Only
extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make
edit requests related to articles within the topic area on
article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply
page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to,
Articles for deletion nominations,
WikiProjects,
requests for comment,
requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.
The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay
calm and
civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and
do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached,
other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Stephen Harrison (1 March 2022).
"How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is Playing Out on English, Ukrainian, and Russian Wikipedia".
Slate. On Thursday, President Vladimir Putin issued the order for Russian forces to invade Ukraine. Since then, Russians have killed 352 Ukrainian civilians, including 14 children, according to Reuters. That information is now reflected on the English Wikipedia page for the "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine," an article that sprang to life mere minutes after Putin's televised address and has been collaboratively written by nearly 740 distinct authors as of Tuesday morning.
Jenny Nicholls (12 March 2022).
"History is written as it happens by Wikipedia editors".
Stuff (website). Retrieved 14 March 2022. It has been fascinating to watch two very different Wikipedia pages emerge in recent weeks –
2022 Wellington protests, with 151 referenced sources and seven images; and the page 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, with, as I write, 626 references and 33 images.
Ina Fried (15 July 2022).
"Wikipedia blazes a trail to agreement in a divided world".
Axios (website). Retrieved 17 July 2022. The Wikipedia article (at least the English language one) includes some of Russia's most outlandish claims — such as the idea that the Ukrainian government included Nazis — but authoritatively debunks them as false.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
It's clear there are issues with the current version of the map despite the strong "consensus" it has. I have tried to say this several times, so any step towards actually making it more in line with WP policy is a step in the right direction.
TylerBurden (
talk)
14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unconvinced. It's one Wikipedia, and the community's effort is to provide the same information across multiple languages. Hence Commons, hence Wikidata. —
kashmīrīTALK07:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ordering of civilian and military casualties
The following ordering of civilian and military casualties came off as bizarre and POV,
It is estimated to have caused tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian casualties and hundreds of thousands of military casualties.
so I re-ordered it to put military casualties first. The number of military casualties is a full order of magnitude greater than the number of civilian casualties.
The edit was reverted by @
TylerBurden, with the reverter claiming that my paying attention to the ordering at all is bizarre. I was told to discuss it on the talk page.
When you have two separate statistics but one overwhelmingly larger than the other, it is usually somewhat more natural to put the larger statistic first, as it represents the more significant parameter. This is especially relevant when the ordering is relevant for propaganda purposes. It is well-known that civilian casualties (in all armed conflicts) are an important propaganda weapon. I am thus afraid the original wording could be perceived as propagandistic in nature.
The convention in armed conflicts is to mention combatant casualties prior to civilian casualties, especially when the former considerably exceeds the latter as is usually true. This is evident in the infoboxes of all major wars. I do not see any compelling reason here to stray from that convention.
JDiala (
talk)
21:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you provide a link to this "convention"? Because like I mentioned in my edit summary, I don't think it matters, they are both described in literally the same sentence, and both are significant parts of the article, so the placement is subjective and thus there is no reason to change it. I also don't buy the propaganda argument, you could say the same thing about the edit you made placing civilians behind military based purely on numbers being some propaganda attempt to divert focus away from civilian casualties, which would be equally unconstructive. Since it has never been an issue until now I am guessing that most people aren't interpreting it the way you are.
TylerBurden (
talk)
23:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a stylistic judgement. I don't think that, for stylistic judgements such as this, we require (say) a military handbook which says "mention military casualties before civilian casualties" or something. Rather, it is reasonable to make judgements as competent English speakers as to how a sentence should be optimally arranged to come off as neutrally as possible. I am making the judgement that it is better to put combatant casualties prior to civilian casualties, because the former exceeds the latter by a full order of magnitude. You claim that this could equally be interpreted as propaganda, but this is not true, because I have a logical, non-propaganda explanation for my version (italicized in the prior sentence), whereas you do not for yours.
Imagine one of the first sentences on the
9/11 article writing something like "the attacks killed dozens of soldiers in the Pentagon, as well as around three thousand civilians". That would be a bit weird as the framing appears to emphasize the soldiers dying, despite the nature of the attack (a terror attack on civilians) and that far more civilians died. This would thus not be a natural or neutral way to word things consistent with
WP:IMPARTIAL, particularly in the lead where it is especially crucial to be impartial. Likewise here, this is an armed conflict where the overwhelming majority of people dead on both sides are armed soldiers. The immediate emphasis on the comparatively low number of Ukrainian civilian casualties strikes me as strange. This is especially considering that the ratio of civilian-military casualties is not unusually high in this particular war (unlike many other armed conflicts). A reasonable reader could interpret this as having a propagandistic slant. This is not consistent with the project's goals.
I feel that this is ultimately a difference of opinion. Unlike a content dispute, it is difficult to "prove" that a particular sentence has a biased tone, and we might not be able to come to an agreement. For this reason, I welcome input from other editors.
Finally, I am not sure why the fact that the issue has not come up before is relevant. It is quite frequent (in fact, the norm) that a revert made at any given point in time was not something previous editors noticed.
JDiala (
talk)
04:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2024 [Belligerents section]
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
North Korea has recently been added to the infobox as a belligerent citing this
Kyiv Post article bearing the headline Pyongyang Says It Will Send Troops to Ukraine Within a Month. More specifically, the article says Pyongyang announced early this week that it will be sending troops in the form of a military engineering unit to support Russian forces on the ground in the Donetsk region. The actual planned deployment seems less significant than the title implies; remember
WP:HEADLINES. My question is if/how we as editors intend on differentiating this North Korean military engineering support unit from Western countries' military advisors and support elements that are already on the ground as well. Best regards to all
SaintPaulOfTarsus (
talk)
18:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ukraine is completely dependent on foreign lethal military support.
Here are the the main points of opposition and their resolutions:
1. The West only provides hardware
In addition to having received military intelligence, combined arms combat training, analytical exercise preparation, and war games planning, Ukraine is now receiving fighter jets along with many months of NATO-provided training on those fighter jets.
2. Infobox creep
There only needs to be one entry - either
UDCG, US or NATO.
3. Infobox inclusion of Ukraine support advances Russian propaganda
Omission is "Western" propaganda.
4. Distinguishing between aid type is complicated
The types of aid we care about are (a) lethal military aid and (b) the most severe economic sanctions possibly in the history of modern civilization. A single "Supported by" entry - UDCG, US or NATO - would encompass those two types of aid, and only those two types of aid.
After more than two years of conflict, it is far past time for that info box to present an honest assessment of who is engaged in this war. Without lethal military support from the leaders of the so called rules-based international order, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this confict long ago. This reasonable inference should be reflected in that info box.
I agree that it is premature at this point to make any changes to the infobox. But it may be worth discussing whether North Korea should be added as a belligerent if their troops (engineer corps) end up in Donetsk as announced. And I think the answer should be yes. --
haha169 (
talk)
05:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Iranian and Western troops are on the ground in arguably similar capacities, so the North Korean troops should not be considered in a vacuum in such a discussion.
SaintPaulOfTarsus (
talk)
05:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What is the nature of Iranian "troops"? My understanding was that they were drone trainers only, and far from the frontlines. If you have a source for something more involved, please share. Similar with Western "troops", if the information is new/different from the last discussion that established consensus. --
haha169 (
talk)
14:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There are western mercenaries, and there are plenty of reliable reports about them, however that alone doesn't make Western states, belligerents in the formal sense. Mercenaries can come from anywhere in the world. —
kashmīrīTALK18:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The infobox lists Belarus as belligerent on the Russian side. This is sourced to a piece of information on the BBC which itself is sourced to a Facebook post by a Ukrainian adviser to the defence minister. I hope editors here agree that this is an extremely poor sourcing for Wikipedia to formally implicate a country in an international war.
To-date, the role of Belarus for Russia has been nearly identical to the role played by Poland, Romania or Germany for Ukraine: as a training and resupply ground, arms supplier, and political backer. There's no good evidence that Belarusian troops are or have been taking active part in hostilities. While bilateral relations are in a rather poor state, neither country is openly engaged in hostilities against the other.
[1]
The main reason we list Belarus as a belligerent is that Russian troops were allowed to invade from Belarus. Ukrainian troops may train in foreign countries but always return to Ukraine before entering combat. Russian air attacks were also staged from Belarus. No country has permitted Ukraine to stage air attacks from their territory.
GordonGlottal (
talk)
19:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Under this reasoning it could be argued that Belarus ceased its "belligerency" sometime around 2022, as Russian troops have not moved between Belarus and Ukraine since April of that year, and it is not apparent that Russian artillery and air strikes have since taken place from Belarusian territory or airspace.
A compromise might include a qualifier something along these lines:
Claim not verified independently - the source (CNN) only mentions is in passing, attributing it to an unreliable source (a different belligerent). Insufficient for an encyclopaedia IMO. Anyway, a missile launch by Russian troops stationed in Belarus does NOT make that country a belligerent. In other articles, we don't consider single instances of territory use as sufficient to consider the entire country a belligerent in a war. —
kashmīrīTALK01:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
GordonGlottal The close of that discussion highlighted that there was no consensus to list Belarus as belligerent. That was more than 6 months ago, and a new discussion is warranted. —
kashmīrīTALK01:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I guess it's been long enough for another RFC. But only if you think there's a real likelihood of changed consensus—be respectful of everyone's time. Note that another RFC is unlikely to be permitted for quite a while if two fail 7 months apart.
GordonGlottal (
talk)
02:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Belarus is not listed as a belligerent. It is listed as a supporter and there was clear consensus to keep [Belarus] there. This is affirmed twice in the RfC close. This is the single most discussed element of the article and has hosted near a dozen RfCs and innumerable edit-requests and proposals across the two main articles. All bar one RfC has closed with no consensus. The Belarus RfC is the exception. 'A new discussion' without clear preliminary endorsement is doomed to status quo.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
04:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I support @
Kashmiri's proposal for removal. The United States has provided far more lethal military support to Ukraine than Belarus has provided to Russia. Ukraine Armed Forces would not be able to make biweekly payroll without economic support from NATO. Russia can continue to prosecute this war even if Belarus removes itself completely from the situation. The same cannot be said for Ukraine if the United States steps away completely. Where is the neutral balance here? This particular aspect of the info box betrays a systematically biased point of view. Alternatively, simply have the info box express the fact that Ukraine is supported by the United States.
Chino-Catane (
talk)
18:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. It's not only that. Ukraine is being actively armed by Europe and the US, it keeps receiving incredible amounts of military hardware, equipment, munitions, training, military intelligence, etc. The collective West has embarked on an economic war against Russia, seizing its assets and blocking its trade. Belarus has not done anything resembling that – generally, the West is much more engaged in the Ukrainian war than Belarus has ever been. If Belarus, by simply allowing Russian troops on its territory in line with its international obligations (CSTO), is called a "belligerent" by Wikipedia, what will be the right term for the Western countries so active in Ukraine? —
kashmīrīTALK20:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing in the CSTO treaty required Belarus to do any of this, not that it matters. I want to modify what I said earlier slightly in response to this exchange: Your proposed understanding of the conflict is fundamentally rejected by the vast majority of English Wikipedia editors and by the sources English Wikipedia has chosen to elevate as reliable. An RFC from this perspective is guaranteed to fail. It will be an enormous waste of editors' time and effort. Wikipedia is not a place to
right great wrongs. Please find a more productive use of your editorial energy.
GordonGlottal (
talk)
22:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Why do you keep insisting that Belarus is listed as a "belligerent" when you have already been corrected above? Belarus is not listed as a belligerent, so your whole suggestion here is built on either you misreading or a misrepresentation of what the article actually says.
TylerBurden (
talk)
17:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks to
Manyareasexpert for
publishing an explanation offering reasons why this article labels Belarus a "co-belligerent supporter" and not the United States. Belarus permitted Russia to stage its pre-invasion force and launch missiles from its territory. Similarly, we in the United States staged our forces for the 2003 invasion of Iraq from somewhere. We also launched air support for that invasion from somewhere. Were those pre-invasion staging territories and air support launch pads labeled as "co-belligerent supporters" in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq?
Chino-Catane (
talk)
16:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Only
extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make
edit requests related to articles within the topic area on
article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply
page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to,
Articles for deletion nominations,
WikiProjects,
requests for comment,
requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.
The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay
calm and
civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and
do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached,
other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Stephen Harrison (1 March 2022).
"How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is Playing Out on English, Ukrainian, and Russian Wikipedia".
Slate. On Thursday, President Vladimir Putin issued the order for Russian forces to invade Ukraine. Since then, Russians have killed 352 Ukrainian civilians, including 14 children, according to Reuters. That information is now reflected on the English Wikipedia page for the "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine," an article that sprang to life mere minutes after Putin's televised address and has been collaboratively written by nearly 740 distinct authors as of Tuesday morning.
Jenny Nicholls (12 March 2022).
"History is written as it happens by Wikipedia editors".
Stuff (website). Retrieved 14 March 2022. It has been fascinating to watch two very different Wikipedia pages emerge in recent weeks –
2022 Wellington protests, with 151 referenced sources and seven images; and the page 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, with, as I write, 626 references and 33 images.
Ina Fried (15 July 2022).
"Wikipedia blazes a trail to agreement in a divided world".
Axios (website). Retrieved 17 July 2022. The Wikipedia article (at least the English language one) includes some of Russia's most outlandish claims — such as the idea that the Ukrainian government included Nazis — but authoritatively debunks them as false.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
It's clear there are issues with the current version of the map despite the strong "consensus" it has. I have tried to say this several times, so any step towards actually making it more in line with WP policy is a step in the right direction.
TylerBurden (
talk)
14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unconvinced. It's one Wikipedia, and the community's effort is to provide the same information across multiple languages. Hence Commons, hence Wikidata. —
kashmīrīTALK07:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ordering of civilian and military casualties
The following ordering of civilian and military casualties came off as bizarre and POV,
It is estimated to have caused tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian casualties and hundreds of thousands of military casualties.
so I re-ordered it to put military casualties first. The number of military casualties is a full order of magnitude greater than the number of civilian casualties.
The edit was reverted by @
TylerBurden, with the reverter claiming that my paying attention to the ordering at all is bizarre. I was told to discuss it on the talk page.
When you have two separate statistics but one overwhelmingly larger than the other, it is usually somewhat more natural to put the larger statistic first, as it represents the more significant parameter. This is especially relevant when the ordering is relevant for propaganda purposes. It is well-known that civilian casualties (in all armed conflicts) are an important propaganda weapon. I am thus afraid the original wording could be perceived as propagandistic in nature.
The convention in armed conflicts is to mention combatant casualties prior to civilian casualties, especially when the former considerably exceeds the latter as is usually true. This is evident in the infoboxes of all major wars. I do not see any compelling reason here to stray from that convention.
JDiala (
talk)
21:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you provide a link to this "convention"? Because like I mentioned in my edit summary, I don't think it matters, they are both described in literally the same sentence, and both are significant parts of the article, so the placement is subjective and thus there is no reason to change it. I also don't buy the propaganda argument, you could say the same thing about the edit you made placing civilians behind military based purely on numbers being some propaganda attempt to divert focus away from civilian casualties, which would be equally unconstructive. Since it has never been an issue until now I am guessing that most people aren't interpreting it the way you are.
TylerBurden (
talk)
23:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a stylistic judgement. I don't think that, for stylistic judgements such as this, we require (say) a military handbook which says "mention military casualties before civilian casualties" or something. Rather, it is reasonable to make judgements as competent English speakers as to how a sentence should be optimally arranged to come off as neutrally as possible. I am making the judgement that it is better to put combatant casualties prior to civilian casualties, because the former exceeds the latter by a full order of magnitude. You claim that this could equally be interpreted as propaganda, but this is not true, because I have a logical, non-propaganda explanation for my version (italicized in the prior sentence), whereas you do not for yours.
Imagine one of the first sentences on the
9/11 article writing something like "the attacks killed dozens of soldiers in the Pentagon, as well as around three thousand civilians". That would be a bit weird as the framing appears to emphasize the soldiers dying, despite the nature of the attack (a terror attack on civilians) and that far more civilians died. This would thus not be a natural or neutral way to word things consistent with
WP:IMPARTIAL, particularly in the lead where it is especially crucial to be impartial. Likewise here, this is an armed conflict where the overwhelming majority of people dead on both sides are armed soldiers. The immediate emphasis on the comparatively low number of Ukrainian civilian casualties strikes me as strange. This is especially considering that the ratio of civilian-military casualties is not unusually high in this particular war (unlike many other armed conflicts). A reasonable reader could interpret this as having a propagandistic slant. This is not consistent with the project's goals.
I feel that this is ultimately a difference of opinion. Unlike a content dispute, it is difficult to "prove" that a particular sentence has a biased tone, and we might not be able to come to an agreement. For this reason, I welcome input from other editors.
Finally, I am not sure why the fact that the issue has not come up before is relevant. It is quite frequent (in fact, the norm) that a revert made at any given point in time was not something previous editors noticed.
JDiala (
talk)
04:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2024 [Belligerents section]
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
North Korea has recently been added to the infobox as a belligerent citing this
Kyiv Post article bearing the headline Pyongyang Says It Will Send Troops to Ukraine Within a Month. More specifically, the article says Pyongyang announced early this week that it will be sending troops in the form of a military engineering unit to support Russian forces on the ground in the Donetsk region. The actual planned deployment seems less significant than the title implies; remember
WP:HEADLINES. My question is if/how we as editors intend on differentiating this North Korean military engineering support unit from Western countries' military advisors and support elements that are already on the ground as well. Best regards to all
SaintPaulOfTarsus (
talk)
18:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ukraine is completely dependent on foreign lethal military support.
Here are the the main points of opposition and their resolutions:
1. The West only provides hardware
In addition to having received military intelligence, combined arms combat training, analytical exercise preparation, and war games planning, Ukraine is now receiving fighter jets along with many months of NATO-provided training on those fighter jets.
2. Infobox creep
There only needs to be one entry - either
UDCG, US or NATO.
3. Infobox inclusion of Ukraine support advances Russian propaganda
Omission is "Western" propaganda.
4. Distinguishing between aid type is complicated
The types of aid we care about are (a) lethal military aid and (b) the most severe economic sanctions possibly in the history of modern civilization. A single "Supported by" entry - UDCG, US or NATO - would encompass those two types of aid, and only those two types of aid.
After more than two years of conflict, it is far past time for that info box to present an honest assessment of who is engaged in this war. Without lethal military support from the leaders of the so called rules-based international order, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this confict long ago. This reasonable inference should be reflected in that info box.
I agree that it is premature at this point to make any changes to the infobox. But it may be worth discussing whether North Korea should be added as a belligerent if their troops (engineer corps) end up in Donetsk as announced. And I think the answer should be yes. --
haha169 (
talk)
05:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Iranian and Western troops are on the ground in arguably similar capacities, so the North Korean troops should not be considered in a vacuum in such a discussion.
SaintPaulOfTarsus (
talk)
05:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What is the nature of Iranian "troops"? My understanding was that they were drone trainers only, and far from the frontlines. If you have a source for something more involved, please share. Similar with Western "troops", if the information is new/different from the last discussion that established consensus. --
haha169 (
talk)
14:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There are western mercenaries, and there are plenty of reliable reports about them, however that alone doesn't make Western states, belligerents in the formal sense. Mercenaries can come from anywhere in the world. —
kashmīrīTALK18:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The infobox lists Belarus as belligerent on the Russian side. This is sourced to a piece of information on the BBC which itself is sourced to a Facebook post by a Ukrainian adviser to the defence minister. I hope editors here agree that this is an extremely poor sourcing for Wikipedia to formally implicate a country in an international war.
To-date, the role of Belarus for Russia has been nearly identical to the role played by Poland, Romania or Germany for Ukraine: as a training and resupply ground, arms supplier, and political backer. There's no good evidence that Belarusian troops are or have been taking active part in hostilities. While bilateral relations are in a rather poor state, neither country is openly engaged in hostilities against the other.
[1]
The main reason we list Belarus as a belligerent is that Russian troops were allowed to invade from Belarus. Ukrainian troops may train in foreign countries but always return to Ukraine before entering combat. Russian air attacks were also staged from Belarus. No country has permitted Ukraine to stage air attacks from their territory.
GordonGlottal (
talk)
19:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Under this reasoning it could be argued that Belarus ceased its "belligerency" sometime around 2022, as Russian troops have not moved between Belarus and Ukraine since April of that year, and it is not apparent that Russian artillery and air strikes have since taken place from Belarusian territory or airspace.
A compromise might include a qualifier something along these lines:
Claim not verified independently - the source (CNN) only mentions is in passing, attributing it to an unreliable source (a different belligerent). Insufficient for an encyclopaedia IMO. Anyway, a missile launch by Russian troops stationed in Belarus does NOT make that country a belligerent. In other articles, we don't consider single instances of territory use as sufficient to consider the entire country a belligerent in a war. —
kashmīrīTALK01:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
GordonGlottal The close of that discussion highlighted that there was no consensus to list Belarus as belligerent. That was more than 6 months ago, and a new discussion is warranted. —
kashmīrīTALK01:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I guess it's been long enough for another RFC. But only if you think there's a real likelihood of changed consensus—be respectful of everyone's time. Note that another RFC is unlikely to be permitted for quite a while if two fail 7 months apart.
GordonGlottal (
talk)
02:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Belarus is not listed as a belligerent. It is listed as a supporter and there was clear consensus to keep [Belarus] there. This is affirmed twice in the RfC close. This is the single most discussed element of the article and has hosted near a dozen RfCs and innumerable edit-requests and proposals across the two main articles. All bar one RfC has closed with no consensus. The Belarus RfC is the exception. 'A new discussion' without clear preliminary endorsement is doomed to status quo.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
04:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I support @
Kashmiri's proposal for removal. The United States has provided far more lethal military support to Ukraine than Belarus has provided to Russia. Ukraine Armed Forces would not be able to make biweekly payroll without economic support from NATO. Russia can continue to prosecute this war even if Belarus removes itself completely from the situation. The same cannot be said for Ukraine if the United States steps away completely. Where is the neutral balance here? This particular aspect of the info box betrays a systematically biased point of view. Alternatively, simply have the info box express the fact that Ukraine is supported by the United States.
Chino-Catane (
talk)
18:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. It's not only that. Ukraine is being actively armed by Europe and the US, it keeps receiving incredible amounts of military hardware, equipment, munitions, training, military intelligence, etc. The collective West has embarked on an economic war against Russia, seizing its assets and blocking its trade. Belarus has not done anything resembling that – generally, the West is much more engaged in the Ukrainian war than Belarus has ever been. If Belarus, by simply allowing Russian troops on its territory in line with its international obligations (CSTO), is called a "belligerent" by Wikipedia, what will be the right term for the Western countries so active in Ukraine? —
kashmīrīTALK20:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing in the CSTO treaty required Belarus to do any of this, not that it matters. I want to modify what I said earlier slightly in response to this exchange: Your proposed understanding of the conflict is fundamentally rejected by the vast majority of English Wikipedia editors and by the sources English Wikipedia has chosen to elevate as reliable. An RFC from this perspective is guaranteed to fail. It will be an enormous waste of editors' time and effort. Wikipedia is not a place to
right great wrongs. Please find a more productive use of your editorial energy.
GordonGlottal (
talk)
22:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Why do you keep insisting that Belarus is listed as a "belligerent" when you have already been corrected above? Belarus is not listed as a belligerent, so your whole suggestion here is built on either you misreading or a misrepresentation of what the article actually says.
TylerBurden (
talk)
17:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks to
Manyareasexpert for
publishing an explanation offering reasons why this article labels Belarus a "co-belligerent supporter" and not the United States. Belarus permitted Russia to stage its pre-invasion force and launch missiles from its territory. Similarly, we in the United States staged our forces for the 2003 invasion of Iraq from somewhere. We also launched air support for that invasion from somewhere. Were those pre-invasion staging territories and air support launch pads labeled as "co-belligerent supporters" in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq?
Chino-Catane (
talk)
16:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.
.svg)
Not done: See Q4 of
the FAQ —
Czello (
music)
20:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Russia
Belarus (2022)
