection to making severe cuts to the background in the
discussion that took place beforehand and I'm disappointed to notice that
ErnestKrause went ahead regardless without raising specific proposals (edit: without specifically discussing what information should be removed; I missed your suggestion regarding the number of paragraphs you'd like to cut it down to, but was expecting a discussion about which content should/shouldn't be cut) on the talk, as I don't believe there was a consensus for such a drastic reduction. While I'm definitely open to the idea of a significant shortening, I'd like to discuss specific changes first as I think such a massive cut is a significant loss for this article, the most visited article related to the current war.
I'd like to hear more opinions on the proposed cut (the current version). @ErnestKrause: could you please urgently fix the missing references to events so the text flows properly. I'll hold off reverting per WP:BRD for now until others have had their say (in case I'm the only editor who sees things this way), although WP:FAITACCOMPLI indicates that if there isn't a consensus for such a large removal, then the correct course of action is to restore the previous text and start cuts again from there, even if this seems like more work. Jr8825 • Talk 21:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
If Belarus is listed as a supporter of Russia, then surely the US, Sweden, Estonia etc should be listed as supporting countries of Ukraine? They're providing more help than Belarus. A bit weird? Dopeliciouss ( talk) 09:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "Belligerents" section, provide a link to the section "Foreign Military Support". This is consist with the article "Russo-Ukranian War" 108.36.196.232 ( talk) 12:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
This is a general page, I am not sure if destruction of a tugboat deserves so much place here. Xx236 ( talk) 09:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I think a new dedicated section dedicated to briefly summarising Russia's occupation of new territories (e.g. grain theft, protests, arrests, cutting of internet, media changes) might be warranted. See, for example, the Russian wiki's equivalent section (you can use Google Translate to get a rough idea of what's covered). What are others' thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 17:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Should this article be marked as "controversial" with the " controversial warning template?" Hemanth Nalluri ( Talk) 4:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
On the Battle of Donbas (2022) page, I have been keeping track of Russian Ministry of Defense daily briefings, where they announce the number of Ukrainian troops killed in the Donbas. I have literally gone onto Russian government websites each day and Telegram pages and found independent news pages corroborating those claims to cite them in that article. I've done the same with LPR claims, DPR claims, as well as Ukrainian claims for Russian casualties.
In my spare time, I'm going to find the LPR and DPR claims about killed Ukrainian soldiers for 24 February - 18 April, add them onto the claims from 18 April to present, and put them in the table for this article. But this new section is not about that.
I am still missing a few briefings, but if you go onto that page I've tallied 12,500 killed Ukrainians in the Donbas from 21 April to 20 June alone. Given that the most recent Russian figure in the table stands at 23,367 and that is dated from 18 April, does it make sense to add up these figures (which gives us about 36,000+ killed) and keep the "+" sign to indicate that the casualties from other regions is still unknown? PilotSheng ( talk) 21:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Do the recent edits quoting Russian opinions belong here? Xx236 ( talk) 08:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Something should be added. Xx236 ( talk) 07:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "Crimes against cultural heritage", add this additional statement at the end:
"Notable heritage sites the war has destroyed include the All Saints Monastery in Donbas [1] [2] and the house of Russian composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky in Trostyanets. [3]" Skippy2520 ( talk) 15:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
References
I have not yet looked at the alternate versions (and I suspect this will be a problem with most of the votes on the RfC) but in case this is helpful, I do have some thoughts on the section as it is as of this writing. Some of these thoughts also applied to previous versions. It is currently unclear to me whether the consensus is that the section is too long or too short.
For context, I have historically followed news events quite closely but did not pay particular attention to Ukraine until the invasion, after which I did a deep dive and have since done at least a copy-edit on pretty much all the en-Wikipedia articles on the topic. So I consider myself informed on the topic but with no deep expertise, and might be able to channel a best-case scenario for an intelligent casual reader. So here are some concerns about the background section:
In hopes some of the above is helpful Elinruby ( talk) 18:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
"run by a succession of puppet regimes"isn't an accurate characterisation of post-1991 Ukraine. Even if Kuchma and Yanukovych weakened institutions and put the country's autonomy at risk, it has had multiple free elections, and Kravchuk and Yushchenko's presidencies in particular were not oriented towards Russia. Jr8825 • Talk 20:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing that any of the comments/proposals by Elinruby substantially add to the text at present (B) and some might reduce. I would only suggest that we shouldn't expend (too much) effort until the RfC is concluded. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
"articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions or phrases [are appropriate to link] — but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link".
Ukraine’s governments were absolutely not “a succession of puppet régimes,” except arguably Yanukovych’s from the day he gave in to Russian pressure to cancel signing of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement on November 21, 2013, until Ukraine’s parliament dismissed prime minister Arbuzov’s caretaker government on February 27, 2014 (less than 100 days).
“Since Ukraine’s independence” means either the day Ukraine proclaimed independence, in August 1991, the day Ukrainians ratified the declaration in a referendum or the following day when its independence was Internationally recognized, in December, or perhaps even the days of the signing of the Belovezha Accords, or the Almaty Protocol, or the day the USSR voted itself out of existence, December 25. One can argue about how much Russian influence on it there was during the years after that, but that is an opinion about politics and not the conventional meaning of the phrase “Ukrainian independence.” — Michael Z. 20:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Probably a stupid change, but in the casualties box it says RAF. I confused this for the Royal Air Force instead of the Russian Armed Forces, though it is hyperlinked. Anyone else agree? ~~~~ Harveywalker500 ( talk) 12:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Can you add South Ossetia to the attacking side, they have battalion or so in Ukraine. 79.100.80.172 ( talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change the length counter from months to days. At the time of writing it would be change the '4 Months and 3 Days' to '122 Days' Scu ba ( talk) 20:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.There should be totals on the casualties tab so as to make it easier to ascertain who's winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:9C63:999:8E75:C32B ( talk) 04:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The time has finally come to bury your biased views and add the United States as a party in this conflict. There are US boots on the ground. The Americans are actively helping Ukraine against Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-russia-ukraine.html?searchResultPosition=1 109.38.141.24 ( talk) 21:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Editors pointed to a number of other articles about wars that included, or did not include, a "support by" section in the infobox. There is ample precedent for both approaches and no universally-consistent practice.-- N8wilson 17:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
It is a fact that Ukraine is supported by over 30 countries. You even list them at foreign support. I like wikipedia, i am not pro-russian(my country is member of EU and nato), but let us not pretend that we didn t support them. I do think that billions of $ and € and six round of sanctions is more then support, and 100x more then the support of Belarus.
In the moment you write Donbas and Luhansk Republic as support for Russia, you officially admit its existence. That doesn't bother me either, just stating a fact. 2A02:2F07:D801:6100:B0E1:524C:41D6:2D64 ( talk) 14:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
So. As i said and you did whatever you did with my post. I have no secrets. You need no ip tracking. I am from romania-targu mures.
So what makes you think that letting attack from belorus is support and giving weapons and moneyis not. Read your own wiki article abbout support and military support. And if this is correct, change that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support Herminator2 ( talk) 15:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
It is Support Type of support: Military Subtype of support: combat service support. As simple as that according to your own definitions. Herminator2 ( talk) 15:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Okie. For me that sentence means that if you give a bullet to someone who s engaged in a war is combat service support. As i said i don t really care, i find the article biased, but as citizen of a pro-ucrainian country of course i just stop donating. I thought we support them. My bad. Have a nice day yall. Herminator2 ( talk) 15:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
To summarize: financial support and military supply are things that happen in peacetime, and do not make a state a belligerent. (BTW, some of these countries have supplied military equipment and weapons to the Russian Federation too.) Belarus’s wartime provision of its soil for acts of aggression is itself legally an act of aggression, according to the UN’s definition.
This keeps coming up in talk. Is there a way to make the infobox section more self-explanatory on what it represents, say with better labels? — Michael Z. 15:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot of articles in WP that includes not boots on terrain countries in the infobox. (Sweeden in Vietnam, Lybia in Iran-Iraq, Korean war...) in some articles infobox i have seen "weapons support", "diplomatic support" and "financial aid" I think is 100% clear that Ukraine have received financial, diplomatic and weapons support from a lot of countries. So why is not listed in this article infobox and is in other war articles? Please edit the infobox to add this foreign suppor to ukraine or lets modify a lot of war articles to make consistent with the "boots on field" criteria in this article. DrYisus ( talk) 12:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Explain me why Nazi Germany is in the infobox supporting Ethiopia in the Second Italo-Abyssinian war and Czechoslovakia is supporting Bolivia and Italy Paraguay in Chaco war, but United states, UK and European Union are not in the infobox supporting Ukraine? I am only trying to understand WP criteria to include a supporting country in the infobox. DrYisus ( talk) 12:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
CIA personnel operate in Kyiv according to former & current US officials. At least USA should be added to "Supported By" for Ukraine
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-russia-ukraine.html RandomPotato123 ( talk) 03:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Belarus didn't set foot in Ukraine but it is considered a supporting country as well. The US, the UK and the European Union should be included as supporting country for the Ukraine counterpart Marcodicaprio90 ( talk) 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but NATO sent weapons and offered Ukraine logistic and military support – it is public domain. If we mention Belarus in the chart, we should do the same for NATO members. Marcodicaprio90 ( talk) 19:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
An issue has arisen at the article Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. As per earlier consensus established at the War in Donbas article in 2014, self-admitted casualty figures and those presented by 3rd party sources (example UN) were to be included into the casualty tables, while claims made by belligerents about their enemies losses were to be only presented in text/prose form outside the tables due to the possibility of propaganda inflation (unreliability). This consensus extended to the Casualties article which was born out of the start of the War in Donbas. Recently, a consensus at this article's (invasion) talk page, reaffirmed the old consensus in regards to the Casualties article, but that the belligerent's claims of their enemies losses would be included in the table located in the casualties section of this article (since all casualty information was moved from the infobox to the casualties section due to bloating). @ Volunteer Marek: has requested that claims of enemy losses now be included in the table of the Casualties article as well, just like they are here in the Invasion article. In principle I do not object to this (having identical tables would be less confusing) as long as there is editor agreement, so we could verify a new consensus moving forward (overwriting the old one). Between, discussion has been started at this talk page since the last consensus reaffirmation was made on this article's talk page a few months ago, so this could be considered a sort of continuation. Opinions, objections, no objections? EkoGraf ( talk) 01:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The statement is not obvious so it does not deserve to be quoted in the lead. The statelets are controlled rather by Russia. I will remove the phrase. Xx236 ( talk) 07:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Name one channel not controlled by the Russian state. Probably the same in Ukraine. Xx236 ( talk) 07:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I 'show up', because the text says 'Pro-Kremlin television pundits like Vladimir Solovyov and Russian state-controlled channels like Russia-24,[613] Russia-1,[614] and Channel One[615] follow the government narrative'. The phrase suggests that there exist independent channels in Russia. Xx236 ( talk) 06:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 05:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Some days ago Russian forces managed to surround Ukrainian troops in Hirske and Zolote. This is something that has not happened often, as far as I know the only other examples are Mariupol, Chernihiv and Slavutych. These three have articles on their respective military engagements, but the surrounding at Hirske and Zolote does not. I was wondering if a specific article could perhaps be written about it. Probably not as not much actually happened, but I'd like to see the opinions of other editors as I feel like this event has no appropriate article for coverage other than the broad Eastern Ukraine offensive and the articles on the towns themselves. We have some similar examples in Wikipedia, like Falaise pocket or the Kamenets–Podolsky pocket, but these are far more obviously notable. The Kholm Pocket is the one with the smallest scale I've been able to find. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This needs closing as a violation of wp:tenditious. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I remember reading several weeks ago, I believe in the ISW that Russia had committed upwards of 330,000 Soldiers to the invasion. I believe that, along with more recruits who have joined the forces of the DPR and LPR around with the estimated 10,000 - 20,000 foreign mercenaries who have reportedly been flown in by the Russians should be included in the "Strength" section. As for the Ukrainian side, they have also highly increased the number of fighters they now have, I believe their president also recently reported that up to 700,000 people were participating in the "defense of Ukraine" in some way or another. Either way, the strength section should be updated to reflect more current figures of troops involved on both sides. History Man1812 ( talk) 14:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812
Foreign military support section, Foreign military involvement subsection : "On 5 May, a US official confirmed that US gave "a range of intelligence"... should have a "the" before "US gave". Astrosalad ( talk) 01:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
It is estimated around 8.4 million Ukrainians have fled the country not 6.4 million 5.59.117.168 ( talk) 21:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Here we are again. So just like last time, we are about to hit the limit of frames the gif can have if we want it to play in thumbnail form. The limit is 104 frames, and the Part 2 gif will pass that limit on July 19th, so it is still possible that a natural breaking point will occur where the gif can be split. @ ErnestKrause proposed changing the gif to only show every other day, which would extend the deadline to November 1. I know some people might have a problem with this, but it seems like the best option, other than splitting the gif in two. If there are any other possible solutions, please let me know! Physeters ✉ 02:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The article currently reads some press reports grew increasingly unsure about a possible Ukrainian victory in the conflict. The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung noted, after the loss of Severodonetsk, that the chances for a Ukrainian victory "tend towards zero". with two sources given. One is Süddeutsche Zeitung itself. The other one is an Al Jazeera article that has the opposite tenor, claiming the loss of Severodonetsk is of minor military importance but the Russian forces are running out of ammunition and are demoralized: To some observers, Moscow’s long-term perspectives in the war do not look promising because of heavy losses and demoralised manpower amid Western sanctions that prevent the production of high-precision weaponry. [97] SovielHungerhabichgarnicht ( talk) 02:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Al Jazera says the opposite of what this paragraph says. That leaves a single Op-Ed in the Süddeutsche Zeitung to document this supposed trend. Deleting paragraphand
This mischaracterized an OP-ED by a single journalist as the position of the newspaper. This paragraph may need to be altered further, having [should be "haven't"] checked al jazera but the fact that a single journalist in a country full of defeatists (Germany) wrote something defeatist is not really notable. So basically, I think we're all in agreement. The Al-Jazeera article says that the loss of Severodonetsk isn't strategically important and quotes experts to that effect. Now I have seen a Washington Post article about differing assessments in the US, with some saying the US isn't doing enough to help Ukraine and a minority saying US assessments are too rosy and Ukraine can't win, but that's not really about media coverage. German "intellectuals" and "pacifists" have been calling for Ukraine basically surrendering for various reasons since before the conflict, though they don't call it surrendering, which is how the article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung has to be contextualized.
There are a ton of western countries supporting and military supplying Ukraine (whole of NATO, Australia, Japan ect). Yet none of them are mentioned in the section. As per other wikipedia articles about conflicts, military assistance to a country in the form of providing weapons is considered a semi-belligerent mentioned in "supported by" section.
I hope the editors familiar with the article see my post and make the necessary changes. Thank you all for your work! NickTheRipper ( talk) 20:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
All the other wikipedia articles (about military conflicts) list countries in "supported by" section that have even provided just diplomatic support to the belligerents (e.g. see Vietnam War for reference). Also I don't see how international law has to do anything with how a wikipedia article is structured. Thanks NickTheRipper ( talk) 14:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it's kind of laughable to assume that Ukraine is not supported by anyone in the world in its war against Russia. But I guess wikipedia's political bias has changed a lot from when I used to edit back in the day... NickTheRipper ( talk) 16:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take the time to answer even though I know that will not change your pov.
>Michael Z
"There is no “semi-belligerent” status in international law." International law has nothing to do with how a wikipedia article should be structured. "We know providing weapons doesn’t make one a belligerent, because it is done constantly by a large number of states without ever creating a state of war." Never said otherwise. Providing weapons makes one support a belligerent.
>ErnestKrause
"Assessment of military alliances is normally done by observing boots on the ground or planes in the air." A party does not have to be in an alliance with a belligerent in order to provide support to them. Also units (on the ground or in the air as you said) would make a party full-fleged belligerent (providing they take part in hostilities). "No country has provided Ukraine with boots on the ground or planes in the air." Again that would make a party a belligerent.
>Slatersteven
"We are not saying that, we are saying they are not beligerants" Ok, we agree here. They are not a belligerent. They are providing support for one. "That their level of support does not rise high enough to really count as involved in direct conflict." I think you have not understand what I am trying to say here. These parties are involved in the conflict not enough to be listed as belligerents but enough to be listed as supporting a belligerent. NickTheRipper ( talk) 17:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, please add the UK. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are being trained on British soil right now. Stop your biased views. Game over.
https://news.sky.com/story/we-see-them-as-brothers-in-arms-here-uk-training-thousands-of-ukrainian-recruits-in-england-12648559 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.38.137.43 ( talk) 21:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
According to the NYT and numerous other sources, US has boots on the ground in Ukraine via many CIA operatives since at least 2015. This article mentions nothing that Ukraine IS supported by the US, NATO and EU. 120.17.193.129 ( talk) 01:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/10/world/europe/russia-recruits-ukraine-war.html June,
Another source https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-war-women-soldiers-home-buryatia-tyva/31940262.html
Xx236 ( talk) 09:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/108385/pdf/ Xx236 ( talk) 09:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
At what point shall we rename this article from "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" to something more resembling reality, as was the case with the Iraq-Iran war, which followed a similar pattern? LordParsifal ( talk) 19:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the wording that wikipedia has chosen is very confusing. It has labeled the Ukrainian-Russian conflict from 2014 onwards a war so it is forced to find a different wording for this article. In reality whoever mentions Ukraine-Russian war means the one started in February. No one actually means a "continuous" war from 2014. It feels like an artificial label used exclusively by wikipedia. In my opinion the first article should be renamed to Ukraine-Russian conflict and that one to Ukraine-Russian war. As for the -Russian invasion- wording it better suits the "first" part of the war, as the war itself approaches a stalemate and becomes protracted. NickTheRipper ( talk) 20:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, prior to the 2022 invasion a number of Ukrainian politicians (mainly those opposed to Zelensky [who was a moderate figure until the 2022 invasion], and the most anti-Russian figures) claimed that the country had been at war since 2014. I'm guessing that's why we have the current wording on Wikipedia, due to certain editors taking this position. YantarCoast ( talk) 20:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
That was my impression from watching Прямий канал for something like three years. Anyway, here you go (sorry, it's not in English). [1] Apparently, Ukraine wasn't at war (apologies if it doesn't fit in with your view of the situation). YantarCoast ( talk) 21:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Aa the infobox already says "Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War". Slatersteven ( talk) 16:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
References
@ LordParsifal: @ Mzajac: @ NickTheRipper: @ Alcibiades979: My thoughts exactly. A title with invasion would be fine if this was a short conflict, but the way it's looking this is turning into a protracted conflict. An example of a similar situation is Soviet-Afghan War, where the Soviet Union invaded, but it ended up going into a years long war, hence it has that title. On the other hand, we've also got the War in Afghanistan (2001-2021) in which there is a separate United States invasion of Afghanistan article that deals with the initial few months of the invasion. With this Ukraine war, we could go into one of these ways. Personally, should this war continue for a couple more months, I would support renaming it to War in Ukraine (2022-present) or (if it ends this year) War in Ukraine (2022). These are very neutral titles. Unless in the future this conflict becomes known as the Ukraine War (like the Vietnam War), it could better become Ukraine War, but not at this time. -- WR 13:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
How about naming the 2014-2022 period the First Ukraine War, and then the 2022- period the Second Ukraine War, like we do with the First- and Second Congo Wars? LordParsifal ( talk) 03:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, all correct. But it still irks me that this is still called an invasion. Precisely what irks me is how long this might go on. Will it still be called the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine a year from now? Or 2022-2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine? It just sounds ridiculous. It's a full-scale conventional war between two full-sized, fully armed, fully warring parties. It's Iraq-Iran. LordParsifal ( talk) 03:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Xx236|Xx236, what do you mean by, "Ukraine is not allowed to attack Russia"? 216.24.45.37 ( talk) 12:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are two proposed versions of the Background section of this article ( version A and version B), both of which might be further refined. Which of these two versions is the better option moving forward? Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Previous RfC statement, retained for context: Should the previous background section ("A") be reduced in size? Is the shortened background section ("B") better or worse? Jr8825 • Talk 01:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Adoring nanny ( talk) 00:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[Putin] calls the Soviet collapse the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." Russian forces seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, and remain to this day. Putin wrote last summer that Russia and Ukraine are really one country — which they were for long periods over the centuries.
Jr8825, while it is good to garner further participation, I think that your RfC is premature.
I can see an argument for keeping Cinderella's shortening of the Euromaidan summary as it successfully manages to cut a couple of sentences ...
You may wish to reconsider this, at least for the present. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
In February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special police resulted in the deaths of 100 protesters and 13 policemen; most of the victims were shot by police snipers, where the numbers killed is "intricate detail" it is sufficient to say that there were widespread protests and possibly, that these resulted in deaths. Also:
... candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned with TCDD dioxin ...- it is sufficient to say he was poisoned. And that is without really looking. A better proposition in phrasing the RfC is to acknowledge that both are a basis for further review and which is the preferred basis for this further review. The questions posed by the RfC are not "equal". Consequently, there is an intrinsic and subtle bias. Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
both of which might be further refined, it is an acceptable statement of the reality of WP. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
During the Russian invasion there has been a few friendly fire incidents such as the tank battle russia vs russia, the Russian warplane that was fired upon by the Russian navy, the SAM missile that did a 180⁰ turn destroying the SAM missile launcher, the sinking of a Russian landing vessel after it hit a Russian sea mine russian tanks that drove through a mine field so theirs a bit of missing information 101.188.18.162 ( talk) 07:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest the article should include a blurb about the various territorial adjustments that have been ignored for decades (much like older colonial Africa/colonial Asia border adjustments) -- when the USSR collapsed in 1991. At the time -- the SSR borders were "phony borders" based on internal USSR politics. The various SSRs spun off using those borders -- yet Russia SSR insisted that various adjustments were needed. Events happened too fast, the West recognized the SSR states, and Russia SSR under Yeltsin did not press the issue...hoping to get immediate economic aid from the West. They asked for $15 billion -- they got $1.5 billion -- with Bush Sr more concerned about USSR nuclear weapon issues than cultivating real Great Power to Great Power good will. The West favored the small SSR spin-offs rather than the main Russia SSR successor state, and relations soured a few years later over the first and second Chechnya war. NATO expanded in additional waves. Putin took a leadership role. 9/11 happened. Good will over the Russian offer to let the US military build a huge base in former Soviet Asia...dissipated. The various enclaves and separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine, Georgia, etc. drew Western criticism. Georgia was goaded into trying to resolve its separatist issues by talk of Georgia joining NATO -- in 2008, that led to a brief Russia-Georgia war where Russia was labeled the aggressor for intervening. These border adjustments and separatist mini-states (Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donbas states) have led to the impression of Russia as an aggressor. In reality these are issues left over from the USSR break-up/divorce. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 ( talk) 19:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It should be "BBC News Russian & Mediazona" instead of "BBC News Russian & Meduza". Also the link doesn't work, it should be https://zona.media/casualties (in Russian, 2022-07-15 data) or https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/11/casualties_eng (in English, 2022-07-01 data).
Also it should probably noted that they say they count only those dead who were identified (by mass media, the Russian government, or their relatives on social media). Arzet Ro ( talk) 07:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The entire passage of: effects on ukrainian scociety[sic], seems to be written to push a political agenda. The information given by the sources is not checked and taken out of context 2A02:8108:97C0:1DC0:2D0C:7933:671C:3BF8 ( talk) 10:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It is fair to add the EU and NATO countries that support Ukraine with weapons, when Belarus is included in the belligerents list as supportive. 2A00:A200:0:813:56E:D75A:58E0:768F ( talk) 10:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For countries who support Russia, add North Korea and Iran as both have said the support the invasion and are willing to provide aid 166.181.81.169 ( talk) 01:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. I'm assuming this is for the support section in the infobox? The amount of support they have provided is not sufficient for inclusion in the infobox.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 01:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Why is there a section on this, longer than the section e.g. on naval warfare aspects of the war? It seems completely out of proportion considering it deals with a purely speculative situation. Yakikaki ( talk) 18:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
At the time of the Invasion, the Crimean peninsula is Russian, and cannot be painted blue! At a minimum, it should be painted as a disputed territory. HellSAS ( talk) 11:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I do not know the subject, but Dnipro is probably not a front city now. Xx236 ( talk) 07:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you think that Russian Wikipedia is subject to the state and facts cannot be taken from it? 212.164.204.35 ( talk) 13:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved per strong consensus. Closing early, since this is a highly visible article, and the proposal has no chance to gain consensus. No such user ( talk) 12:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine (2022) – Reliable sources such the BBC use this title in their headings. Interstellarity ( talk) 21:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Belligerent section for Ukraine shows blank which is total bullshit as if no country supports it when the whole Western world led by US and UK supplies it with high modern weaponry and sanctions against Russia 197.186.5.116 ( talk) 11:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Please see the FAQ Q2 at the top of this page. — Michael Z. 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The website seems to be heavily positively biased towards russia. A lot of its articles cannot be verified through prominent news outlets. It also seems to heavily rely on sputnik as a source, which is a wikipedia deprecated source.
Your input would be appreciated. Eddmanx ( talk) 12:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has been reporting on Russian military bloggers, known as milbloggers" to "The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has been reporting on Russian military bloggers, known as milbloggers" Originalcola ( talk) 03:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The text says "Several African leaders said the western expansion of NATO contributed to the war" I suppose this should be eastern expension?
Teun Spaans ( talk) 17:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Translation is incorrect. The term "western expansion" refers to the expansion of the influence of Western Europe and the United States to the east in the form of NATO. TheRatProphet ( talk) 12:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Some countries only provided non-lethal military aid, and it’s slightly misleading to list them alongside countries that provided heavy weaponry or combat weapons. I would suggest using two shades of blue for this purpose. 2A0D:6FC2:4970:A100:21C8:F806:25C4:99AF ( talk) 10:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into crimes against humanity in Ukraine since 2013, as well as war crimes in the 2022 invasion." to "The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into crimes against humanity in Ukraine over war crimes in the 2022 invasion." as the lead should contain information directly related to this event Originalcola ( talk) 03:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 11:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)https://www.euronews.com/amp/2022/07/23/russian-missile-strikes-in-ukrainian-port-hours-after-grain-deal-claims-odesa-mp https://www.ukrinform.net/amp/rubric-ato/3535226-russian-missiles-hit-odesa-port.html Vyacheslav1921 ( talk) 10:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-pledges-more-military-aid-ukraine-peace-seems-far-off-2022-07-22/ Vyacheslav1921 ( talk) 11:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
https://news.ru/vlast/zaharova-vyskazalas-po-povodu-raketnogo-udara-po-odesse/ https://www.svoboda.org/a/mariya-zaharova-prokommentirovala-raketnyy-udar-po-portu-odessy/31957376.html Kyiv* Vyacheslav1921 ( talk) 09:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The article on the refugee crisis caused by the war states that the number of people who have fled Ukraine is now 9.9 million not 9.6 million citing the UN refugee agency among other sources. Can someone look into this please? 2A00:23C8:905:2701:2135:2504:3AA0:4023 ( talk) 13:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The caption under the animation currently says from April to 11 July but the animation runs to the 24th of July. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B ( talk) 01:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Can we add the “Terminology” section to the article? The terms used in Ukraine are “ Russian invasion of Ukraine”, “ resistance against full-scale Russian aggression”, etc while Russia uses the term “special military operation”, etc.. Neutral terms are “Russo-Ukrainian war”, “Russo-Ukrainian conflict”, “War in Ukraine”… - 76.68.77.13 ( talk) 17:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
It is not full-scale anyway. You can look at size of Russian army and compare it to forces in Ukraine. And you will not find terminology like USA invasion to Korea, Belgrade or Vietnam. It's up to you, anyway. Also neither Ukraine, nor Russia officially declared a war. Which is quite strange and confusing in this situation. The best term, imho, Russo-Ukranian conflict. Because here is Russia, here is Ukraine, and here is the conflict. No war declared. And officially the Russian army has been taking part in this only since February 2022. There is no evidence otherwise, except for propaganda from either side, as I understand it. TheRatProphet ( talk) 13:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect WarTok and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#WarTok until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The infobox “Casualties and losses” section currently links to the article section with no data. It should at least give the reader an idea of the magnitude of losses. I suggest we put the range of losses estimated by third parties or accepted by reliable sources, even if it is a very wide range. — Michael Z. 16:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Any speculation that casualty figures will somehow improve and become more suitable for the infobox in the future is WP:crystall ball gazing. The casualties line is for the best estimated range of casualties. There is no standard for what is not reliable enough, and surely the estimates available today are of better quality than the thousands entered in infoboxes for historical battles.
If there is a concrete reason not to state them according to some guideline or supportable logic and data, then please provide it. Until then, I will enter the best third-party estimates in the infobox. — Michael Z. 14:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
More importantly the given casualty figures were misrepresenting the sources. The sources explicitly mention only those deaths confirmed by name and explicitly state that "the data collected does not reflect the actual level of casualties'. Yet, our table pretended that these were total deaths.
This is the third time I've found someone trying to pull this trick off. Don't do that again. Volunteer Marek 18:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Please change the short description to {{Short description|none}} per WP:SDNONE. 🇺🇦 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
self explanatory, the united states sent himars artillery, & billions of dollars in military aid along with certain nato countries, might as well list them as supporting ukraine in the war if belarus will be listed as supporting russia 2603:9001:2B09:9A93:74D3:9AF1:269C:E865 ( talk) 13:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first sentence under the map of Ukraine would read better as: "The Euromaidan protests and a revolution named the Revolution of Dignity resulted the removal of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, after which pro-Russian unrest erupted in parts of Ukraine." 14.203.161.145 ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 15:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Why Belarus is listed as sponsor of Russia when USA not listed as sponsor of Ukraine? 203.219.83.10 ( talk) 00:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, since you were using the nomenclature of Russian Wikipedia to argue that saying war is not illegal in Russia, see this Reuter's article
[101]. Russian Wikimedia is being fined in Russia for "propaganda," and Reuters says as of yesterday Russia does not call what is happening a "war" or an "invasion", criminalising the use of either word
.--
Ermenrich (
talk) 18:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I've started a merging discussion at Talk:Battle of Dovhenke#Merge into new article. It involves a reorganization of some battles of the invasion and may be relevant for this talk page. I think there should be some discussion on the four theaters Wikipedia has made up for covering the invasion and whether some battles could be moved around or grouped together in subtheaters. Super Ψ Dro 09:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I would like to ask why in all the articles about a military conflict there are so few images of personnel and equipment in action, or images of military actions. the articles are dominated by damaged buildings. Is this a war between buildings, where they throw walls and stairs at each other? There are thousands of hours of video and millions of frames, thousands upon thousands of photos, all without copyright, in all social networks, or published by the defense ministries of each country, and in the articles you hardly see any image of military actions. 152.206.209.212 ( talk) 02:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a link to Olenivka prison explosion, an article about the massacre of 50 Ukrainian POWs by Russian soldiers. -- WithUinH ( talk) 06:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The Pentagon’s number three official says Russia has suffered between 70,000 and 80,000 casualties since invasion of Ukraine began. — goethean 23:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Has border security in Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and over the Bering Strait been tightened since the invasion? This is because Putin might believe that Russia may have been swindled/de frauded over the 1867 Alaska Purchase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Has any link been established between the Russo-Ukrainian war and the current tensions between China and Taiwan? (unsigned editor)
I have started a draft for the 2022 Russian theft of Ukrainian grain. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 02:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Recently Amnesty international published a report, stating the Ukrainian forces are endangering civilians
as per amnesty report
Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals
Attacks launched from populated civilian areas
Such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians
Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today.
Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/
I see no mention of this in article, kindly add
Mrboondocks (
talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Page split from main article at 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia following CWW due to bulking down the article because of large page size at the main article. The article was approaching 450Kb in page size which is excessive by Wikipedia standards and conventions. The new page may be found at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions. The link is included in the abridged section of this article as well. ErnestKrause ( talk) 17:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect TikTok war and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#TikTok war until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
In section "Casualties and humanitarian impact" subsection "Casualties" we can read the following two sentences:
Both Russian and Ukrainian sources are widely considered to inflate casualty numbers in opposing forces, while downplaying their own losses for the sake of morale. Both sides also tend to be quieter about their own military fatalities.
Since "downplaying their own losses" and "tend to be quiter about their own military fatalities" say the same thing, could not the second sentence be removed? Ribidag ( talk) 07:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious why this article uses British English? Don't get me wrong, as a Brit myself I feel a throb of pride when I see a "u" in "colour", but why was it chosen for this article in particular? Asking out curiosity rather than a desire to actually change this. Anyway, Rule Britannia, God Save the Queen, etc etc 🇬🇧🇺🇦 — Czello 08:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The Ukrainian estimate does not include anything but Russian regular military forces. It does not include LPR, DPR, Wagner, or any other military or paramilitary units. Goliath74 ( talk) 17:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Could use more watchers at the above page. Adoring nanny ( talk) 20:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Involvement of the United States in this war is, by conservative measures, on par with USSR involvement in the Vietnam War. By liberal measures even much greater. I suggest we either add US into the infobox, or remove USSR from the infobox in the Vietnam War and then revise all other war infoboxes. Otherwise, it is pointless to continue calling Wikipedia an independent encyclopedia. -- Novis-M ( talk) 23:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
TL:DR, Rename this to Russo-Ukrainian War, and rename the other page to Russo-Ukrainian Conflict.
Longer Answer: In other long conflicts with periods of intense violence escalating into full scale war, and long periods of down time with small scale engagments and casulties with the odd small flair up, Wikipedia has, by in large, a very consistent system.
Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict covers the entire period of tensions from 1988-present day, within it containing seperate articles for the wars (the term reserved for the intense fighting in the early 90s and 2020) and some notable flairups outside of it.
Afghanistan Conflict covers everything from the 1978 Saur Revolution to todays Panjishir Conflict, all part of a single continuous conflict, but the various seperate civil wars and interventions within are categorized separately.
Libya Crisis(slightly different term due to...reasons I'm not sure, but same principle), covers both wars and the period of low level violence inbetween them and after the 2nd one ended.
Therefore, this current flareup is the Russo-Ukrainian War, part of the larger Russo-Ukrainian Conflict(which also includes the 2014-2015 War in Donbas, and a period of low intensity fighting inbetween(Mid 2015-February 2022) that perhaps should have a seperate article ala what the others do. Of course, the others were all crafted with far more hindsight than we had when we made the War in Donbas article years ago, but with further clarity now a restructing to something like. Russo-Ukrainian Conflict Page (Which describes the seperate War in Donbas, 2015-2022 Donbas Skirmishes, Russo-Ukrainian War, all of which get their own pages) TheBrodsterBoy ( talk) 01:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
A couple of months ago Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya stated "We understand that, without a free Ukraine, there cannot be a free Belarus." And on top of that, the opposition also supported Ukraine in the Battle of Kyiv. So I was thinking we should add the Belarusian opposition to the belligerents section on the Ukrainian side. I got these sources here, here, and on the infobox on the Battle of Kyiv. 2601:600:827F:67C0:6088:8A2C:A09B:17CE ( talk) 01:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I have created a draft article for the Draft:National Republican Army (Russia), the group which may be responsible for the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina according to Ilya Ponomarev. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 22:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
In the last ten days there have been two or more large explosions in Crimea https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/08/16/the-ukrainians-have-struck-another-russian-airfield-in-crimea/?sh=4791ca3c2dfa It is a new aspect of the war, so I would have thought a heading here might be justified. I haven't check other related pages yet. Any thoughts? Thelisteninghand ( talk) 19:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
President Zelenskyy has mentioned several times that the Crimean peninsular will be eventually be liberated. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 ( talk) 05:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
. 86.123.7.179 ( talk) 19:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page supports ukrainr too much and is biased 113.254.66.32 ( talk) 11:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
This needs closing before it gets out of hand.
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Almost 9,000 Ukrainian military killed in war with Russia -armed forces chief | Reuters -- kazerniel ( talk | contribs) 14:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add the Belarusian opposition on Ukraine’s side, because that is the main purpose for the organization, to oppose Belarus at all times, especially with Belarus’ support to Russia with the invasion.
I want to add the Belarusian opposition on Ukraine’s side, because that is the main purpose for the organization, to oppose Belarus at all times, especially with Belarus’ support to Russia with the invasion. Javyriv ( talk) 15:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article currently has a number of 196,600 armed forces personnel and 102,000 paramilitaries for Ukraine. As early as May 21, Ukrainian President Zelensky was claiming there were as many as 700,000 due to mobilizations. [127] Should this number be updated? Apologies if this was already discussed and was not included due to prior discussions. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 20:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
First, I'll preface by saying given the nature of the conflict and politicized claims, the claims made in the
casualties section are naturally messy, but at least it is organized and attributed well. I was looking through the sources and noticed an inconsistency with the "193,000+ killed and wounded" claim by the "Donetsk People's Republic". The source says "irretrievable", and clarifies that it is killed and wounded to such a degree that they "could not rejoin the troops". "As the spokesman for the DPR people’s militia specified, irretrievable losses included killed military personnel and crippled service members who could not rejoin the troops."
Wounded on its own is not necessarily permanent. A soldier could be wounded from a broken bone, be counted as wounded, and return to service a few weeks later after recovering. This is contrary to the "irretrievable" terminology which specifies wounded to the point of no longer being able to serve. Should the language in this claim be revised on the Wiki article to better represent what is meant by wounded in this context?
Saucysalsa30 (
talk) 21:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update Donbas map in the Second Phase section to say as of August 23 Physeters ✉ 08:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I suspect the graph EUR/Ruble exchange rate is showing the number of rubles required to buy one euro. But readers are left with doubt, so it would be helpful to have more explicit description of the graph. I would make the edit myself but I am not completely sure of what it is meant to show. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with proposed deletion of Russian and Ukraine war because need keep it for research purposes that I always do. 49.224.220.170 ( talk) 09:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine gets military support by a number of nations, but that is still missing in this article.
Is there any explanation for this, since articles about other wars clearly state it? Daimler92 ( talk) 11:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
A discussion took place to decide whether countries supplying arms should be listed in the infobox, and the outcome was ' No Consensus'. Please do not add individual countries without discussing here first. While consensus can change, please review the closed discussion, and try to bring forward novel arguments.Kleinpecan ( talk) 12:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The source that the person who wrote it provided even says that it was the Narva tank monument that was removed, not Tallinn! The WW2 monument in Tallinn was moved in 2007, not now. Please fix this error. BananasAreViolet ( talk) 13:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
-As of early september. Russia intends to purchase
artillery and
MLRS ammunition from
North Korea
[1]
[2]
It should go under foreign support section, the section is very heavy on the support Ukraine receives and very lacking in the supporters of Russia. --
Kennet.mattfolk (
talk) 12:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
References
Has he defected from the Ukrainian military? 208.127.136.43 ( talk) 09:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Someone is reverting and re-adding the Peace section to this article which is already covered in two other Wikipedia articles. It is a fully Redundant section. It already has its own article at Main article: 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations. Also it is covered in the new 2022 Reactions article created last week. Is there support for keeping three copies of this section on Wikipedia, or should it be deleted from this 2022 Invasion article? ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
What is the reason? Are you saying that this topic is redundant? I definitely cannot agree with that, it is an important topic, which can affect the entire invasion and definitely related to this article - and not for another article about the war, as these negotiations began just from the beginning of this invasion. As I still do not see a reason for deleting the text from the stable version, I request its restoration. Jirka.h23 ( talk) 15:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
redundant", that's good practice. So I support the re-addition. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 15:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it is a redundant section in this article. It can be included as a new section in summary form. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 11:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
POV-pushing? This isn't about my personal views (if you are interested in these:*start POV* I would love peace, but I can only see that coming once Russia is pushed back. Peace efforts until then are futile, Ukraine needs weapons. *end POV*), it's purely about policy and consensus. That you bring up an AfD policy now is at least a fresh development – could you link to it please? In any case, I think an WP:RfC is really warranted now, as the only way to get this to a conclusion without bad blood. I shall start one. – LordPickleII ( talk) 18:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the post-2022 phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war which is a part of the wider war. It looks like it will overshadow the previous 8 years of the conflict which means that there is quite a lot of overlap. Ideally we should agree on some kind of a framework but I think we are not there yet. In the meantime the reader (who might have come via a wikilink from the Main Page) is likely to be interested in knowing about the peace negotiations and therefore this article should have a short summary and a link to the main article on the negotiations. Alaexis ¿question? 10:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The general approach in the international press has been that there have been three phases in the Russo-Ukraine War since the annexation of Crimea. [...]– meaning? I'm sorry, I just really can't follow your reasoning. If you point to the press reaction, then the peace efforts were definitely covered, and almost exclusively as a result of the current invasion. I agree that longer term, we may need some restructuring. But at present, all news are talking about the Invasion, nothing else, because it is ongoing and the major development in what had otherwise been a relatively "restrained" war. – LordPickleII ( talk) 13:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted the renewed addition of this section as it does not appear to me that clear consensus has been reached. If the talk page is deadlocked, someone should call an wp:RfC.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
consensus has finally reached, 6:3 for keeping this section. The only issue now is how it should look. For whose interested, please share your opinion at the section at the bottom. Thank you all! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 ( talk)
In the second to last paragraph under the section 'Effects on Russian forces', in the fourth to last sentence, there is a typo: 'They must past a physical test'. Stephanos100 ( talk) 15:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the link at the bottom of the sidebar (title "Casualties and losses") from "#Casualties_and_humanitarian_impact" to "#Casualties_and_refugees" as the heading was changed in a previous edit. Bemoty ( talk) 17:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Are you sure that's the correct number on the Russian side? Dawsongfg ( talk) 17:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can barely see the names on the map and want to see specifically where is being won by either side 2600:6C64:617F:62C4:F512:2867:ED10:87CD ( talk) 09:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
In the References section, citations 279 and 435 have a big red "Cite error" on them. Ribidag ( talk) 11:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=?>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=?}}
template (see the
help page).